4.7 Article

Long-Term Biological Variation of Serum Protein Electrophoresis M-Spike, Urine M-Spike, and Monoclonal Serum Free Light Chain Quantification: Implications for Monitoring Monoclonal Gammopathies

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 57, 期 12, 页码 1687-1692

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.171314

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA107476] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: We analyzed serial data in patients with clinically stable monoclonal gammopathy to determine the total variation of serum M-spikes [measured with serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP)], urine M-spikes [measured with urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP)], and monoclonal serum free light chain (FLC) concentrations measured with immunoassay. METHODS: Patients to be studied were identified by (a) no treatment during the study interval, (b) no change in diagnosis and <5 g/L change in serum M-spike over the course of observation; (c) performance of all 3 tests (SPEP, UPEP, FLC immunoassay) in at least 3 serial samples that were obtained 9 months to 5 years apart; (d) serum M-spike >= 10 g/L, urine M-spike >= 200 mg/24 h, or clonal FLC >= 100 mg/L. The total CV was calculated for each method. RESULTS: Among the cohort of 158 patients, 90 had measurable serum M-spikes, 25 had urine M-spikes, and 52 had measurable serum FLC abnormalities. The CVs were calculated for serial SPEP M-spikes (8.1%), UPEP M-spikes (35.8%), and serum FLC concentrations (28.4%). Combining these CVs and the interassay analytical CVs, we calculated the biological CV for the serum M-spike (7.8%), urine M-spike (35.5%), and serum FLC concentration (27.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The variations in urine M-spike and serum FLC measurements during patient monitoring are similar and are larger than those for serum M-spikes. In addition, in this group of stable patients, a measurable serum FLC concentration was available twice as often as a measurable urine M-spike. (C) 2011 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

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

4.7
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