Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Utilizing Mass Spectrometry to Detect and Isotype Monoclonal Proteins in Urine: Comparison to Electrophoretic Methods.
Moonen, Danelle H; Kohlhagen, Mindy; Dasari, Surendra; Willrich, Maria A; Kourelis, Taxiarchis; Dispenzieri, Angela; Murray, David L.
Afiliación
  • Moonen DH; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Kohlhagen M; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Dasari S; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Willrich MA; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Kourelis T; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Dispenzieri A; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
  • Murray DL; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Clin Chem ; 69(7): 746-753, 2023 07 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37228061
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time of flight mass spectrometry coupled to immune enrichment (MASS-FIX) as an alternative to serum immunofixation electrophoresis has demonstrated increased sensitivity in monoclonal protein (MP) detection with improved laboratory workflow. This study explored similar replacement of urine immunofixation electrophoresis (u-IFE) with urine MASS-FIX (u-MASS-FIX) by method comparison.

METHODS:

Residual urine (n = 1008) from Mayo Clinic patients with a known plasma cell disease were assayed neat by u-MASS-FIX analysis. Each sample was paired with the following u-IFE, urine total protein, urine protein electrophoresis, serum κ/λ free light chain (LC) ratio (rFLC), and serum MASS-FIX (s-MASS-FIX). Analytical sensitivities were measured in pooled urine spiked with daratumumab.

RESULTS:

u-IFE and u-MASS-FIX had 91% agreement in determining the presence/absence of MPs (Cohen kappa = 0.8200). In discrepant cases, serum rFLC statistically aligned more closely with positive u-MASS-FIX cases than u-IFE. Patients positive by both s-MASS-FIX and u-MASS-FIX had matching MP masses (±20 daltons) in 94% of cases. The u-MASS-FIX spectra further identified κ/λ LC fragments and glycosylated LCs not appreciated on u-IFE. The unconcentrated u-MASS-FIX limit of detection of 0.156 mg/mL was determined equivalent to 100× concentrated u-IFE.

CONCLUSION:

u-MASS-FIX is a reliable alternative to u-IFE with the added benefits of LC glycosylation detection and MP mass tracking between serum and urine. Furthermore, u-MASS-FIX is performed using neat urine. Eliminating the need to concentrate urine for u-IFE has potential to increase productivity by decreasing labor minutes per test.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Paraproteinemias Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Chem Asunto de la revista: QUIMICA CLINICA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Paraproteinemias Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Chem Asunto de la revista: QUIMICA CLINICA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos