Back
 Health  Vol.9 No.13 , December 2017
Typing of Four Cases of Monoclonal Gammopathy: A Revival of Immunosubstraction Role
Abstract: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is characterized by increased production of an immunoglobuling (Ig) from a clone of plasma cells and is a pre-malignant disorders in subjects older than 50 years. The prevalence of MGUS in Caucasian population is still not determined. MGUS is characterized by the presence of a monoclonal-protein(M-protein) (IgG and IgA) lower than 30 g/L, bone marrow plasma cell percentage lower than 10%, and absence of clinical signs related to multiple myeloma (MM). MGUS can be responsible for damage to organs through the production of toxic M proteins that may have autoantibody activity or deposit pathologically in the organ tissues. Many techniques are available for the characterization of M-proteins. These techniques can involve different expenses, skills, labor time, and sensitivity in detecting monoclonal proteins also at low-level. Detection of M-proteins needs of assays based on high-resolution electrophoresis and im-munofixation (or immunosubtraction). We show suggestive clinical cases where the subjects involved had not an apparent disease but they showed an interesting pattern in electrophoresis. All cases were investigated by capillary’s electrophoresis and immunofixation to confirm or not the clinical suspect, and then if the immunofixation is not exhaustive, additionally immunosubstraction is done. However in some cases, the interpretation of the peaks is not so easy. Clinical and scientific data provided evidences that immunofixaction technique can fail the identification of monoclonal components. In that cases, we opted for the immunosubtraction method as a third level test, in that cases when immunofixation failed the identification of a monoclonal protein.
Cite this paper: Monari, M. , Bianchi, P. , Maura, F. , Motta, L. , Martellasio, G. , Leone, F. and Montanelli, A. (2017) Typing of Four Cases of Monoclonal Gammopathy: A Revival of Immunosubstraction Role. Health, 9, 1852-1857. doi: 10.4236/health.2017.913134.
References

[1]   Dispenzieri, A., Katzmann, J.A., Kyle, R.A., et al. (2010) Prevalence and Risk of Progression of Light-Chain Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance: A Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study. Lancet, 375, 1721-1728.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60482-5

[2]   Kyle, R.A., Therneau, T.M., Rajkumar, S.V., et al. (2006) Prevalence of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 1362-1369.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa054494

[3]   Landgren, O., Linet, M.S., McMaster, M.L., et al. (2006) Familial Characteristics of Autoimmune and Hematologic Disorders in 8,406 Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Population-Based Case-Control Study. International Journal of Cancer, 118, 3095- 3098.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21745

[4]   Smith, A., Roman, E., Howell, D., et al. (2010) The Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN): A New Information Strategy for Population Based Epidemiology and Health Service Research. British Journal of Haematology, 148, 739-753.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.08010.x

[5]   Kyle, R.A. and Rajkumar, S.V. (2007) Epidemiology of the Plasma-Cell Disorders. Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology, 20, 637-664.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2007.08.001

[6]   Varettoni, M., Corso, A., Cocito, F., et al. (2010) Changing Pattern of Presentation in Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance: A Single-Center Experience with 1400 Patients. Medicine, 89, 211-216.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0b013e3181e763be

[7]   Kyle, R.A., Therneau, T.M., Rajkumar, S.V., et al. (2002) A Long-Term Study of Prognosis in Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 564-569.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa01133202

[8]   van de Donk, N.W., Palumbo, A., Johnsen, H.E., et al. (2014) The Clinical Relevance and Management of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance and Related Disorders: Recommendations from the European Myeloma Network. Haematologica, 99, 984-996.
https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2013.100552

[9]   Kyle, R.A. and Rajkumar, S.V. (2007) Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance and Smoldering Multiple Myeloma. Hematology/oncology Clinics of North America, 21, 1093-1113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2007.08.005

[10]   Munshi, N.C. (2007) Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance: Genetic vs Environmental Etiologies. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82, 1457-1459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-6196(11)61086-0

[11]   Blade, J. (2006) Clinical Practice. Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 355, 2765-2770.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp052790

[12]   Blade, J., Rosinol, L., Cibeira, M.T., et al. (2008) Pathogenesis and Progression of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance. Leukemia, 22, 1651-1657.
https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2008.203

[13]   Kyle, R.A., Therneau, T.M., Rajkumar, S.V., et al. (2004) Long-Term Follow-Up of 241 Patients with Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance: The Original Mayo Clinic Series 25 Years Later. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 79, 859-866.
https://doi.org/10.4065/79.7.859

[14]   Mollee, P. (2009) Current Trends in the Diagnosis, Therapy and Monitoring of the Monoclonal Gammopathies. The Clinical Biochemist Reviews, 30, 93-103.

[15]   Pocognoli, A., Frezzotti, A., Galeazzi, M., et al. (2015) Immunosubtraction Technique Is Sometimes More Useful than Immunofixation for Typing IgA Monoclonal Components. Biochimica Clinica, 39, 326-330.

[16]   Yang, Z., Harrison, K., Park, Y.A., et al. (2007) Performance of the Sebia CAPIL-LARYS 2 for Detection and Immunotyping of Serum Monoclonal Paraproteins. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 128, 293-299.
https://doi.org/10.1309/1L3CG8GK6F8VYNYH

 
 
Top