Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281743

Evaluating the screening value of serum light chain ratio, β2 microglobulin, lactic dehydrogenase and immunoglobulin in patients with multiple myeloma using ROC curves

Limei Ying 1, Xiaochang Zhang 1, Nina Lu 1, Lei Zhao 2, Yanfang Nie 3, Guofen Wang 4, Sai Chen 1, Linglong Xu 1,*
Editor: Vipa Thanachartwet5
PMCID: PMC9934331  PMID: 36795719

Abstract

Objective

Several laboratory and imaging assays are required to diagnose multiple myeloma (MM). Serum and urine immunofixation electrophoresis are two key assays to diagnose MM, while they have not been extensively utilized in Chinese hospitals. Serum light chain (sLC), β2 microglobulin (β2-MG), lactic dehydrogenase (LDH), and immunoglobulin (Ig) are routinely measured in the majority of Chinese hospitals. Imbalance of sLC ratio (involved light chain/uninvolved light chain) is frequently observed in MM patients. This study aimed to evaluate the screening value of sLC ratio, β2-MG, LDH, and Ig in MM patients using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Methods

Data of 303 suspected MM patients, who were admitted to the Taizhou Central Hospital between March 2015 and July 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. In total, 69 patients (MM arm) met the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) updated criteria for the diagnosis of MM, while 234 patients were non-MM (non-MM arm). All patients’ sLC, β2-MG, LDH, and Ig were measured using commercially available kits according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The ROC curve analysis was employed to assess the screening value of sLC ratio, β2-MG, LDH, creatinine (Cr) and Ig. The statistical analysis was carried out by SPSS 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and MedCalc 19.0.4 (Ostend, Belgium) software.

Results

There was no significant difference between the MM and non-MM arms in terms of gender, age and Cr. The median sLC ratio in the MM arm was 11.5333, which was significantly higher than that of 1.9293 in the non-MM arm (P<0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) of sLC ratio was 0.875, which indicated a robust screening value. The optimal sensitivity and specificity were 81.16% and 94.87% respectively, when the sLC ratio was set as 3.2121. The serum levels of β2-MG and Ig were higher in the MM arm than those in the non-MM arm (P<0.001). The AUC values of β2-MG, LDH, and Ig were 0.843 (P<0.001), 0.547 (P = 0.2627), and 0.723 (P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cutoff values of β2-MG, LDH, and Ig were 1.95 mg/L, 220 U/L, and 46.4 g/L respectively, in the context of screening value. The triple combination of sLC ratio (3.2121), β2-MG (1.95 mg/L), and Ig (46.4 g/L) yielded a higher screening value compared with that of sLC ratio alone (AUC, 0.952; P<0.0001). The triple combination had a sensitivity of 94.20% and a specificity of 86.75%. The addition of LDH to the triple combination and formation of quadruple combination did not optimize the screening value, with AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.952, 94.20%, and 85.47%, respectively.

Conclusion

The triple combination strategy (sLC ratio, 3.2121; β2-MG, 1.95 mg/L; Ig, 46.4 g/L) is accompanied by remarkable sensitivity and specificity for screening MM in Chinese hospitals.

Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM), with a hallmark of proliferation of monoclonal plasma cells, is one of the common hematological malignancies in China [1, 2], especially in the elderly population. With emerging new agents and cell therapy, the survival of MM patients has noticeably prolonged in recent decades. However, the majority of patients with MM experience relapse and could not be treated. Patients with MM may not have overt symptoms specific to MM at very early-stage of the disease, which could compromise the early diagnosis and treatment of the disease. Thus, it is crucial to diagnose MM patients as early as possible. The criteria for MM involve several laboratory and imaging assays, of which immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) is the key to detect the monoclonal protein as an immunoglobulin (IgG) antibody with a lambda light chain. To date, IFE has not been broadly employed in all hospitals in China, especially in county hospitals and district hospitals, causing a challenge in the early-stage diagnosis of MM. Serum light chain (sLC), β2 microglobulin (β2-MG), lactic dehydrogenase (LDH), and Ig are more routinely utilized than IFE. Remarkable imbalance of sLC ratio (involved light chain/uninvolved light chain) has been frequently reported in MM patients. To date, few studies have concentrated on the screening value of sLC ratio, β2-MG level, LDH level, and Ig level in MM patients. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate the screening value of these parameters using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Methods

Patients

Data of 303 patients with suspected MM who were admitted to the Taizhou Central Hospital (Taizhou, China) between March 2015 and July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had abnormal serum Ig or sLC levels. Besides, 69 patients (MM arm) met the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) updated criteria for the diagnosis of MM, while 234 patients were non-MM (non-MM arm) [3]. In addition, the levels of sLC, β2-MG, LDH, Cr, and Ig of all patients were recorded. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Taizhou Central Hospital, and it was conducted according to the principle of Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consents were provided by all participates in the study.

