We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Performance Evaluation of Serum Free Light Chain Analysis: Nephelometry vs Turbidimetry, Monoclonal vs Polyclonal Reagents.
American Journal of Clinical Pathology 2017 June 2
Objectives: Free light chain (FLC) measurement gained a lot of interest for diagnostic workup of monoclonal gammopathy.
Methods: We evaluated the performance of turbidimetric polyclonal Freelite (The Binding Site, Birmingham, UK) assays on Cobas 6000 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and nephelometric monoclonal N Latex (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Marburg, Germany) assays on BN ProSpec (Dade Behring, Deerfield, IL) vs established nephelometric Freelite assays on BN ProSpec.
Results: Analytical performance was acceptable. Method comparison (n = 118) showed significant proportional FLC differences for N Latex assays. However, good correlation and clinical concordance were shown. Recovery study in the low concentration range demonstrated consistent over- and underrecovery for Freelite reagents, hampering future research on prognostic value of suppressed noninvolved FLC. Antigen excess detection was successful for κ FLC in three-fourths of cases with Freelite reagents and in all cases with N Latex reagents. However, the latter resulted in underestimated κ FLC concentrations.
Conclusions: FLC analysis requires continuous awareness of analytical limitations. Monitoring of disease response requires FLC analysis on the same platform using the same reagents.
Methods: We evaluated the performance of turbidimetric polyclonal Freelite (The Binding Site, Birmingham, UK) assays on Cobas 6000 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and nephelometric monoclonal N Latex (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Marburg, Germany) assays on BN ProSpec (Dade Behring, Deerfield, IL) vs established nephelometric Freelite assays on BN ProSpec.
Results: Analytical performance was acceptable. Method comparison (n = 118) showed significant proportional FLC differences for N Latex assays. However, good correlation and clinical concordance were shown. Recovery study in the low concentration range demonstrated consistent over- and underrecovery for Freelite reagents, hampering future research on prognostic value of suppressed noninvolved FLC. Antigen excess detection was successful for κ FLC in three-fourths of cases with Freelite reagents and in all cases with N Latex reagents. However, the latter resulted in underestimated κ FLC concentrations.
Conclusions: FLC analysis requires continuous awareness of analytical limitations. Monitoring of disease response requires FLC analysis on the same platform using the same reagents.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app