Search

Detection of onconeural antibodies is important because establishes a definitive diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurological syndrome (PNS). The recommended method for diagnosis of onconeural antibodies is by immunohistochemistry on rodent brain sections and confirmation of results by immunoblot. However, in many diagnostic laboratories samples are only tested with commercial line blots. In this study we inquired whether this change in diagnostic methodology (line blot alone vs. combined immunohistochemistry and line blot) would affect the results. Among 439 samples examined by immunohistochemistry and a commercial line blot (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany) 96 (22%) were positive by line blot, and their clinical information was reviewed. Onconeural antibodies were detected by both assays in 46/96 (48%) patients (concordant group) whereas 50 (52%) were only positive by line blot (discordant group). In the concordant group 42/46 (91%) patients had a definite diagnosis of PNS whereas in the discordant group only 4/50 (8%) had PNS ( p < 0.00001). None of the 14 patients with ZIC4 antibodies and 1/13 (8%) with Yo antibodies demonstrated only by line blot had PNS. These findings show a robust diagnostic value of combined diagnostic techniques, and both should be used to demonstrate onconeural antibodies, If antibody testing is performed only with line blot assay, positive bands should be confirmed by rodent brain immunohistochemistry. For ZIC4 or Yo antibody testing, line blot positivity with negative immunohistochemistry has no diagnostic significance, and for the rest of onconeural antibodies the predictive diagnostic value is low., (Copyright © 2020 Ruiz-García, Martínez-Hernández, Saiz, Dalmau and Graus.)

Objectives Anti‐TIF1-gamma autoantibodies can be detected with immunoprecipitation (IP), line blot (LB) and ELISA. We compared assay performance in patients with DM and the potential of these assays to detect anti-TIF1-gamma positive cancer-associated DM (CADM). Methods We included sera from 131 patients with DM followed at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden and 82 healthy controls. Serum samples taken at DM diagnosis were tested for anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibodies with IP, two ELISAs (in-house and commercial) and LB. Cancer diagnosis and dates were obtained from the Swedish national cancer register. CADM was defined as a malignancy that developed within 3 years of DM diagnosis. Results Anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibodies were detected in 19/101 (18.8%), 15/113 (13.2%), 34/131 (26%) and 45/131 (34.4%) of the patients with IP, LB, in-house and commercial ELISA, respectively. The anti-TIF1-gamma results from the in-house ELISA were confirmed with IP in 93 of 101 (92%) cases, κ = 0.76, with a commercial ELISA in 110 of 131 (84%) cases, κ = 0.63, and with LB in 101 of 113 (89.3%) cases, κ = 0.67. Anti-TIF1-gamma results with IP were confirmed with LB in 85 of 92 (92.4%) cases, κ = 0.73. For detecting CADM, the anti-TIF1-gamma in-house ELISA had a sensitivity of 58% and specificity of 86%, the commercial ELISA had a sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 82%, IP had a sensitivity of 52% and specificity of 92%, LB had a sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 96%. Conclusion The two anti-TIF1-gamma ELISA assays had advantages both for autoantibody detection and to identify anti-TIF1-gamma-positive CADM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Serological testing for myositis-specific or associated autoantibodies [myositis-specific antibody (MSA) and myositis-associated antibody (MAA)] is useful for the diagnosis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). However, available assays are neither standardized nor validated. The objective is to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial line blot assay for myositis diagnosis.Methods. IgG antibodies against Jo-1, PL-7, PL-12, PM/Scl, Ku, Mi-2 and Ro52 antigens were detected by a line blot and in-house RNA immunoprecipitation or immunoblot. We tested sera from 208 IIM patients, 50 healthy subjects and 180 control patients (11 non-autoimmune myopathy, 23 muscular dystrophy, 11 UCTD, 68 SLE, 36 SSc, 22 SS and 9 arthropathy).Results. MSAs or MAAs were detected in 98 (47%) out of the 208 IIM patients by line blot: anti-Jo-1 in 43 (21%), anti-PL-7 or anti-PL-12 in 8 (4%), anti-Mi-2 in 9 (4%), anti-PM/Scl in 9 (4%), anti-Ku in 10 (5%) and anti-Ro52 in 49 (24%). Overall specificity was: 100% for anti-Jo-1, anti-PL-7 or PL-12 and anti-PM/Scl; 96% for anti-Ku; 98% for anti-Mi-2; and 76% for anti-Ro52. In-house testing confirmed line blot results regarding anti-Jo-1, anti-PM/Scl and anti-Ku, while it was more accurate than line blot in detecting anti-Mi-2 (7 vs 4% sensitivity, 100 vs 98% specificity), and anti-aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (anti-ARS) non-Jo-1 antibodies (11 vs 4% sensitivity, 97 vs 99% specificity).Conclusions. Line blot could be a suitable serological test in the diagnostic workup for myositis, and it represents a reliable alternative to more time-consuming procedures. Continuous effort is recommended in order to improve its accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]