Measurement of sLC, β2-MG, LDH, Cr, and Ig

Briefly, 5~8 mL of peripheral blood was taken from each patient under fasting conditions. Then, the levels of sLC, β2-MG, LDH, Cr, and Ig were measured using commercially available kits according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The levels of sLC and Ig were measured by the IMMAGE 800 protein chemistry analyzer (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA) with the accessory light chain kit. Serum levels of total protein, albumin, β2-MG, and LDH were tested by the ADVIA 2400 Clinical Chemistry system (Siemens, Munich, Germany) using the total protein assay kit (Medicalsystem Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Ningbo, China), albumin assay kit (Medicalsystem Biotechnology Co., Ltd.), β2-MG assay kit (Medicalsystem Biotechnology Co., Ltd.), and LDH assay kit (Medicalsystem Biotechnology Co., Ltd.), respectively. The Ig level was calculated as total protein level minus albumin level. The level of Cr was measured by the LABOSPECT 008AS Clinical Chemistry system (Hitachi, Japan), using the creatinine liquicolor kit (Medicalsystem Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Ningbo, China).

Statistical analysis

In the present study, SPSS 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and MedCalc 19.0.4 (Ostend, Belgium) software were used to perform the statistical analysis. Measurement data were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (for normally distributed data) or median (25-75th percentiles, for abnormally distributed data). Categorical data were expressed as number (percentage). Differences in age, gender, and laboratory parameters were analyzed by the t-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test. The area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was calculated to evaluate the screening value of sLC, β2-MG, LDH, and Ig. As for triple combination and quadruple combination, logistic regression analysis was employed to calculate the positive diagnostic rate, followed by calculation of the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of each variable. ROC curves were compared by the Z test. Statistical significance was set as P < 0.05.

Results

Participants’ baseline characteristics

Among the 303 suspected MM patients, 69 were diagnosed with MM, and 234 were non-MM, of whom, there were 44 men and 25 women in the MM arm, with a median age of 66 (36–86) years old, and a median level of Cr 85.0μmol/L (64.5–110 μmol/L). There were 118 men and 116 women in the non-MM arm, with a median age of 65.5 (24–94) years old, and a median level of Cr 73.5μmol/L (56.8–108.5μmol/L). There were no significant differences in age, Cr and gender between the two arms (P>0.05) (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of the gender, age, Cr, sLC(I/U), β2-MG, LDH, Ig levels between the two arms.

MM arm Non-MM arm P
Number 69 234
Male: Female 44:25 118:116 0.051
Age 66(36–86) 67(24–94) 0.114
Cr(μmol/L) 85.0(64.5–110) 73.5(56.8–108.5) 0.077
eGFR(ml/min/1.73m 2 ) 73.6(47.5–93.2) 83.4(49.9–101.1) 0.181
sLC(I/U) 11.5333(4.0721–54.8929) 1.9293(1.6027–2.2534) <0.001*
β 2 -MG(mg/L) 4.57(2.95–8.30) 1.57(1.28–2.36) <0.001*
LDH(U/L) 199(166–262) 191(165–237) 0.24
Ig(g/L) 48.7(31.0–72.2) 32.1(27.5–38.9) <0.001*
Open in a new tab

Age is shown as median age (the youngest age to the oldest age), and the data of Cr, sLC(I/U), β2-MG, LDH, and Ig were shown as a median (25-75th percentiles).

*represents P < 0.05, with statistical difference.

sLC ratio in the two arms

The median sLC ratio in the MM arm was 11.5333, the minimum value was 0.86, and the maximum value was 326.19; the median sLC ratio in the non-MM arm was 1.9293, the minimum value was 0.59, and the maximum value was 17.16. Comparison analysis showed that the sLC ratio in the MM arm was significantly higher than that in the non-MM arm (P<0.001) (Table 1).

