The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
The detection of urine free light chains (FLCs) has been used to diagnose Multiple Myeloma (MM) since 1847. However, current guidelines request measurement of whole immunoglobulin and FLCs in both blood and urine. Studies have shown that measurement of serum FLC is more sensitive compared to urine. Hence sFLC testing has been integrated into the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of all plasma cell dyscrasias. Two assays are predominantly used in practice: Freelite and Seralite. Both assays measure a κ:λ ratio, which is a sensitive diagnostic marker for MM.
A comparison of these two assays in clinical use was presented by Jennifer Heaney from the Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, UK. Data from this study was published in the British Journal of Haematology in March 2017.
N.B: *Significantly higher than Seralite, P < 0.01 (comparisons made within patient subgroup).
This study demonstrated that both assays return different values, possibly due to the anti-FLC antibodies having different affinities for an individual patient’s monoclonal FLC. However, despite the differences in quantification, both methods provided similar information regarding disease activity, changes in disease and prognosis. It is important to note that due to the differences in quantification, it is not possible to use both methods interchangeably. Overall, Seralite could make sFLC testing more easily accessible, and the quick speed at which the test can be carried out could be particularly beneficial for urgent samples (e.g. AKI).
References