Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Kidney Int. 2019 Jun 25. pii: S0085-2538(19)30611-8. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2019.05.027. [Epub ahead of print]

The sensitivity and specificity of the routine kidney biopsy immunofluorescence panel are inferior to diagnosing renal immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis by mass spectrometry.

Author information

1
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Division of Nephrology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA.
2
Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
3
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
4
Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Division of Hematopathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
5
Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
6
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: Leung.Nelson@mayo.edu.

Abstract

Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis is the most frequent type of renal amyloidosis in the United States, accounting for 81% of cases. Accurate typing is crucial for early diagnosis and treatment of immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis and to avoid treating other amyloidoses with potentially toxic chemotherapy. Immunofluorescence is the first step to type renal immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis but the performance characteristics of this method are largely unknown. Here, we establish the sensitivity and specificity of immunofluorescence for diagnosing immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis in patients whose amyloid typing was performed by the current gold standard of laser microdissection/mass spectrometry. Renal biopsy pathology reports originating from several institutions with a diagnosis of amyloidosis and which had amyloid typing by laser microdissection/mass spectrometry performed at our center were reviewed. Reported immunofluorescence staining for kappa or lambda of 2+ or more, with weak or no staining for the other light chain was considered positive for light chain amyloidosis by immunofluorescence. Based on microdissection/mass spectrometry results, of the 170 cases reviewed, 104 cases were typed as immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis and 66 were typed as non-immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis. Immunofluorescence sensitivity for diagnosing immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis was 84.6%. The remaining 16 cases could not be diagnosed by immunofluorescence due to reported weak staining for all antigens or reported lack of preferential staining for one antigen. Immunofluorescence specificity was 92.4%. Five cases, all amyloid A amyloidosis, were misdiagnosed as immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis by immunofluorescence. Immunofluorescence failed to accurately differentiate immunoglobulin-derived from non-immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis in 12.3% of cases of renal amyloidosis. Relying on immunofluorescence alone for determining immunoglobulin-derived vs. non-immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis may lead to misdiagnosis. Thus, immunofluorescence has inferior sensitivity and specificity compared with laser microdissection/mass spectrometry in the typing of immunoglobulin-derived amyloidosis.

KEYWORDS:

immunofluorescence; mass spectrometry; renal amyloidosis

PMID:
31447055
DOI:
10.1016/j.kint.2019.05.027

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center