Should routine laboratories stop doing screening serum protein electrophoresis and replace it with screening immune-fixation electrophoresis? No quick fixes: Counterpoint
-
Joel D. Smith
,
Geoffrey Raines
Abstract
Monoclonal gammopathies are characterised by the production of a monoclonal immunoglobulin or free light chains by an abnormal plasma cell or B-cell clone and may indicate malignancy or a precursor (MGUS). There is currently no consensus on the initial test or combination of tests to be performed in suspected monoclonal gammopathies but serum protein electrophoresis and urine protein electrophoresis are commonly requested as initial investigations. If abnormal, immunofixation electrophoresis is then performed to confirm the presence of paraprotein and to determine its heavy and light chain type. Recently, some groups have developed simplified “screening” IFE methods for use in parallel to SPEP for the detection monoclonal gammopathies. We argue here that screening IFE may be of benefit in clinical laboratories using SPEP with poor resolution in the β-region, assisting in the detection of mainly IgA paraprotein, but may be of less benefit in laboratories utilising higher resolution gels. Further it may increase the detection of trace bands of questionable clinical significance, representing transient phenomena in infectious and auto-immune conditions or very low risk MGUS. The increased detection of these bands using screening IFE would require further patient follow up, possibly causing unnecessary patient anxiety and additional follow up healthcare costs.
References
1. Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP, Rajkumar SV, San Miguel J, Chanan-Khan A, et al. Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood 2011;117:4701–5.10.1182/blood-2010-10-299529Search in Google Scholar
2. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23:3–9.10.1038/leu.2008.291Search in Google Scholar
3. Attaelmannan M, Levinson SS. Understanding and identifying monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem 2000;46(8 Pt 2):1230–8.10.1093/clinchem/46.8.1230Search in Google Scholar
4. Katzmann JA, Kyle RA, Benson J, Larson DR, Snyder MR, Lust JA, et al. Screening panels for detection of monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem 2009;55:1517–22.10.1373/clinchem.2009.126664Search in Google Scholar
5. Katzmann JA. Screening panels for monoclonal gammopathies: time to change. Clin Biochem Rev 2009;30:105–11.Search in Google Scholar
6. Katzmann JA, Dispenzieri A. Screening algorithms for monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem 2008;54:1753–5.10.1373/clinchem.2008.116400Search in Google Scholar
7. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e538–48.10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5Search in Google Scholar
8. Tate J, Caldwell G, Daly J, Gillis D, Jenkins M, Jovanovich S, et al. Recommendations for standardized reporting of protein electrophoresis in Australia and New Zealand. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49(Pt 3):242–56.10.1258/acb.2011.011158Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Jenner E. Serum free light chains in clinical laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:15–20.10.1016/j.cca.2013.08.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Australian Government Department of Human Services. Medicare Item Reports: Australian Government Department of Human Services; 2015 [cited 2015 7/8/15]. Available from: http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.jsp.Search in Google Scholar
11. Jenner W, Klingberg S, Tate JR, Wilgen U, Ungerer JP, Pretorius CJ. Combined light chain immunofixation to detect monoclonal gammopathy: a comparison to standard electrophoresis in serum and urine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:981–7.10.1515/cclm-2014-0023Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Eisele L, Durig J, Huttmann A, Duhrsen U, Assert R, Bokhof B, et al. Prevalence and progression of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and light-chain MGUS in Germany. Ann Hematol 2012;91:243–8.10.1007/s00277-011-1293-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Gwathmey TM, Willis MS, Tatreau J, Wang S, McCudden CR. Clinical relevance of trace bands on serum electrophoresis in patients without a history of gammopathy. Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2015;26:114–24.Search in Google Scholar
14. Murray DL, Seningen JL, Dispenzieri A, Snyder MR, Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV, et al. Laboratory persistence and clinical progression of small monoclonal abnormalities. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;138:609–13.10.1309/AJCPT6OWWMHITA1YSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
15. Kyle RA, Durie BG, Rajkumar SV, Landgren O, Blade J, Merlini G, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management. Leukemia 2010;24:1121–7.10.1038/leu.2010.60Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Agarwal A, Ghobrial IM. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma: a review of the current understanding of epidemiology, biology, risk stratification, and management of myeloma precursor disease. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:985–94.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2922Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Offord JR, et al. Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1362–9.10.1056/NEJMoa054494Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM, Katzmann JA, Caporaso NE, Hayes RB, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. Blood 2009;113:5412–7.10.1182/blood-2008-12-194241Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:174–5.10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.33Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Smith D, Yong K. Multiple myeloma. Br Med J 2013;346:f3863.10.1136/bmj.f3863Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Go RS, Gundrum JD, Neuner JM. Determining the clinical significance of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a SEER-Medicare population analysis. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015;15:177–86 e4.10.1016/j.clml.2014.09.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Sigurdardottir EE, Turesson I, Lund SH, Lindqvist EK, Mailankody S, Korde N, et al. The role of diagnosis and clinical follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance on survival in multiple myeloma. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:168–74.10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.23Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2016 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Protein electrophoresis and serum free light chains in the diagnosis and monitoring of plasma cell disorders: laboratory testing and current controversies
- Laboratory Testing as Recommended by the Guidelines and the International Myeloma Working Group
- Laboratory testing requirements for diagnosis and follow-up of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias
- Free light chain testing for the diagnosis, monitoring and prognostication of AL amyloidosis
- Laboratory testing in monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS)
- The impact of renal function on the clinical performance of FLC measurement in AL amyloidosis
- Serum and Urine Protein Electrophoresis and Immunofixation Testing
- Challenges of measuring monoclonal proteins in serum
- Screening immunofixation should replace protein electrophoresis as the initial investigation of monoclonal gammopathy: Point
- Should routine laboratories stop doing screening serum protein electrophoresis and replace it with screening immune-fixation electrophoresis? No quick fixes: Counterpoint
- Moving towards harmonized reporting of serum and urine protein electrophoresis
- Multiple qualitative and quantitative methods for free light chain analysis are necessary as first line tests for AL amyloidosis
- Use of isoelectric focusing to discriminate transient oligoclonal bands from monoclonal protein in treated myeloma
- New patterns of relapse in multiple myeloma: a case of “light chain escape” in which FLC predicted relapse earlier than urine and serum immunofixation
- Serum Free Light Chain Methods and Controversies
- Analytical issues of serum free light chain assays and the relative performance of polyclonal and monoclonal based reagents
- Measurement of free light chains with assays based on monoclonal antibodies
- Measurement of free light chains – pros and cons of current methods
- Is accuracy of serum free light chain measurement achievable?
