评估自身免疫性神经系统疾病的商业组织检测(一):细胞内抗原抗体

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Chiara Milano, Pietro Businaro, Claudia Papi, Lionel Arlettaz, Laura Marmolejo, Laura Naranjo, Matteo Gastaldi, Raffaele Iorio, Albert Saiz, Jesús Planagumà, Esther Aguilar, Chiara Pizzanelli, Eugenia Martinez-Hernandez, Thaís Armangué, Mar Guasp, Raquel Ruiz-García, Lidia Sabater, Josep O Dalmau, Francesc Graus, Marianna Spatola
{"title":"评估自身免疫性神经系统疾病的商业组织检测(一):细胞内抗原抗体","authors":"Chiara Milano, Pietro Businaro, Claudia Papi, Lionel Arlettaz, Laura Marmolejo, Laura Naranjo, Matteo Gastaldi, Raffaele Iorio, Albert Saiz, Jesús Planagumà, Esther Aguilar, Chiara Pizzanelli, Eugenia Martinez-Hernandez, Thaís Armangué, Mar Guasp, Raquel Ruiz-García, Lidia Sabater, Josep O Dalmau, Francesc Graus, Marianna Spatola","doi":"10.1212/NXI.0000000000200410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Current strategies to detect autoantibodies against intracellular neural antigens (IC-Abs) include tissue-based assays (TBAs) alongside line blots or cell-based assays (CBAs). Many clinical laboratories use commercially available TBAs as a screening test, but their diagnostic yield has not been assessed. We determined the performance of 2 commercial TBAs in detecting IC-Abs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed samples from 100 patients with autoimmune or paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes harboring IC-Abs (confirmed by in-house TBAs and line blots or CBAs) and 50 negative controls. IC-Abs samples included serum (10 each for Hu, Yo, Ri, SOX1, CV2, Ma2, Tr, amphiphysin, and GAD65 antibodies) or CSF (10 with GFAP antibodies) samples. Two commercial indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) TBAs (INOVA and EUROIMMUN) were assessed by 2 experienced investigators and 3 less experienced raters, all blinded to antibody status. Discordant results were re-evaluated through interrater discussion and assessed using Cohen's kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2 experienced raters showed substantial agreement (85% for INOVA, 83% for EUROIMMUN) on negative/positive results, which increased to >95% after interrater discussion (Cohen's kappa 0.95 and 0.93, respectively). With IIF-INOVA, they correctly identified 118 of 150 samples (79%) and misclassified 28 of 150 (19%, 2 false positives and 26 false negatives) while results remained discordant in the remaining 4 of 150 samples (2%). With IIF-EUROIMMUN, they correctly identified 105 of 150 samples (70%) and misclassified 40 of 150 (27%, 6 false positives, 34 false negatives), with discordance in 5 of 150 samples (3%). Overall, the sensitivity was 73% for IIF-INOVA and 66% for IIF-EUROIMMUN. The specificity was 96% for IIF-INOVA and 88% for IIF-EUROIMMUN. Both TBAs showed low sensitivity in detecting CV2, SOX1, and amphiphysin antibodies while Ma2 antibodies were missed mainly by IIF-EUROIMMUN and Hu/Ri antibodies by IIF-INOVA. Antibody-specific immunostaining patterns were correctly identified in 62 of 100 positive samples with IIF-INOVA and 55 of 100 with IIF-EUROIMMUN (<i>p</i> = 0.34). Less experienced raters showed higher rates of false-positive results (up to 22% with IIF-EUROIMMUN).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The performance of commercial IIF-TBAs for IC-Abs detection is suboptimal, exhibiting high false-negative rates of 25%-35%. Therefore, commercial TBAs should not be used alone for IC-Abs screening, but alongside more sensitive techniques, such as line blots. Discordant results between 2 techniques should prompt retesting in reference centers with in-house TBAs, particularly when the suspicion of an autoimmune or paraneoplastic syndrome is high.</p>","PeriodicalId":19472,"journal":{"name":"Neurology® Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation","volume":"12 4","pages":"e200410"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Commercial Tissue-Based Assays for Autoimmune Neurologic Disorders (I): Antibodies to Intracellular Antigens.