scholarly journals Serum Reference Intervals and Diagnostic Ranges for Free κ and Free λ Immunoglobulin Light Chains: Relative Sensitivity for Detection of Monoclonal Light Chains

2002 ◽  
Vol 48 (9) ◽  
pp. 1437-1444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry A Katzmann ◽  
Raynell J Clark ◽  
Roshini S Abraham ◽  
Sandra Bryant ◽  
James F Lymp ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The detection of monoclonal free light chains (FLCs) is an important diagnostic aid for a variety of monoclonal gammopathies and is especially important in light-chain diseases, such as light-chain myeloma, primary systemic amyloidosis, and light-chain-deposition disease. These diseases are more prevalent in the elderly, and assays to detect and quantify abnormal amounts of FLCs require reference intervals that include elderly donors. Methods: We used an automated immunoassay for FLCs and sera from a population 21–90 years of age. We used the calculated reference and diagnostic intervals to compare FLC results with those obtained by immunofixation (IFE) to detect low concentrations of monoclonal κ and λ FLCs in the sera of patients with monoclonal gammopathies. Results: Serum κ and λ FLCs increased with population age, with an apparent change for those >80 years. This trend was lost when the FLC concentration was normalized to cystatin C concentration. The ratio of κ FLC to λ FLC (FLC K/L) did not exhibit an age-dependent trend. The diagnostic interval for FLC K/L was 0.26–1.65. The 95% reference interval for κ FLC was 3.3–19.4 mg/L, and that for λ FLC was 5.7–26.3 mg/L. Detection and quantification of monoclonal FLCs by nephelometry were more sensitive than IFE in serum samples from patients with primary systemic amyloidosis and light-chain-deposition disease. Conclusions: Reference and diagnostic intervals for serum FLCs have been developed for use with a new, automated immunoassay that makes the detection and quantification of monoclonal FLCs easier and more sensitive than with current methods. The serum FLC assay complements IFE and allows quantification of FLCs in light-chain-disease patients who have no detectable serum or urine M-spike.

1998 ◽  
Vol 153 (1) ◽  
pp. 313-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Decourt ◽  
Guy Touchard ◽  
Jean-Louis Preud'homme ◽  
Ruben Vidal ◽  
Hélène Beaufils ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Dirk R. J. Kuypers ◽  
Morie A. Gertz

Light-chain deposition disease (LCDD) is characterized by extracellular tissue deposition of non-amyloid monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains (predominantly kappa light chains) in various organs including kidneys, heart, and liver. It is a rare cause of renal insufficiency. In two-thirds of cases it is associated with multiple myeloma, while in the remainder their monoclonal B cell proliferation does not meet the criteria for that diagnosis.Renal involvement occurs almost invariably and dominates the clinical course of the disease: greater than 90% of patients with LCDD have renal functional impairment; acute or rapidly progressive kidney failure usually develops over a period of months. Nephrotic-range proteinuria is present in 40–50% of patients while approximately 20% of patients develop nephrotic syndrome. Arterial hypertension and microscopic haematuria can be present. Extrarenal symptoms are related to affected organs with cardiomyopathy, cachexia, haemorrhages, infections, and MM progression as main causes of death.The diagnosis of LCDD is often delayed and whilst bone marrow examination will often identify associated MM, renal biopsy frequently provides the final diagnostic proof. Abnormal light chains can be detected and quantified by serum or urine protein electrophoresis and immunofixation. Quantification of urine and serum free kappa/lambda light chains has proven a useful screening tool and might also plays a role in therapeutic monitoring.Treatment consists of chemotherapy directed against the monoclonal immunoglobulin-producing plasma cells.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bappa Adamu ◽  
Mushabab Al-Ghamdi ◽  
Mustafa Ahmad ◽  
Khaled O. Alsaad

Light chain deposition disease (LCDD) is a rare illness with, as yet, no clear evidence-based guidelines for its treatment. To the best of our knowledge, LCDD has not been previously reported from Saudi Arabia. We present in this report, a 38-year-old Saudi male who presented with clinical features suggestive of hypertensive nephropathy but kidney biopsy later revealed the diagnosis of LCDD. His serum creatinine at presentation was 297 μmol/L which came down to 194 μmol/L on treatment with Bortezomib, Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone. His 24-hour protein excretion at presentation was 6 g/L which also came down to less than 1 g/day. He was later placed on Cyclophosphamide, Thalidomide, and Dexamethasone regimen because of persistent high titres of serum free light chains. He went into remission with undetectable serum free light chains and remained so for three years at the time of writing this report. We conclude that LCDD, though rare, does occur in Saudi population. The treatment of LCDD is challenging but the use of Bortezomib, a proteosome inhibitor, is promising. However, suboptimal response may require further treatment with other therapeutic options such as chemotherapy with alkylating agents or high-dose Melphalan with autologous stem cell transplant.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4767-4767
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Zonder ◽  
Christiane Houde ◽  
Sascha Tuchman ◽  
Vishal Kukreti ◽  
Vaishali Sanchorawala ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: AL amyloidosis (AL) and Light Chain Deposition Disease (LCDD) are plasma cell dyscrasias in which misfolded monoclonal light chains form insoluble extracellular protein deposits (fibrillar and amorphous, respectively). In AL particularly, toxic soluble light chain oligomers also play a role in disease pathogenesis. Treatment of AL and LCDD aims at eliminating the abnormal plasma cell clone. Typical agents used include corticosteroids, bortezomib (btz), alkylators, or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) such as lenalidomide (len) or pomalidomide (pom). Len-btz-dexamethasone (dex) is a highly efficacious frontline regimen commonly used for multiple myeloma, a related plasma cell cancer. Despite this, prospective studies using btz-IMiD combos as initial therapy of AL or LCDD are lacking. Here we report our experience with pom-btz-dex(PVD) for pts with AL or LCDD. Methods: This is a prospective Phase I trial using a standard 3+3 dose escalation scheme (described in Table 1). The primary objective is to establish the maximally tolerated dosing (MTD), with assessment for dose limiting toxicity (DLT) extending through cycles 1 and 2 for each pt. Hematologic and organ responses (HR and OR) were assessed using recently updated guidelines. PVD was administered in repeating 28-day cycles until either DLT or progressive disease. Key inclusion/exclusion criteria: biopsy proven AL amyloidosis or LCDD; no more than 1 prior cycle of anti-plasma cell therapy; measurable disease defined as at least a 5 mg/dL difference between the involved (iFLC) and uninvolved (uFLC) serum free light chains, or a serum M-protein of 0.5 g/dL or greater (latter not permissible without measurable sFLCdifference after protocol amendment); ECOG PS of 2 or less; adequate renal, hepatic, and marrow function; no Grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy (PN; pts with painful grade 2 PN also excluded). Abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction or cardiac biomarkers allowed, but pts with NYHA class III/IV congestive heart failure or uncontrolled ventricular arrhythmias were excluded. Antithrombotic/antiviral prophylaxis was required for all pts. Results: Six pts have been enrolled thus far (3 each in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively). Three additional pts have already been identified for cohort 3. Five of 6 pts had AL, and 1 had LCDD. Median age was 65.5 yrs (range 49-74 yrs). 5 pts were female. Mayo cardiac stage I/II/III in 1, 2, and 3 pts, respectively. Three pts had one prior cycle of therapy (the others had none). The iFLC was lambda type in all 5 AL pts, and kappa for the pt with LCDD. Median number of organs involved by AL/LCDD was 2 (range, 2-4; 4 with both cardiac and renal, and 1 additional pt with cardiac). The median number of PVD cycles administered was 3 (range 1-6). Two pts are still on therapy. The reasons for stopping PVD in the other 4 pts were: sudden death due to underlying cardiac AL (during cycle 3 of PVD), pt preference after reaching maximal HR (after cycle 6), lack of HR (after cycle 3), and toxicity (after cycle 4). Baseline dex dose adjustment was required for protocol-specified reasons in all pts. One pt required further dex reduction during cycle 4 of PVD. No pts required baseline or subsequent modification of pom or btz. Table 2 summarizes reported adverse events (AEs). No DLTshave been observed. Two pts achieved HR (0 CR, 1 VGPR, 1 PR, 3 SD, 0 PD). Organ responses have not been observed, but the first protocol-specified OR assessment takes place after 4 cycles of PVD and some pts have yet to reach this time point. Conclusions: PVD was well tolerated in this group of pts with AL and LCDD. Importantly, no significant myelosuppression or PN was noted in the first 2 (out of a planned 4) dose cohorts. Most AEs have been related to the ptsÕ underlying AL/LCDD, though dex has posed difficulties for some pts. Hematologic responses have been seen, but organ responses are predictably lagging. Once the MTD is established, an 18-pt expansion cohort dosed at that level willfurther examine the efficacy of PVD as up-front treatment for AL and LCDD. Disclosures Zonder: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide and Bortezomib are approved drugs for multiple myeloma; they are used in this trial as treatment for the related plasma cell dyscrasias AL amyloidosis and light chain deposition disease. . Tuchman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Burt:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Matous:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (8) ◽  
pp. 661-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mared P Owen-Casey ◽  
Rosalind Sim ◽  
H Terence Cook ◽  
Candice A Roufosse ◽  
Julian D Gillmore ◽  
...  

AimsBecause immunoglobulin abnormalities may affect the kidney, investigation of renal biopsies requires immunohistological study of light chains. A problem is that most antibodies to light chains react with whole immunoglobulins as well as free light chains, and there are generally many more whole immunoglobulins than free light chains. The usefulness of antibodies that only detected free light chains was investigated.MethodsAntibodies to free light chains were used in an immunoperoxidase method on paraffin sections of 198 renal biopsies, and compared with conventional antibodies against light chains examined by immunofluorescence on 13 frozen sections and by immunoperoxidase on 46 paraffin sections.ResultsImmunofluorescence and immunoperoxidase were concordant on 10 of 13 biopsies. Immunofluorescence detected slight deposition of light chains in three biopsies not shown by immunoperoxidase, of undetermined clinical significance. Using immunoperoxidase, the free light chain antibodies were more sensitive than conventional antibodies, giving much cleaner staining and better detection of deposits in AL amyloid, light chain deposition disease and cryoglobulinaemic glomerulonephritis. The free light chain antibodies showed discordance or ambiguity between immunohistological and clinical findings in seven (4%) of 185 patients with known immunoglobulin status. These included two of 28 cases of AL amyloid that showed no light chain deposition. The method was not designed for detection of light chain restriction in neoplastic plasma or lymphoplasmacytic cells.ConclusionsPolyclonal antibodies to free light chains are an improvement on conventional antibodies in immunoperoxidase study of paraffin sections of renal biopsies and are useful in everyday practice.


1997 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 328
Author(s):  
C. Decourt ◽  
G. Touchard ◽  
J.L. Preud'homme ◽  
H. Beaufils ◽  
M.-C. Diemert ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document