TY - JOUR
T1 - Method Comparison and Workflow Differences Using the Same Free Light Chain Assay on 2 Analyzer Platforms
AU - Omosule, Catherine L.
AU - Hock, Karl G.
AU - Dalton, Claire
AU - Scalpati, Anthony
AU - Gronowski, Ann M.
AU - Brants, Aigars
AU - Farnsworth, Christopher W.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was sponsored by The Binding Site, Inc. C.W. Farnsworth has received grants or contracts from Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Sebia, Qiagen, Siemens Healthineers, Bio-Rad, and Cytovale.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 American Association for Clinical Chemistry. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/7/1
Y1 - 2023/7/1
N2 - Background: The Freelite assay (The Binding Site) is utilized to quantify serum immunoglobulin free light chains (sFLC), which is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring plasma cell dyscrasias (PCDs). Using the Freelite test, we compared methods and evaluated workflow differences across two analyzer platforms. Methods: sFLC concentrations were measured in 306 fresh serum specimens (cohort A) and 48 frozen specimens with documented sFLC >20 mg/dL (cohort B). Specimens were analyzed on the Roche cobas 8000 and Optilite analyzers using the Freelite κ and λ assays. Performance was compared using Deming regression. Workflow was compared by assessing turnaround time (TAT) and reagent usage. Results: For cohort A specimens, Deming regression revealed a slope of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.88-1.02) and an intercept of -0.77 (95% CI, -0.57 to 1.85) for sFLCκ and a slope of 0.90 (95% CI, -0.04 to 1.83) and intercept of 1.59 (95% CI, -3.12 to 6.25) for sFLCλ. Regression of the κ/λ ratio revealed a slope of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.47-3.41) and intercept of -8.13 (95% CI, -16.82 to 0.58) with a concordance kappa of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92). The proportion of specimens with TAT >60 min was 0.33% and 8% for the Optilite and cobas, respectively (P < 0.001). The Optilite required 49 (P < 0.001) and 12 (P = 0.016) fewer tests for sFLCκ and sFLCλ relative to the cobas. Cohort B specimens showed similar but more dramatic results. Conclusions: Analytical performance of the Freelite assays was comparable on the Optilite and cobas 8000 analyzers. In our study, the Optilite required less reagent, had a slightly reduced TAT, and eliminated manual dilutions for samples with sFLC concentrations >20 mg/dL.
AB - Background: The Freelite assay (The Binding Site) is utilized to quantify serum immunoglobulin free light chains (sFLC), which is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring plasma cell dyscrasias (PCDs). Using the Freelite test, we compared methods and evaluated workflow differences across two analyzer platforms. Methods: sFLC concentrations were measured in 306 fresh serum specimens (cohort A) and 48 frozen specimens with documented sFLC >20 mg/dL (cohort B). Specimens were analyzed on the Roche cobas 8000 and Optilite analyzers using the Freelite κ and λ assays. Performance was compared using Deming regression. Workflow was compared by assessing turnaround time (TAT) and reagent usage. Results: For cohort A specimens, Deming regression revealed a slope of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.88-1.02) and an intercept of -0.77 (95% CI, -0.57 to 1.85) for sFLCκ and a slope of 0.90 (95% CI, -0.04 to 1.83) and intercept of 1.59 (95% CI, -3.12 to 6.25) for sFLCλ. Regression of the κ/λ ratio revealed a slope of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.47-3.41) and intercept of -8.13 (95% CI, -16.82 to 0.58) with a concordance kappa of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92). The proportion of specimens with TAT >60 min was 0.33% and 8% for the Optilite and cobas, respectively (P < 0.001). The Optilite required 49 (P < 0.001) and 12 (P = 0.016) fewer tests for sFLCκ and sFLCλ relative to the cobas. Cohort B specimens showed similar but more dramatic results. Conclusions: Analytical performance of the Freelite assays was comparable on the Optilite and cobas 8000 analyzers. In our study, the Optilite required less reagent, had a slightly reduced TAT, and eliminated manual dilutions for samples with sFLC concentrations >20 mg/dL.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85165120614&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jalm/jfad020
DO - 10.1093/jalm/jfad020
M3 - Article
C2 - 37186660
AN - SCOPUS:85165120614
SN - 2576-9456
VL - 8
SP - 689
EP - 699
JO - The journal of applied laboratory medicine
JF - The journal of applied laboratory medicine
IS - 4
ER -