Reader response: Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations

Clinical approach to diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes

The correct diagnosis of a paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome (PNS) first requires the identification of the syndrome as one of those defined as high-risk (previously called classical) or intermediate-risk for cancer in the 2021 PNS diagnostic criteria. Testing for neuronal antibodies should be restricted to these syndromes as indiscriminate request decreases the diagnostic value of the antibodies. Identifying onconeural (high-risk for cancer) or intermediate-risk for cancer antibodies supports the paraneoplastic diagnosis and mandates the search for an underlying cancer. Tumor screening must follow the published guidelines. Repeated screening is indicated in neurologic syndromes with onconeural antibodies and patients with high-risk for cancer neurologic syndromes unless they present neuronal antibodies which are not associated with cancer. Neuronal antibodies should be screened by immunohistochemistry and confirmed by immunoblot (intracellular antigens) or cell-based assay (CBA) (surface antigens). Positive results only by immunoblot or CBA should be taken with caution. Although the 2021 diagnostic criteria for PNS do not capture all PNS, as they do not allow to diagnose definite PNS neurologic syndromes without neuronal antibodies, the updated criteria represent a step forward to differentiate true PNS from neurologic syndromes that coincide in time with cancer diagnosis without having a pathogenic link.

Paraneoplastic neuropathies and peripheral nerve hyperexcitability disorders

Peripheral neuropathy is a common referral for patients to the neurologic clinics. Paraneoplastic neuropathies account for a small but high morbidity and mortality subgroup. Symptoms include weakness, sensory loss, sweating irregularity, blood pressure instability, severe constipation, and neuropathic pain. Neuropathy is the first presenting symptom of malignancy among many patients. The molecular and cellular oncogenic immune targets reside within cell bodies, axons, cytoplasms, or surface membranes of neural tissues. A more favorable immune treatment outcome occurs in those where the targets reside on the cell surface. Patients with antibodies binding cell surface antigens commonly have neural hyperexcitability with pain, cramps, fasciculations, and hyperhidrotic attacks (CASPR2, LGI1, and others). The antigenic targets are also commonly expressed in the central nervous system, with presenting symptoms being myelopathy, encephalopathy, and seizures with neuropathy, often masked. Pain and autonomic components typically relate to small nerve fiber involvement (nociceptive, adrenergic, enteric, and sudomotor), sometimes without nerve fiber loss but rather hyperexcitability. The specific antibodies discovered help direct cancer investigations. Among the primary axonal paraneoplastic neuropathies, pathognomonic clinical features do not exist, and testing for multiple antibodies simultaneously provides the best sensitivity in testing (AGNA1-SOX1; amphiphysin; ANNA-1-HU; ANNA-3-DACH1; CASPR2; CRMP5; LGI1; PCA2-MAP1B, and others). Performing confirmatory antibody testing using adjunct methods improves specificity. Antibody-mediated demyelinating paraneoplastic neuropathies are limited to MAG-IgM (IgM-MGUS, Waldenström's, and myeloma), with the others associated with cytokine elevations (VEGF, IL6) caused by osteosclerotic myeloma, plasmacytoma (POEMS), and rarely angiofollicular lymphoma (Castleman's). Paraneoplastic disorders have clinical overlap with other idiopathic antibody disorders, including IgG4 demyelinating nodopathies (NF155 and Contactin-1). This review summarizes the paraneoplastic neuropathies, including those with peripheral nerve hyperexcitability.

A diagnostic score for anti-myelin-associated-glycoprotein neuropathy or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy in patients with anti-myelin-associated-glycoprotein antibody

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A diagnostic score was developed to discriminate anti-myelin-associated-glycoprotein (MAG) neuropathy from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and applied it to patients with atypical anti-MAG neuropathy.

METHODS

The clinical and electrophysiological features of patients with a diagnosis of typical anti-MAG neuropathy were compared to those of patients with a diagnosis of CIDP. The association of each feature with the diagnosis was assessed in the two groups. Features showing a significant association with the diagnosis were included in a multivariable logistic regression model and adjusted odds ratios were estimated for each feature. A score ranging from 1 to 3 was applied to each feature based on the magnitude of the estimated odds ratios. The score was then applied to patients with a clinical diagnosis of CIDP who also had high anti-MAG antibody titers (CIDP-MAG).

RESULTS

Thirty-one anti-MAG neuropathy patients, 45 typical CIDP patients and 16 CIDP-MAG patients were included. Scores in anti-MAG antibody patients ranged from 1 to 5 and in CIDP patients from -7 to -1. Using the score, 4/16 CIDP-MAG patients were diagnosed to have anti-MAG neuropathy and 12/16 patients to have CIDP. Response to intravenous immunoglobulin in the CIDP-MAG patients classified as CIDP was similar to that of definite CIDP patients and higher than that of anti-MAG neuropathy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our score allowed an accurate discrimination to be made, amongst patients with anti-MAG antibodies, of those affected by CIDP and the patients with anti-MAG neuropathy. This score may help proper treatment to be chosen for patients with anti-MAG antibodies with a CIDP-like presentation.

