Gabriella Lakos, Syreeta Allen, Gemma Malin, Cristina Simion, Habib El-Khoury, Julia Colchie, Luca Bertamini, Grace Fleming, Erica Horowitz, Irene Ghobrial, Kaleb McLendon, Zianya Solis, John Roback, Andrew Neish, Sarah Grewal, Ashutosh Wechalekar, David Foureau, Manisha Bhutani, Victor Iliev, Oscar Berlanga
{"title":"B-350 Diagnostic performance of the EXENT® System in monoclonal gammopathy","authors":"Gabriella Lakos, Syreeta Allen, Gemma Malin, Cristina Simion, Habib El-Khoury, Julia Colchie, Luca Bertamini, Grace Fleming, Erica Horowitz, Irene Ghobrial, Kaleb McLendon, Zianya Solis, John Roback, Andrew Neish, Sarah Grewal, Ashutosh Wechalekar, David Foureau, Manisha Bhutani, Victor Iliev, Oscar Berlanga","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The Immunoglobulin Isotypes (GAM) Assay for the EXENT Analyser (The Binding Site, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific) offers sensitive detection, isotyping and quantification of M-proteins. We aimed to assess the clinical performance of the EXENT System (The EXENT Analyser and the Immunoglobulin Isotypes (GAM) Assay for the EXENT Analyser) as an aid in diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM) and associated disorders. Methods The study included 1135 patients: 718 with monoclonal gammopathy (215 MM, 152 smoldering MM (SMM), 243 monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 53 Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (WM), and 55 AL amyloidosis), and 417 disease controls. Clinical diagnoses were defined per appropriate international guidelines. Except for 20 AL amyloidosis patients, all monoclonal gammopathy patients were from the US population. The monoclonal gammopathy cohort had a 1:1 male/female ratio and was ethnically diverse (341 White; 264 African American/ Black; 43 Asian; 17 Hispanic; 53 unknown). The M-protein was IgG in 359 patients, IgA in 95, IgM in 97, light chain-only in 89, IgD in 2; 64 patients had more than one M-protein, and no M-protein was reported by electrophoretic methods in 9 cases. Two IgA, and one IgM patient had heavy chain identified only. In the disease control patients, the diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy had been ruled out. Serum samples were analyzed at three testing sites using the EXENT System. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on categorizing results as positive or negative with the EXENT System. A positive result was defined as the presence of an M protein which was either an intact immunoglobulin (IgG>/=0.359 g/L; IgA>/=0.325 g/L; IgM>/=0.227 g/L) or a light chain-only. These isotype-specific cut-off values were established on samples from 364 apparently healthy US subjects for IgG, IgA and IgM M-proteins using the 95th percentile limit for IgG, and the 99th percentile limit for IgA and IgM. A negative result was defined as no M-protein by the EXENT System; or if intact immunoglobulin M-proteins were present, the concentration was below the corresponding isotype-specific cut-off. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each diagnosis (MGUS, SMM, MM, WM and AL amyloidosis) separately, and on the pooled results. Results The overall diagnostic sensitivity for monoclonal gammopathies was 92.6% (CI: 90.5-94.3%). Specifically, diagnostic sensitivity was 90.5% (86.2-93.6%) for MGUS; 100.0% (97.5-100.0%) for SMM; 90.2% (85.5-93.5%) for MM; 100.0% (93.2-100.0%) for WM; and 83.6% (71.7-91.1%) for AL amyloidosis. The diagnostic specificity of the assay was 76.5% (72.2-80.3%). The EXENT System identified an M-protein in more patients than serum protein electrophoresis (SPE): 665 (92.6%) vs 611 (85.1%). The positivity rate was 90.5% vs 88.1% in MGUS; 100% vs 92.8% in SMM; 90.2% vs 80.5% in MM; 100% vs 100% in WM; and 83.6% vs 54.5% in AL amyloidosis. Conclusion The EXENT System demonstrated the same or superior diagnostic sensitivity compared to SPE. Whilst the assay is not recommended as a first-line screening test, this clinical performance suggests that it has the potential to become part of the diagnostic algorithm in the workup for monoclonal gammopathies.","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.736","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background The Immunoglobulin Isotypes (GAM) Assay for the EXENT Analyser (The Binding Site, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific) offers sensitive detection, isotyping and quantification of M-proteins. We aimed to assess the clinical performance of the EXENT System (The EXENT Analyser and the Immunoglobulin Isotypes (GAM) Assay for the EXENT Analyser) as an aid in diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM) and associated disorders. Methods The study included 1135 patients: 718 with monoclonal gammopathy (215 MM, 152 smoldering MM (SMM), 243 monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 53 Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (WM), and 55 AL amyloidosis), and 417 disease controls. Clinical diagnoses were defined per appropriate international guidelines. Except for 20 AL amyloidosis patients, all monoclonal gammopathy patients were from the US population. The monoclonal gammopathy cohort had a 1:1 male/female ratio and was ethnically diverse (341 White; 264 African American/ Black; 43 Asian; 17 Hispanic; 53 unknown). The M-protein was IgG in 359 patients, IgA in 95, IgM in 97, light chain-only in 89, IgD in 2; 64 patients had more than one M-protein, and no M-protein was reported by electrophoretic methods in 9 cases. Two IgA, and one IgM patient had heavy chain identified only. In the disease control patients, the diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy had been ruled out. Serum samples were analyzed at three testing sites using the EXENT System. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on categorizing results as positive or negative with the EXENT System. A positive result was defined as the presence of an M protein which was either an intact immunoglobulin (IgG>/=0.359 g/L; IgA>/=0.325 g/L; IgM>/=0.227 g/L) or a light chain-only. These isotype-specific cut-off values were established on samples from 364 apparently healthy US subjects for IgG, IgA and IgM M-proteins using the 95th percentile limit for IgG, and the 99th percentile limit for IgA and IgM. A negative result was defined as no M-protein by the EXENT System; or if intact immunoglobulin M-proteins were present, the concentration was below the corresponding isotype-specific cut-off. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each diagnosis (MGUS, SMM, MM, WM and AL amyloidosis) separately, and on the pooled results. Results The overall diagnostic sensitivity for monoclonal gammopathies was 92.6% (CI: 90.5-94.3%). Specifically, diagnostic sensitivity was 90.5% (86.2-93.6%) for MGUS; 100.0% (97.5-100.0%) for SMM; 90.2% (85.5-93.5%) for MM; 100.0% (93.2-100.0%) for WM; and 83.6% (71.7-91.1%) for AL amyloidosis. The diagnostic specificity of the assay was 76.5% (72.2-80.3%). The EXENT System identified an M-protein in more patients than serum protein electrophoresis (SPE): 665 (92.6%) vs 611 (85.1%). The positivity rate was 90.5% vs 88.1% in MGUS; 100% vs 92.8% in SMM; 90.2% vs 80.5% in MM; 100% vs 100% in WM; and 83.6% vs 54.5% in AL amyloidosis. Conclusion The EXENT System demonstrated the same or superior diagnostic sensitivity compared to SPE. Whilst the assay is not recommended as a first-line screening test, this clinical performance suggests that it has the potential to become part of the diagnostic algorithm in the workup for monoclonal gammopathies.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM).
The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics.
In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology.
The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.