For survival, the emergence of oligoclonal bands after multiple myeloma treatment is less important than achieving complete remission

Early M-protein immune reconstitution after autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a good prognostic marker for patients with high-risk cytogenetic multiple myeloma

The presence of transient abnormal protein banding (M-protein immune reconstitution) in serum immunofixation electrophoresis after autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma has been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of post-transplant M-protein immune reconstitution on the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma. M-protein immune reconstitution was observed in 25.9% (75/290) of patients. The CR rate and MRD negativity were higher in the M-protein immune reconstitution group (85.3% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.013, 81.9% vs. 66.5%, p = 0.014). Although there were no significant differences between the groups, the overall median survival time was longer in the M-protein immune reconstruction group (80 vs. 72 m, p = 0.076; not reached vs. 105 m, p = 0.312). Among patients in the cytogenetic high-risk group, the occurrence of M-protein immune reconstitution predicted better PFS and OS (80 vs. 31 m, p = 0.010; not reached vs. 91 m, p = 0.026). Additionally, in revised-International Staging System stage III patients, PFS and OS were better in those who achieved M-protein immune reconstitution (80 vs. 20 m, p = 0.025; 57 vs. 32 m, p = 0.103). The better prognosis of M-protein immune reconstitution patients may be associated with the acquisition of a deeper response. In high-risk patients, early acquisition of M-protein immune reconstitution may suggest a better prognosis.

An unusual pattern in serum protein electrophoresis to take in mind: A case report

Here we described a case of an asymptomatic 73 years-old female patient in geriatric routine consultation, whose laboratory testing showed hyperproteinemia with accompanying hyperglobulinemia. A diagnosis of BGUS was made only after a correlation among SPEP, densitometry tracing and IFE results was established, evidencing a second peak, that was less evident and not reported at first. These biclonal conditions are of very low incidence in the clinical laboratory, requiring the laboratory professional to have particular skills for their identification. As far as is known, clinical findings in BGUS are similar to those found in MGUS. However, they remain not well understood. Therefore, for an accurate diagnosis of BGUS, the clinical laboratory technician must be trained and sensitized to detect a second M - protein as a band or peak; taking in mind the possible different scenarios in heavy and light chain typing.

Audit of the Prevalence of Noncorrelation of Immunofixation with Protein Electrophoresis and Serum Free Light Chain Assays in Multiple Myeloma in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center

Multiple myeloma (MM) is diagnosed and monitored by correlating panel of test results including serum Protein electrophoresis (SPE), Immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE), serum Free Light chain (sFLC) measurements. This audit is aimed to evaluate the prevalence of non-correlation and discrepancies amongst the three investigations (SPE/IFE/sFLC) for assessment of MM. 106 MM patients were reviewed over 16 months in a tertiary cancer care center by the availability of 3 serum test results (SPE/IFE/sFLC). Patients were divided into 2 groups: group1, newly diagnosed MM patients who were yet to receive myeloma specific treatment (n = 48); and group2, already diagnosed MM patients on treatment and followup (n = 58). Treatment modalities included stem cell transplantation and standard chemotherapy regimens. Non-correlation between the three test results (IFE/SPE/sFLC) was observed (21% in group1 and 45% in group2). Three types of discrepancies were detected as follows: (a) IFE showing less number of restriction bands as compared to SPE (8.6% patients in group2); (b) SPE/IFE negative with an abnormal sFLC ratio (12.5% patients in group1 and 13.7% in group2); (c) SPE/IFE positive but normal sFLC ratio (8% in group1 and 22% in group2). To conclude, IFE may sometimes provide information that does not always correlate with either of the SPE or sFLC results due to different sensitivities, antigen-antibody interactions, or treatment. Hence, SPE plus sFLC may be more useful particularly for patients on follow-up while IFE plus sFLC may help screen the new patients. The judicious selection of the biochemical assays can effectively reduce the treatment cost in a developing country like India.