\",\"authors\":\"Chiara Milano, Pietro Businaro, Claudia Papi, Lionel Arlettaz, Laura Marmolejo, Laura Naranjo, Matteo Gastaldi, Raffaele Iorio, Albert Saiz, Jesús Planagumà, Esther Aguilar, Chiara Pizzanelli, Eugenia Martinez-Hernandez, Thaís Armangué, Mar Guasp, Raquel Ruiz-García, Lidia Sabater, Josep O Dalmau, Francesc Graus, Marianna Spatola\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/NXI.0000000000200410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Current strategies to detect autoantibodies against intracellular neural antigens (IC-Abs) include tissue-based assays (TBAs) alongside line blots or cell-based assays (CBAs). Many clinical laboratories use commercially available TBAs as a screening test, but their diagnostic yield has not been assessed. We determined the performance of 2 commercial TBAs in detecting IC-Abs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed samples from 100 patients with autoimmune or paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes harboring IC-Abs (confirmed by in-house TBAs and line blots or CBAs) and 50 negative controls. IC-Abs samples included serum (10 each for Hu, Yo, Ri, SOX1, CV2, Ma2, Tr, amphiphysin, and GAD65 antibodies) or CSF (10 with GFAP antibodies) samples. Two commercial indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) TBAs (INOVA and EUROIMMUN) were assessed by 2 experienced investigators and 3 less experienced raters, all blinded to antibody status. Discordant results were re-evaluated through interrater discussion and assessed using Cohen's kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2 experienced raters showed substantial agreement (85% for INOVA, 83% for EUROIMMUN) on negative/positive results, which increased to >95% after interrater discussion (Cohen's kappa 0.95 and 0.93, respectively). With IIF-INOVA, they correctly identified 118 of 150 samples (79%) and misclassified 28 of 150 (19%, 2 false positives and 26 false negatives) while results remained discordant in the remaining 4 of 150 samples (2%). With IIF-EUROIMMUN, they correctly identified 105 of 150 samples (70%) and misclassified 40 of 150 (27%, 6 false positives, 34 false negatives), with discordance in 5 of 150 samples (3%). Overall, the sensitivity was 73% for IIF-INOVA and 66% for IIF-EUROIMMUN. The specificity was 96% for IIF-INOVA and 88% for IIF-EUROIMMUN. Both TBAs showed low sensitivity in detecting CV2, SOX1, and amphiphysin antibodies while Ma2 antibodies were missed mainly by IIF-EUROIMMUN and Hu/Ri antibodies by IIF-INOVA. Antibody-specific immunostaining patterns were correctly identified in 62 of 100 positive samples with IIF-INOVA and 55 of 100 with IIF-EUROIMMUN (<i>p</i> = 0.34). Less experienced raters showed higher rates of false-positive results (up to 22% with IIF-EUROIMMUN).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The performance of commercial IIF-TBAs for IC-Abs detection is suboptimal, exhibiting high false-negative rates of 25%-35%. Therefore, commercial TBAs should not be used alone for IC-Abs screening, but alongside more sensitive techniques, such as line blots. Discordant results between 2 techniques should prompt retesting in reference centers with in-house TBAs, particularly when the suspicion of an autoimmune or paraneoplastic syndrome is high.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology® Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation\",\"volume\":\"12 4\",\"pages\":\"e200410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology® Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000200410\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology® Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000200410","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:目前检测细胞内神经抗原(IC-Abs)自身抗体的策略包括基于组织的检测(TBAs)以及细胞系印迹或基于细胞的检测(cba)。许多临床实验室使用市售的TBAs作为筛查试验,但其诊断率尚未得到评估。我们测定了2种商用tba检测IC-Abs的性能。方法:我们分析了来自100例自身免疫或副肿瘤神经综合征患者的样本,这些患者携带ic -抗体(通过内部TBAs和line blots或cba证实)和50例阴性对照。IC-Abs样本包括血清(Hu、Yo、Ri、SOX1、CV2、Ma2、Tr、amphiphysin和GAD65抗体各10份)或CSF (GFAP抗体10份)样本。两种商业间接免疫荧光(IIF) TBAs (INOVA和EUROIMMUN)由2名经验丰富的研究者和3名经验不足的评分者进行评估,均对抗体状态不知情。不一致的结果通过译员讨论重新评估,并使用Cohen’s kappa进行评估。结果:两名经验丰富的评分者对阴性/阳性结果的一致性相当高(INOVA为85%,EUROIMMUN为83%),经过评分者讨论后,这一一致性增加到bb0 95% (Cohen’s kappa分别为0.95和0.93)。使用IIF-INOVA,他们正确识别了150个样本中的118个(79%),错误分类了150个样本中的28个(19%,2个假阳性和26个假阴性),而150个样本中其余4个(2%)的结果仍然不一致。使用IIF-EUROIMMUN,他们正确识别了150个样本中的105个(70%),错误分类了150个样本中的40个(27%,6个假阳性,34个假阴性),150个样本中有5个(3%)不一致。总体而言,IIF-INOVA的敏感性为73%,IIF-EUROIMMUN的敏感性为66%。IIF-INOVA特异性为96%,IIF-EUROIMMUN特异性为88%。两种TBAs对CV2、SOX1和amphiphysin抗体的检测灵敏度较低,而Ma2抗体主要被IIF-EUROIMMUN和IIF-INOVA遗漏。100例IIF-INOVA阳性样本中有62例抗体特异性免疫染色模式被正确识别,100例IIF-EUROIMMUN阳性样本中有55例抗体特异性免疫染色模式被正确识别(p = 0.34)。经验不足的评分者显示出更高的假阳性结果率(IIF-EUROIMMUN高达22%)。讨论:商用IIF-TBAs用于IC-Abs检测的性能不理想,假阴性率高达25%-35%。因此,商业TBAs不应单独用于IC-Abs筛选,而应与更敏感的技术(如线印迹)一起使用。两种技术之间不一致的结果应促使参考中心在内部TBAs中重新检测,特别是当高度怀疑自身免疫或副肿瘤综合征时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing Commercial Tissue-Based Assays for Autoimmune Neurologic Disorders (I): Antibodies to Intracellular Antigens.