The screening value of sLC ratio in the MM arm

The screening value of sLC ratio in the MM arm was analyzed by the ROC curve, and the AUC value was 0.875 (P< 0.0001) (Fig 1). The optimal screening cutoff value of sLC ratio was 3.2121, with a sensitivity of 81.16% and a specificity of 94.87% for the diagnosis of MM. The above-mentioned results suggest that sLC ratio has a high specificity for the diagnosis of MM, accompanying by a low sensitivity. It is necessary to combine sLC ratio with other clinical indicators to improve its sensitivity in MM screening.

Fig 1. ROC curve of sLC ratio.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Other clinical indicators of MM

Comparison of the two arms showed that the levels of β2-MG and Ig in the MM arm were significantly higher than those in the non-MM arm (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in LDH level between the two arms (P>0.05) (Table 1).

The screening value of clinical indicators of MM

The screening value of β2-MG, LDH, and Ig in the MM arm was analyzed by the ROC curve (Fig 2), and the AUC values were 0.843, 0.547, and 0.723, respectively. The optimal screening cutoff values were 1.95 mg/L, 220 U/L, and 46.4 g/L, respectively (Table 2). It was revealed that the screening accuracy of β2-MG and Ig was high, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.0001), while the sensitivity and specificity were still low.

Fig 2. ROC curve of sLC ratio, β2-MG, LDH and Ig.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Table 2. Area under the ROC curve of sLC ratio, β2-MG, LDH and Ig.

Clinical indicators AUC Standard error 95% confidence interval (AUC) Optimal cut-off value Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) P
sLC ratio 0.875 0.0337 0.832–0.910 >3.2121 81.16 94.87 <0.0001*
β 2 -MG 0.843 0.0248 0.797–0.882 >1.95mg/L 91.3 68.8 <0.0001*
LDH 0.547 0.0416 0.489–0.604 >220U/L 42.03 71.79 0.2627
Ig 0.723 0.0442 0.669–0.773 >46.4g/L 56.52 92.31 <0.0001*
Open in a new tab

* represents P<0.05, with statistical difference.

The screening value of combined MM-related clinical indicators

The screening value of combined MM-related clinical indicators was analyzed by the ROC curve (Table 3 and Fig 3). The triple combination of sLC ratio (3.2121), β2-MG (1.95 mg/L), and Ig (46.4 g/L) yielded a higher screening value (AUC, 0.952) compared with that of sLC ratio alone or other combined indicators (P<0.0001). In the triple combination, the sensitivity and specificity were 94.20% and 86.75%, respectively, indicating that it had a high screening value for MM. The addition of LDH to the triple combination and formation of quadruple combination did not optimize the screening value, with AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.952, 94.20%, and 85.47%, respectively. Collectively, the triple combination is the best combination model for a simple, economic and efficient screening of MM.

Table 3. The area under the ROC curve analysis of the sLC ratio single indicator and combined with other indicators.

Clinical indicators AUC Standard error 95% confidence interval (AUC) Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) P 1 P 2
sLC ratio 0.875 0.034 0.832~0.910 81.16 84.87 <0.0001*
sLC ratio+β 2 -MG 0.949 0.016 0.918~0.871 92.75 86.75 <0.0001* 0.0054*
sLC ratio+LDH 0.889 0.030 0.848~0.922 81.16 93.59 <0.0001* 0.2978
sLC ratio+Ig 0.870 0.035 0.827~0.906 81.16 94.44 <0.0001* 0.2305
sLC ratio+β 2 -MG+LDH 0.950 0.161 0.918~0.971 94.20 85.47 <0.0001* 0.0056*
sLC ratio+β 2 -MG+Ig 0.952 0.015 0.922~0.973 94.20 86.75 <0.0001* 0.004*
sLC ratio+LDH+Ig 0.887 0.031 0.846~0.920 81.16 93.59 <0.0001* 0.3646
sLC ratio+β 2 -MG+LDH+Ig 0.952 0.015 0.922~0.973 94.20 85.47 <0.0001* 0.0043*
Open in a new tab

* represents P<0.05, the difference is statistically significant. P1 is the statistical significance of the area under the ROC curve of each indicator. P2 is the statistical significance of the difference between sLC ratio and combined indicators in the context of the area under the ROC curve.

Fig 3. ROC curve of different combined clinical indicators.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

A, ROC curve of sLC ratio and two combined clinical indicators including sLC ratio.B, ROC curve of sLC ratio and three or four combined clinical indicators including sLC ratio. C, ROC curve of sLC ratio and other combined clinical indicators with an AUC>0.9.

Discussion

It is well-known that MM is a malignant disease with the abnormal proliferation of clonal plasma cells. It is a common malignant tumor of the hematological system [1, 2]. It mainly occurs in the elderly population, it is still incurable, and its incidence has recently increased in China. Clonal plasma cells proliferate in the bone marrow, resulting in multiple osteolytic lesions, hypercalcemia, anemia, and kidney impairment. The onset of MM is relatively insidious, which can easily lead to missed diagnosis and delayed optimal treatment. Therefore, early screening is extremely important. At present, IFE, serum protein electrophoresis, and serum-free light chain (SFLC) are the main assays for diagnosing MM. However, these assays have not been widely utilized in Chinese hospitals, especially in county or district hospitals. As these assays are time-consuming and relatively expensive, they are not appropriate for MM screening.

Normal human serum immunoglobulins are composed of a pair of light chains and heavy chains. Clonal plasma cells secrete a single-type of immunoglobulin, resulting in an imbalanced light chain ratio. Consequently, an abnormal sLC ratio may suggest monoclonal proliferation of plasma cells [4, 5]. The SFLC assay is a sensitive antibody-based method for the detection of low concentrations of monoclonal-free light chains in serum. The normal FLC ratio ranges from 0.26 to 1.65, while approximately 90% of MM patients have abnormal FLC ratios [6, 7]. For MM patients without other symptoms, if the ratio of involved/uninvolved FLC is ≥100, the reported risk of progression with end-organ damage in the next two years is as high as 70–80% [8–10]. In these patients, the risk of progression within the next two years increases to 93% if the absolute value of the involved FLC is higher than 100 mg/dL. Given a high rate of progression, an FLC ratio of ≥100 is currently considered to have a screening value for MM [3]. However, FLC testing is not highly popular in Chinese hospitals, and it is not appropriate for MM screening due to its time-consuming and being expensive features. However, the sLC detection requires a shorter time and a lower cost, thus, it can be broadly performed in Chinese hospitals. Therefore, several MM-related clinical indicators including sLC were combined and analyzed to find out a simple, economic and efficient screening method for MM.

Normally, immunoglobulin is an immunologically active polyclonal antibody secreted by plasma cells. Infections, autoimmune diseases, hepatocyte diseases, etc. could increase the value of immunoglobulin in a polyclonal manner. Although the absolute value of sLC varies, the sLC ratio remains normal. In the present study, the sLC ratio was used for MM screening, and the screening value of sLC ratio in MM was analyzed by the ROC curve. The AUC of sLC ratio was 0.875 (P<0.0001), the sensitivity was 81.16%, and the specificity was 94.87% indicating a high screening value for MM, while the sensitivity still needs to be improved. Therefore, different MM-related clinical indicators were combined and analyzed using the ROC curve. Ultimately, the triple combination (a combination of sLC ratio (3.2121), β2-MG (1.95 mg/L), and Ig (46.4 g/L)) yielded a higher screening value, in which AUC was 0.952 and the sensitivity was as high as 94.20%, indicating that the mentioned combination model could meet the demand of MM screening. This is a retrospective study, and further prospective studies with larger sample sizes should be therefore conducted.

In conclusion, the sLC ratio has a high screening value for MM with promising sensitivity and specificity, and it is of great significance for MM screening. The hybrid detection of sLC ratio, β2-MG, and Ig can significantly improve the screening value and sensitivity, and increase the positive rate of MM. The combination of sLC ratio, β2-MG, and Ig is the best combination model for a simple, economic and efficient screening of MM, and the best cut-off values were 3.2121, 1.95 mg/L, and 46.4 g/L, respectively.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file. (193.5KB, xls)

Abbreviations

AUC

area under curve

Cr

creatinine

FLC

free light chain

I/U

involved/uninvolved

IFE

immunofixation electrophoresis

Ig

immunoglobulin

IMWG

International Myeloma Working Group

LDH

lactic dehydrogenase

MM

multiple myeloma

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

sLC

Serum light chain

β2-MG

β2 microglobulin

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of our hospital’s privacy policy. Data are available from the Taizhou Central Hospital Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (contact via zxyykjc@tzzxyy.com) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

