{"title":"常规单克隆伽玛病检测在周围神经病变评估中的临床应用。","authors":"Mackenzie D Maberry, Caleb J Smith, Ronald S Go","doi":"10.1007/s11606-025-09528-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral neuropathy can be associated with certain monoclonal gammopathies; therefore, monoclonal protein testing is routinely performed in the evaluation of this symptom. However, limited data exist regarding the utility of monoclonal protein testing for this indication. Data suggest those receiving a new monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) diagnosis have similar rates of diagnosis-related anxiety when compared to those receiving a myeloma diagnosis (Maatouk et al., Blood Cancer J 9(2), 2019; Adami et al., Eur J Clin Invest 49(3), 2019; Rögnvaldsson et al., Blood Cancer J 11(5):1-13, 2021).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the utility of monoclonal protein testing with respect to early detection of malignancy or determining etiology of peripheral neuropathy.</p><p><strong>Design/participants: </strong>We reviewed records of patients who received monoclonal protein testing for neuropathy as per ICD-10 codes at our institution during 2021 (n=1436). All those with previously diagnosed monoclonal gammopathies were excluded (n=37). Clinical utility was defined as finding a new lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm diagnosis, or if the neuropathy was ultimately attributed to the monoclonal gammopathy identified with testing.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Among 1399 patients receiving monoclonal protein testing, 148 (10.6%) were diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy, the majority (98.6%) being MGUS. As a result of monoclonal gammopathy screening, neuropathy was ultimately attributed to monoclonal gammopathy in 12 patients (0.8% total), and two patients (0.1%) were diagnosed with a lymphoplasmacytic malignancy as a result of monoclonal protein testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy, routine monoclonal protein testing has low clinical utility. In our study, greater than 1 in 10 patients screened were diagnosed with MGUS, while less than 1 in 100 patients were determined to have neuropathy attributable to monoclonal gammopathy. Our data suggest the test performance of monoclonal protein testing for the indication of peripheral neuropathy without other findings to suggest an underlying paraproteinemic process, such as bony pain, renal dysfunction, or unexplained anemia, is poor, and this test should be reserved for individuals in whom alternative diagnoses are first considered and excluded.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Utility of Routine Monoclonal Gammopathy Testing in the Evaluation of Peripheral Neuropathy.\",\"authors\":\"Mackenzie D Maberry, Caleb J Smith, Ronald S Go\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11606-025-09528-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral neuropathy can be associated with certain monoclonal gammopathies; therefore, monoclonal protein testing is routinely performed in the evaluation of this symptom. However, limited data exist regarding the utility of monoclonal protein testing for this indication. Data suggest those receiving a new monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) diagnosis have similar rates of diagnosis-related anxiety when compared to those receiving a myeloma diagnosis (Maatouk et al., Blood Cancer J 9(2), 2019; Adami et al., Eur J Clin Invest 49(3), 2019; Rögnvaldsson et al., Blood Cancer J 11(5):1-13, 2021).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the utility of monoclonal protein testing with respect to early detection of malignancy or determining etiology of peripheral neuropathy.</p><p><strong>Design/participants: </strong>We reviewed records of patients who received monoclonal protein testing for neuropathy as per ICD-10 codes at our institution during 2021 (n=1436). All those with previously diagnosed monoclonal gammopathies were excluded (n=37). Clinical utility was defined as finding a new lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm diagnosis, or if the neuropathy was ultimately attributed to the monoclonal gammopathy identified with testing.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Among 1399 patients receiving monoclonal protein testing, 148 (10.6%) were diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy, the majority (98.6%) being MGUS. As a result of monoclonal gammopathy screening, neuropathy was ultimately attributed to monoclonal gammopathy in 12 patients (0.8% total), and two patients (0.1%) were diagnosed with a lymphoplasmacytic malignancy as a result of monoclonal protein testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy, routine monoclonal protein testing has low clinical utility. In our study, greater than 1 in 10 patients screened were diagnosed with MGUS, while less than 1 in 100 patients were determined to have neuropathy attributable to monoclonal gammopathy. Our data suggest the test performance of monoclonal protein testing for the indication of peripheral neuropathy without other findings to suggest an underlying paraproteinemic process, such as bony pain, renal dysfunction, or unexplained anemia, is poor, and this test should be reserved for individuals in whom alternative diagnoses are first considered and excluded.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09528-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09528-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:周围神经病变可与某些单克隆性伽玛病相关;因此,在评估这种症状时,单克隆蛋白检测是常规的。然而,关于单克隆蛋白检测用于该适应症的数据有限。数据表明,与接受骨髓瘤诊断的患者相比,接受新单克隆未确定意义γ病(MGUS)诊断的患者具有相似的诊断相关焦虑率(Maatouk等人,Blood Cancer J 9(2), 2019;Adami et al.,欧洲临床杂志,2019;Rögnvaldsson等,血癌杂志11(5):1- 13,2021)。目的:量化单克隆蛋白检测在恶性肿瘤早期检测或确定周围神经病变病因方面的应用价值。设计/参与者:我们回顾了2021年期间根据ICD-10代码接受神经病变单克隆蛋白检测的患者记录(n=1436)。所有先前诊断为单克隆伽玛病的患者均被排除(n=37)。临床效用被定义为发现新的淋巴浆细胞性肿瘤诊断,或者如果神经病变最终归因于单克隆伽玛病通过检测确定。主要结果:1399例接受单克隆蛋白检测的患者中,有148例(10.6%)被诊断为单克隆γ病,其中大多数(98.6%)为MGUS。由于单克隆伽玛病筛查,12例患者(总数0.8%)的神经病变最终归因于单克隆伽玛病,2例患者(0.1%)由于单克隆蛋白检测被诊断为淋巴浆细胞性恶性肿瘤。结论:在周围神经病变的诊断中,常规单克隆蛋白检测临床应用价值较低。在我们的研究中,超过1 / 10的筛查患者被诊断为MGUS,而不到1 / 100的患者被确定为单克隆伽玛病引起的神经病变。我们的数据表明,如果没有其他发现提示潜在的蛋白副血症过程(如骨痛、肾功能障碍或不明原因的贫血),单克隆蛋白检测对周围神经病变的适应症的检测效果很差,该检测应保留给那些首先考虑并排除其他诊断的个体。
Clinical Utility of Routine Monoclonal Gammopathy Testing in the Evaluation of Peripheral Neuropathy.
Background: Peripheral neuropathy can be associated with certain monoclonal gammopathies; therefore, monoclonal protein testing is routinely performed in the evaluation of this symptom. However, limited data exist regarding the utility of monoclonal protein testing for this indication. Data suggest those receiving a new monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) diagnosis have similar rates of diagnosis-related anxiety when compared to those receiving a myeloma diagnosis (Maatouk et al., Blood Cancer J 9(2), 2019; Adami et al., Eur J Clin Invest 49(3), 2019; Rögnvaldsson et al., Blood Cancer J 11(5):1-13, 2021).
Objective: To quantify the utility of monoclonal protein testing with respect to early detection of malignancy or determining etiology of peripheral neuropathy.
Design/participants: We reviewed records of patients who received monoclonal protein testing for neuropathy as per ICD-10 codes at our institution during 2021 (n=1436). All those with previously diagnosed monoclonal gammopathies were excluded (n=37). Clinical utility was defined as finding a new lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm diagnosis, or if the neuropathy was ultimately attributed to the monoclonal gammopathy identified with testing.
Key results: Among 1399 patients receiving monoclonal protein testing, 148 (10.6%) were diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy, the majority (98.6%) being MGUS. As a result of monoclonal gammopathy screening, neuropathy was ultimately attributed to monoclonal gammopathy in 12 patients (0.8% total), and two patients (0.1%) were diagnosed with a lymphoplasmacytic malignancy as a result of monoclonal protein testing.
Conclusions: In the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy, routine monoclonal protein testing has low clinical utility. In our study, greater than 1 in 10 patients screened were diagnosed with MGUS, while less than 1 in 100 patients were determined to have neuropathy attributable to monoclonal gammopathy. Our data suggest the test performance of monoclonal protein testing for the indication of peripheral neuropathy without other findings to suggest an underlying paraproteinemic process, such as bony pain, renal dysfunction, or unexplained anemia, is poor, and this test should be reserved for individuals in whom alternative diagnoses are first considered and excluded.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.