4.6 Article

Prognostic value of involved/uninvolved free light chain ratio determined by Freelite and N Latex FLC assays for identification of high-risk smoldering myeloma patients

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 57, 期 9, 页码 1397-1405

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-1369

关键词

free light chains; high-risk; myeloma; smoldering multiple myeloma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder with a high risk of progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The serum free light chain (sFLC) ratio is a powerful prognostic factor for SMM: an sFLC ratio >= 8 has been reported to be associated with a high risk of progression to MM, and an sFLC ratio >= 100 has been described as a criterion for ultra-high-risk SMM, and has been integrated into the definition criteria for MM since 2014. However, all recommendations were based on sFLC measured using the first commercialized assay, Freelite (TM), while other assays are now available. We aimed to evaluate the safety and accuracy of N-Latex sFLC to identify high-risk and ultra-high-risk SMM. Methods: The sFLC ratio was measured at diagnosis with both Freelite and N-Latex assays in a cohort of 176 SMM patients on a BN Prospec nephelometer. Demographic, clinical, therapeutic and laboratory data were collected at the time of diagnosis and at follow-up. Results: Sixty-two patients (35.2%) progressed to MM within 2 years. Compared to Freelite (TM) sFLC, N Latex sFLC ratios >= 8 and >= 100 provided similar performances for the identification of high-risk and ultra-high risk SMM patients. Conclusions: Our results evidenced that the N-Latex assay could be used for SMM monitoring, like Freelite. However, an N-Latex sFLC ratio >= 70 appears to provide similar performances to a Freelite sFLC ratio >= 100, with a slightly better positive predictive value. Both assays provided accurate identification of high-risk and ultra-high risk SMM patients. These results should be confirmed in an independent study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据