Editor-in-chief
Maria Stella Graziani

Deputy Director
Martina Zaninotto

Associate Editors
Ferruccio Ceriotti
Davide Giavarina
Bruna Lo Sasso
Giampaolo Merlini
Martina Montagnana
Andrea Mosca
Paola Pezzati
Rossella Tomaiuolo
Matteo Vidali

International Advisory Board Khosrow Adeli Canada
Sergio Bernardini Italy
Marcello Ciaccio Italy
Eleftherios Diamandis Canada
Philippe Gillery France
Kjell Grankvist Sweden
Hans Jacobs The Netherlands
Eric Kilpatrick UK
Magdalena Krintus Poland
Giuseppe Lippi Italy
☩Howard Morris Australia
Mario Plebani Italy
Sverre Sandberg Norway
Ana-Maria Simundic Croatia
☩Jill Tate Australia
Tommaso Trenti Italy
Cas Weykamp The Netherlands
Maria Willrich USA
Paul Yip Canada


Publisher
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano

Responsible Editor
Giuseppe Agosta

Editorial Secretary
Arianna Lucini Paioni
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano
Tel. 0245498282
email: biochimica.clinica@sibioc.it



Area soci
Non possiedi o non ricordi la password!
Clicca qui

BC: Articoli scritti da G. Patelli

Accuratezza dell’immunonefelometria come metodo di screening per la determinazione della proteinuria di Bence Jones
Accuracy of immunonephelometry as a screening method for Bence Jones proteinuria
<p>The Bence Jones protein (BJP) is an important biomarker for the identification and management of patients with plasma cell dyscrasia. The recommended method for BJP detection is the immunofixation, which is a time consuming and expensive procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate immunonephelometry (INA) as a screening method for the identification of urine samples negative for BJP and to compare it to a simplified immunofixation method (uIFE-3). First morning urine samples were collected from 1000 consecutive patients and analyzed by INA. Samples with free light chain concentrations &gt;10 mg/L and &gt;5 mg/L were considered positive. All samples were further analyzed by uIFE-3 using 3 antisera (anti-GAM, -&kappa; and -&lambda;). The INA results (at both cut-off levels) were compared with the uIFE-3, showing a poor accuracy due to the high number of false positives and false negatives. Consequently, INA resulted unable to accurately screen BJP.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 41(2) 148-153
Contributi scientifici - Scientific papers
 
Confronto tra un metodo nefelometrico ed un metodo turbidimetrico per la determinazione delle catene leggere libere sieriche: punti di forza e criticità
Comparison between a turbidimetric and a nephelometric method for the measurement of serum free light chains: strengths and weaknesses
<p>Background: monoclonal gammopathies include a broad spectrum of pathologies, and free light chains (FLC) measurement is recommended by guidelines for the diagnosis, follow up and prognosis of plasma cell dyscrasia. The aim of the study is to compare the measurement of FLC performed with two different analytical platforms, a nephelometer and a turbidimeter, in order to assess the analytical and diagnostic agreement.<br />Methods: 87 consecutive samples received by the laboratory with a request of FLC measurement were analyzed on nephelometer Immage 800 (Beckman Coulter, USA) and turbidimeter Optilite (The Binding Site, UK), using the same antibodies (Freelite, The Binding Site, UK).<br />Results: by applying the Passing-Bablok regression and the Bland-Altman analysis, a proportional and constant systematic error but non-significant bias for FLC ratio (rFLC) has been observed. By applying the Weighted Cohen&rsquo;s Kappa (WK) test to the rFLC values, an excellent diagnostic agreement between the two instruments has been shown, considering both the normal range (0.26 &ndash; 1.65) (WK=0.87) and the diagnostic range for multiple myeloma (&lt;0.01 or &gt;100) (WK=0.84).<br />Conclusions: Although there are statistical differences between the measurements performed by the two instruments, these do not affect the diagnostic agreement, that is excellent. Nevertheless, the turbidimeter is provided with a software that can automatically detect the antigen excess; by diluting further the samples automatically, it performs fewer dilutions than the nephelometer and provides a wider range of measurement, especially for low concentrations. These characteristics assist the operator both during the analysis and the validation phases of the results, saving time and resources. On the basis of the results of the study, it can be concluded that the turbidimeter shows better performances compared to the nephelometer.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 17(1)
Contributi Scientifici - Scientific Papers