Clinical, Neuroimmunologic, and CSF Investigations in First Episode Psychosis

OBJECTIVES

To report the neuropsychiatric features and frequency of NMDA receptor (NMDAR) and other neuronal immunoglobulin G antibodies in patients with first episode psychosis (FEP) and to assess the performance of reported warning signs and criteria for autoimmune psychosis (AP).

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of patients with FEP assessed for neuropsychiatric symptoms, serum and CSF neuronal antibodies (brain immunohistochemistry, cell-based assays, live neurons), and warning signs and criteria of AP. Previous autoimmune FEP series were reviewed.

RESULTS

One hundred five patients were included; their median age was 30 (range 14-75) years, and 44 (42%) were female. None had neuronal antibodies. Two of 105 (2%) had CSF pleocytosis, 4 of 100 (4%) had brain MRI abnormalities, and 3 of 73 (4%) EEG alterations. Thirty-four (32%) and 39 (37%) patients fulfilled 2 sets of warning signs of AP, and 21 (20%) fulfilled criteria of possible or probable AP, yet none developed AP. The cause of FEP was psychiatric in 101 (96%) and nonpsychiatric in 4 (4%). During this study, 3 patients with psychosis caused by anti-NMDAR encephalitis were transferred to our center; 2 did not meet criteria for possible AP. Of 1,159 reported patients with FEP, only 7 (1%) had CSF studies; 36 (3%) had serum NMDAR antibodies (without definite diagnosis of AP), and 4 had CSF NMDAR antibodies (3 classic anti-NMDAR encephalitis and 1 with isolated psychiatric features).

CONCLUSIONS

NMDAR antibodies were not found in patients with FEP unless they had anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Warning signs and criteria for AP have limited utility when neurologic symptoms are absent or paraclinical tests are normal. A diagnostic algorithm for autoimmune FEP is provided.

Neural Antibody Testing in Patients with Suspected Autoimmune Encephalitis

Background

Autoimmunity is an increasingly recognized cause of encephalitis with a similar prevalence to that of infectious etiologies. Over the past decade there has been a rapidly expanding list of antibody biomarker discoveries that have aided in the identification and characterization of autoimmune encephalitis. As the number of antibody biomarkers transitioning from the research setting into clinical laboratories has accelerated, so has the demand and complexity of panel-based testing. Clinical laboratories are increasingly involved in discussions related to test utilization and providing guidance on which testing methodologies provide the best clinical performance.

Content

To ensure optimal clinical sensitivity and specificity, comprehensive panel-based reflexive testing based on the predominant neurological phenotypic presentation (e.g., encephalopathy) is ideal in the workup of cases of suspected autoimmune neurological disease. Predictive scores based on the clinical workup can aid in deciding when to order a test. Testing of both CSF and serum is recommended with few exceptions. Appropriate test ordering and interpretation requires an understanding of both testing methodologies and performance of antibody testing in different specimen types.

Summary

This review discusses important considerations in the design and selection of neural antibody testing methodologies and panels. Increased collaboration between pathologists, laboratorians, and neurologists will lead to improved utilization of complex autoimmune neurology antibody testing panels.

Improving accuracy of myasthenia gravis autoantibody testing by reflex algorithm

OBJECTIVE

To improve myasthenia gravis (MG) autoantibody testing.

METHODS

MG serologic tests with confirmatory or refuting clinical-electrodiagnostic (EDX) testing and cancer evaluations were reviewed over 4 years (2012-2015). All patients had acetylcholine receptor-binding (AChR-Bi), modulating (AChR-Mo), and striational (STR) autoantibody testing, and negatives reflexed to muscle-specific kinase (MuSK). Thymoma and cancer occurrences were correlated with STR and reflexed glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65), ganglionic acetylcholine receptor (α3), collapsin response mediating protein-5, and voltage-gated potassium channel complex autoantibodies.

RESULTS

Of 433 samples tested, 133 (31%) met clinical-EDX criteria for MG. Best sensitivity (90%) occurred at AChR-Bi >0.02 nmol/L, leaving 14 negative (6 ocular MG, 7 generalized MG, 1 MuSK MG) with specificity 90% (31 false-positives). Using AChR-Mo antibodies (>20% loss), specificity was better (92%, 24 false-positives), but sensitivity dropped (85%). Specificity improved (95%) by testing AChR-Mo when AChR-Bi are positive, resulting in 45% reduction of false-positives (31-17), maintaining AChR-Bi 90% sensitivity. Cutoff values recommended by area under the curve analysis did not outperform this approach. AChR-Bi and AChR-Mo values were significantly higher in true-positives. CT evaluations in 121 MG samples revealed 16 thymomas. Historical or subsequent cancers occurred in 22. STR and reflexed autoantibodies were not more common in MG with thymoma or other cancers. Full-body CT (n = 34) was performed in those with STR and reflex autoantibody positivity, but without additional cancers found.

CONCLUSION

Accuracy of MG serologic testing is improved by reflexing AChR-Bi-positive cases to AChR-Mo. STR and other reflexed cancer evaluation autoantibodies did not provide value beyond standard CT chest imaging at the time of MG diagnosis. Diagnostic certainty is informed by AChR-Bi and AChR-Mo with higher values increasing specificity.

The Diagnostic Value of Onconeural Antibodies Depends on How They Are Tested

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.