4.7 Article

Monoclonal and polyclonal serum free light chains and clinical outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 118, Issue 10, Pages 2821-2826

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-349134

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health ([University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE]) [CA97274, CA113408]
  2. Henry J. Predolin Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Free light chains (FLCs) are the most commonly detected paraproteins in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We examined the types of FLC abnormalities and prognostic utility of the FLC assay compared with standard prognostic biomarkers in a prospective cohort of 339 patients with newly diagnosed CLL. Three types of FLC abnormalities were identified: monoclonal elevated FLC (elevated kappa and/or lambda with abnormal FLC ratio), polyclonal elevated FLC (elevated kappa and/or lambda with normal FLC ratio), and ratio-only FLC abnormality (normal range kappa and lambda with abnormal FLC ratio). One hundred sixty-five patients (49%) had a FLC abnormality with approximately equal distribution among monoclonal elevation, polyclonal elevation, and ratio-only abnormality. All FLC abnormalities were associated with poor time to first treatment: monoclonal FLC (hazard ratio [HR], 4.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.94-8.48), polyclonal FLC (HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.24-4.64), ratio-only FLC (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.40-4.69). Monoclonal FLC and polyclonal FLC were associated with poor overall survival compared with patients with normal FLC. Results remained significant after adjusting for Rai stage. The FLC assay is a simple, widely available clinical test with similar prognostic utility as routinely used prognostic biomarkers for CLL. Among persons with FLC abnormalities, the type of abnormality affects prognostic significance. (Blood. 2011; 118(10): 2821-2826)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available