Clinical laboratory · 2023
Investigation of the Diagnostic Value of sFLC and Other Indicators in the Detection of M Protein in LCMM.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Jinying, Zhao Yi, Ren Zhanbao, Sun Aiwen, Huang Zhongxia, Li Xiaoyang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim was to explore the diagnostic value of serum free light chain (sFLC) and other laboratory indicators for the patients with light chain multiple myeloma (LCMM).
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study including 82 LCMM cases and 43 healthy subjects as the observation and control groups, respectively. The observation group was further divided into two subgroups: κ- and λ-type LCMM. Sixteen quantitative indicators were collected and the difference among groups was compared. We also evaluated the positive detection rate (PDR) of four qualitative indicators for M protein detection. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic value of sixteen indicators.
RESULTS: Fourteen indicators showed statistical differences between the control group and κ- or λ-type LCMM subgroup. The κ and λ sFLC ratio (rFLC) and the difference between κ and λ FLC (dFLC) showed differences among the three groups. Among the four qualitative indicators of M protein detection, rFLC showed the highest PDR for both κ- and λ-type LCMM. Among the three combinations with rFLC or uIFE did not show statistical differences. ROC curve analysis indicated a relatively high diagnostic value of dFLC for both κ- and λ-type LCMM.
CONCLUSIONS: We should be vigilant about the missed diagnosis by observing the changes of MM-related indicators, particularly dFLC and the six other indicators with high diagnostic value. rFLC can improve the diagnostic ability of LCMM.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study including 82 LCMM cases and 43 healthy subjects as the observation and control groups, respectively. The observation group was further divided into two subgroups: κ- and λ-type LCMM. Sixteen quantitative indicators were collected and the difference among groups was compared. We also evaluated the positive detection rate (PDR) of four qualitative indicators for M protein detection. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic value of sixteen indicators.
RESULTS: Fourteen indicators showed statistical differences between the control group and κ- or λ-type LCMM subgroup. The κ and λ sFLC ratio (rFLC) and the difference between κ and λ FLC (dFLC) showed differences among the three groups. Among the four qualitative indicators of M protein detection, rFLC showed the highest PDR for both κ- and λ-type LCMM. Among the three combinations with rFLC or uIFE did not show statistical differences. ROC curve analysis indicated a relatively high diagnostic value of dFLC for both κ- and λ-type LCMM.
CONCLUSIONS: We should be vigilant about the missed diagnosis by observing the changes of MM-related indicators, particularly dFLC and the six other indicators with high diagnostic value. rFLC can improve the diagnostic ability of LCMM.