Background and objectives: Current strategies to detect autoantibodies against intracellular neural antigens (IC-Abs) include tissue-based assays (TBAs) alongside line blots or cell-based assays (CBAs). Many clinical laboratories use commercially available TBAs as a screening test, but their diagnostic yield has not been assessed. We determined the performance of 2 commercial TBAs in detecting IC-Abs.

Methods: We analyzed samples from 100 patients with autoimmune or paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes harboring IC-Abs (confirmed by in-house TBAs and line blots or CBAs) and 50 negative controls. IC-Abs samples included serum (10 each for Hu, Yo, Ri, SOX1, CV2, Ma2, Tr, amphiphysin, and GAD65 antibodies) or CSF (10 with GFAP antibodies) samples. Two commercial indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) TBAs (INOVA and EUROIMMUN) were assessed by 2 experienced investigators and 3 less experienced raters, all blinded to antibody status. Discordant results were re-evaluated through interrater discussion and assessed using Cohen's kappa.

Results: The 2 experienced raters showed substantial agreement (85% for INOVA, 83% for EUROIMMUN) on negative/positive results, which increased to >95% after interrater discussion (Cohen's kappa 0.95 and 0.93, respectively). With IIF-INOVA, they correctly identified 118 of 150 samples (79%) and misclassified 28 of 150 (19%, 2 false positives and 26 false negatives) while results remained discordant in the remaining 4 of 150 samples (2%). With IIF-EUROIMMUN, they correctly identified 105 of 150 samples (70%) and misclassified 40 of 150 (27%, 6 false positives, 34 false negatives), with discordance in 5 of 150 samples (3%). Overall, the sensitivity was 73% for IIF-INOVA and 66% for IIF-EUROIMMUN. The specificity was 96% for IIF-INOVA and 88% for IIF-EUROIMMUN. Both TBAs showed low sensitivity in detecting CV2, SOX1, and amphiphysin antibodies while Ma2 antibodies were missed mainly by IIF-EUROIMMUN and Hu/Ri antibodies by IIF-INOVA. Antibody-specific immunostaining patterns were correctly identified in 62 of 100 positive samples with IIF-INOVA and 55 of 100 with IIF-EUROIMMUN (p = 0.34). Less experienced raters showed higher rates of false-positive results (up to 22% with IIF-EUROIMMUN).

Discussion: The performance of commercial IIF-TBAs for IC-Abs detection is suboptimal, exhibiting high false-negative rates of 25%-35%. Therefore, commercial TBAs should not be used alone for IC-Abs screening, but alongside more sensitive techniques, such as line blots. Discordant results between 2 techniques should prompt retesting in reference centers with in-house TBAs, particularly when the suspicion of an autoimmune or paraneoplastic syndrome is high.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
2.30%
发文量
219
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation is an official journal of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation will be the premier peer-reviewed journal in neuroimmunology and neuroinflammation. This journal publishes rigorously peer-reviewed open-access reports of original research and in-depth reviews of topics in neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation, affecting the full range of neurologic diseases including (but not limited to) Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS, tauopathy, and stroke; multiple sclerosis and NMO; inflammatory peripheral nerve and muscle disease, Guillain-Barré and myasthenia gravis; nervous system infection; paraneoplastic syndromes, noninfectious encephalitides and other antibody-mediated disorders; and psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. Clinical trials, instructive case reports, and small case series will also be featured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信