- Performance goals for immunoglobulins and serum free light chain measurements in plasma cell dyscrasias can be based on biological variation
- A patient with AL amyloidosis with negative free light chain results
- Strengths and weaknesses of methods for identifying monoclonal free light chains of Ig: examples from two cases with renal disease
- Comparison of Freelite™ and N Latex serum free light chain assays in subjects with end stage kidney disease on haemodialysis
- New Laboratory Assays and Challenges
- Quantification of β-region IgA monoclonal proteins – should we include immunochemical Hevylite® measurements? Point
- Quantification of β region IgA paraproteins – should we include immunochemical “heavy/light chain” measurements? Counterpoint
- Free light chains and heavy/light chains in monitoring POEMS patients
- Monitoring free light chains in serum using mass spectrometry
- Monoclonal antibody therapeutics as potential interferences on protein electrophoresis and immunofixation
- Monitoring multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab: teasing out monoclonal antibody interference
- Interference of daratumumab in monitoring multiple myeloma patients using serum immunofixation electrophoresis can be abrogated using the daratumumab IFE reflex assay (DIRA)
- Letter to the Editor
- Discrepancy between FLC assays: only a problem of quantification?
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Protein electrophoresis and serum free light chains in the diagnosis and monitoring of plasma cell disorders: laboratory testing and current controversies
- Laboratory Testing as Recommended by the Guidelines and the International Myeloma Working Group
- Laboratory testing requirements for diagnosis and follow-up of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias
- Free light chain testing for the diagnosis, monitoring and prognostication of AL amyloidosis
- Laboratory testing in monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS)
- The impact of renal function on the clinical performance of FLC measurement in AL amyloidosis
- Serum and Urine Protein Electrophoresis and Immunofixation Testing
- Challenges of measuring monoclonal proteins in serum
- Screening immunofixation should replace protein electrophoresis as the initial investigation of monoclonal gammopathy: Point
- Should routine laboratories stop doing screening serum protein electrophoresis and replace it with screening immune-fixation electrophoresis? No quick fixes: Counterpoint
- Moving towards harmonized reporting of serum and urine protein electrophoresis
- Multiple qualitative and quantitative methods for free light chain analysis are necessary as first line tests for AL amyloidosis
- Use of isoelectric focusing to discriminate transient oligoclonal bands from monoclonal protein in treated myeloma
- New patterns of relapse in multiple myeloma: a case of “light chain escape” in which FLC predicted relapse earlier than urine and serum immunofixation
- Serum Free Light Chain Methods and Controversies
- Analytical issues of serum free light chain assays and the relative performance of polyclonal and monoclonal based reagents
- Measurement of free light chains with assays based on monoclonal antibodies
- Measurement of free light chains – pros and cons of current methods
- Is accuracy of serum free light chain measurement achievable?
- Performance goals for immunoglobulins and serum free light chain measurements in plasma cell dyscrasias can be based on biological variation
- A patient with AL amyloidosis with negative free light chain results
- Strengths and weaknesses of methods for identifying monoclonal free light chains of Ig: examples from two cases with renal disease
- Comparison of Freelite™ and N Latex serum free light chain assays in subjects with end stage kidney disease on haemodialysis
- New Laboratory Assays and Challenges
- Quantification of β-region IgA monoclonal proteins – should we include immunochemical Hevylite® measurements? Point
- Quantification of β region IgA paraproteins – should we include immunochemical “heavy/light chain” measurements? Counterpoint
- Free light chains and heavy/light chains in monitoring POEMS patients
- Monitoring free light chains in serum using mass spectrometry
- Monoclonal antibody therapeutics as potential interferences on protein electrophoresis and immunofixation
- Monitoring multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab: teasing out monoclonal antibody interference
- Interference of daratumumab in monitoring multiple myeloma patients using serum immunofixation electrophoresis can be abrogated using the daratumumab IFE reflex assay (DIRA)
- Letter to the Editor
- Discrepancy between FLC assays: only a problem of quantification?
