Session: 652. Multiple Myeloma and Plasma Cell Dyscrasias: Clinical and Epidemiological: Poster II
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Research, Translational Research, assays, bioinformatics, Technology and Procedures, Pathology
The LIS and electronic health records of Barnes Jewish Hospital (BJH, St. Louis, MO) were queried to retrieve all sFLC results, sFLC-order associated diagnosis codes, serum immunofixation electrophoresis (IFIX), serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP), and Creatinine (Cr) results between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2022. sFLC and Cr results were matched based on closest collection time. For patients with multiple paired sFLC/Cr results the earliest set was retained leaving 5,542 pairs of unique patient results. eGFR was calculated using the 2021 CKD-EPI formula. A non-MG cohort of 413 patients was defined based on a negative IFIX and the absence of an order-associated diagnosis code of an MG. In addition, an MG cohort was defined comprising 1,296 patients with a paraprotein on IFIX or SPEP and an order-associated ICD10 code of an MG.
It was observed that 46.1% of patients subjected to sFLC testing had IRF. Among non-MG patients, those with IRF had a significantly greater median[IQR] sFLC ratio compared to those without IRF, 1.7[1.36-2.16] versus 1.29[1.03-1.56] g/dL (p<0.001 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). In addition, the MG false positive rate of the sFLC-ratio was significantly greater among those with IRF, 52.9% versus 19.6% (p<0.001 by Chi-square test).
Next, using principal component analysis, a new metric was defined that represents distance from the principal axis of variation in kappa and lambda concentrations among non-MG patients (Figure 1). A diagnostic interval was defined for this metric (–0.64 to 0.59) using the 2.5-97.5% range of the distribution observed among non-MG patents. Visual inspection suggested the new interval separated the data from the MG and non-MG cohorts better than the manufacturer’s sFLC-ratio based interval (Figure 2). The novel metric had significantly improved specificity overall (94.7% vs 63.5%, p<0.001) as well as among patients with IRF (91.7% vs 46.4%, p<0.001).
Consistent with prior studies, this work provides evidence that IRF is common among patients tested using the sFLC assay and is associated with poor diagnostic specificity of the sFLC-ratio. We describe a novel metric and demonstrate its use for improving the diagnostic specificity of the sFLC assay. An attractive feature of our approach is that it can be implemented with a single diagnostic interval because the metric presented is robust to variation in renal function.
Disclosures: Brestoff: Burrough Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Springer Science + Business Media: Patents & Royalties: Royalties; DeciBio: Consultancy; Flagship Pioneering: Consultancy; American Society for Clinical Investigation: Honoraria. Jackups: Werfen: Consultancy; Wiley and Sons: Other: Educational Grant. Zaydman: Siemens Healthineers: Honoraria.