Linglong Xu received a grant from Taizhou Science and Technology Bureau (No. 20ywa31) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Liu W, Liu J, Song Y, Wang X, Zhou M, Wang L, et al. Mortality of lymphoma and myeloma in China, 2004–2017: an observational study. Journal of Hematology & Oncology. 2019;12. doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0706-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang S, Xu L, Feng J, Liu Y, Liu L, Wang J, et al. Prevalence and Incidence of Multiple Myeloma in Urban Area in China: A National Population-Based Analysis. Frontiers in Oncology. 2020;9. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(12):e538–48. Epub 2014/12/03. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Katzmann JA, Clark RJ, Abraham RS, Bryant S, Lymp JF, Bradwell AR, et al. Serum reference intervals and diagnostic ranges for free kappa and free lambda immunoglobulin light chains: Relative sensitivity for detection of monoclonal light chains. Clinical Chemistry. 2002;48(9):1437–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lanlan W, Lixin L, Weihua F, Ruiwei Z. The important signficance of the measurement of light chain ratios and immunoglobulin in diagnosis of light chain disease. Immunological Journal. 1999;15(1):46–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kyrtsonis MC, Vassilakopoulos TP, Kafasi N, Sachanas S, Tzenou T, Papadogiannis A, et al. Prognostic value of serum free light chain ratio at diagnosis in multiple myeloma. British journal of haematology. 2007;137(3):240–3. Epub 2007/04/06. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06561.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Snozek CL, Katzmann JA, Kyle RA, Dispenzieri A, Larson DR, Therneau TM, et al. Prognostic value of the serum free light chain ratio in newly diagnosed myeloma: proposed incorporation into the international staging system. Leukemia. 2008;22(10):1933–7. Epub 2008/07/04. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.171 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, Katzmann JA, Therneau TM, Larson D, Benson J, et al. Immunoglobulin free light chain ratio is an independent risk factor for progression of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;111(2):785–9. Epub 2007/10/19. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-08-108357 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Larsen JT, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, Katzmann JA, Rajkumar SV. Serum free light chain ratio as a biomarker for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2013;27(4):941–6. Epub 2012/11/28. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.296 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mikhael JR, Dingli D, Roy V, Reeder CB, Buadi FK, Hayman SR, et al. Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus guidelines 2013. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2013;88(4):360–76. Epub 2013/04/02. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.01.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vipa Thanachartwet

9 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-24567Evaluating the screening value of serum light chain ratio, β2 microglobulin, lactic dehydrogenase and immunoglobulin in patients with multiple myeloma using ROC curvesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xu Linglong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 We appreciate your study which is an interesting study. However, the manuscript does not meet the publication criteria as the study design and data should be appropriate and described in sufficient detail. Please carefully consider and respond all of the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by DEC 24 2022 11:59 PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vipa Thanachartwet, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The study was supported by the Scientific Project of Taizhou Science and Technology Bureau (No. 20ywa31)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"Linglong Xu received a grant from Taizhou Science and Technology Bureau（No. 20ywa31）

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a retrospective study of 303 suspected MM patients. The finding shows the triple combination (sLC

ratio+β2-MG+Ig) had a sensitivity of 94.20% and a specificity of 86.75%. I have some comments

1. Due to small number of cases, please provide smaple size caluculation to eveluate that the number of patients is optimal for this analysis

2. Patient in MM group shold be exclude patient with SFLC ratio >100 to compare with non-MM group because this study is objective to find factor predictive of MM dignosis. But patient with SFLC >100 can diagnosis of MM and do not need other lab parameters (β2-MG+Ig) to predict the diagnosis.

3. Beta-2 microgloulin might be false high in patients with renal impairment. Therefore please provide baseline creatinine and renal function between both groups.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Vipa Thanachartwet

31 Jan 2023

Evaluating the screening value of serum light chain ratio, β2 microglobulin, lactic dehydrogenase and immunoglobulin in patients with multiple myeloma using ROC curves

PONE-D-22-24567R1

Dear Dr. Xu Linglong,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vipa Thanachartwet, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All issues raised by the reviewer have been addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Vipa Thanachartwet

8 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-24567R1

Evaluating the screening value of serum light chain ratio, β2 microglobulin, lactic dehydrogenase and immunoglobulin in patients with multiple myeloma using ROC curves

Dear Dr. Xu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Associate Professor Vipa Thanachartwet

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLS)

    Click here for additional data file. (193.5KB, xls)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewer.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (460.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of our hospital’s privacy policy. Data are available from the Taizhou Central Hospital Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (contact via zxyykjc@tzzxyy.com) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES