Implications of monoclonal gammopathy and isoelectric focusing pattern 5 on the free light chain kappa diagnostics in cerebrospinal fluid
Abstract
Objectives Oligoclonal bands (OCB) analysis is the reference standard for detecting an intrathecal IgG synthesis. Alongside OCB, free light chains kappa (FLCκ) are considered an additional sensitive biomarker for determining patterns 2 or 3, indicating intrathecal Ig synthesis. However, kFLC IF is not suitable for detecting a monoclonal pattern 5. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of incorporating FLCκ analysis into routine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diagnostics instead of OCB testing on the rate of missed monoclonal IgG detection. Methods A two-center retrospective biomarker study was conducted. OCB were identified using isoelectric focusing in polyacrylamide gels followed by silver staining or in agarose gels followed by immunofixation. FLCκ were quantified using nephelometry and FLCκ assay (Siemens). Results Out of a combined total of 17,755 OCB analyses conducted between 2011 and 2021, a subset of 269 cases (1.5 %) exhibited pattern 5. 98 samples (36 %), which included 18 samples with intrathecal inflammation as determined by additional OCB pattern 2 were included in the FLCκ analysis. Of those, 16 (89 %) had intrathecal FLCκ synthesis. Conclusions While FLCκ offers a promising avenue for detecting an intrathecal inflammation, the pattern 5, though rare, remains a valuable additional finding of OCB analysis. A combined approach of FLCκ and OCB analysis is recommended for a comprehensive assessment of the humoral intrathecal immune response.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CSF analysis in general and detection of CSF-restricted oligoclonal bands in special are pivotal for differential diagnosis beyond the diagnostic contribution, helping to exclude mimics and provide additional diagnostic information such as the clonality of IgG.
“CSF analysis in general and detection of CSF-restricted oligoclonal bands in special are pivotal for differential diagnosis beyond the diagnostic contribution, helping to exclude mimics and provide additional diagnostic information such as the clonality of IgG.”
From Applying the 2024-revised McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis using conventional diagnostic tools: a single-centre prospective cohort study in Germany (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Cites
Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance
Kyle, R. A., Therneau, T. M., Rajkumar, S. V., Larson, D. R., Plevak, M. F., Offord, J. R., Dispenzieri, A., Katzmann, J. A., & Melton, L. J. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa054494 · Cited by 1,423 · see citing works
Long-Term Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance
Kyle, R. A., Larson, D. R., Therneau, T. M., Dispenzieri, A., Kumar, S., Cerhan, J. R., & Rajkumar, S. V. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1709974 · Cited by 647 · see citing works
Freedman, M. S., Thompson, E. J., Deisenhammer, F., Giovannoni, G., Grimsley, G., Keir, G., Öhman, S., Racke, M. K., Sharief, M., Sindic, C. J. M., et al. (2005) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.62.6.865 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Oligoclonal bands and kappa free light chains: Competing parameters or complementary biomarkers?
Konen, F. F., Wurster, U., Schwenkenbecher, P., Gerritzen, A., Groß, C. C., Eichhorn, P., Harrer, A., Isenmann, S., Lewczuk, P., Lewerenz, J., et al. (2025) · Autoimmunity Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2025.103765 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationKonen, F. F., Mahmoudi, N., Albers, L. M., Arrambide, G., Streichert, A. L., Haar, M., Soldatov, A., Bucak, E., Jendretzky, K. F., Nay, S., et al. (2026) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104098
“12,36,37 Interestingly, optic nerve involvement could have been demonstrated in 116/201 (58”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hannich, M. J., Konen, F. F., Gag, K., Alkhayer, A., Türker, S. N., Budde, K., Nauck, M., Wurster, U., Dressel, A., Skripuletz, T., & Süße, M.
- Affiliations
- Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
- Medizinische Universität Lausitz - Carl Thiem (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hannich, Malte J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2024-07-23
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 147-153
- ISSN
- 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
- 1437-4331
- OpenAlex
- W4400879557
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 2.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
- Keywords
- oligoclonal bands, monoclonal gammopathy, intrathecal IgG synthesis, intrathecal inflammation, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, intrathecal immune response
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Immunoglobulin G, Immunoglobulin kappa-Chains, Isoelectric Focusing, Male, Paraproteinemias, Retrospective Studies, Biomarkers, Oligoclonal Bands
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review