Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations
- PMID: 30366974
- PMCID: PMC6282240
- DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006577
Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations
Abstract
Objective: To determine the proportion of true and false positives from paraneoplastic panels and effects on downstream testing/treatment.
Methods: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we identified 500 consecutive patients with Mayo paraneoplastic autoantibody testing and performed chart abstraction. Paraneoplastic presentation types were categorized into probable, possible, and other by consensus. True positives were defined as a positive antibody titer with no other explanation found in addition to one of the following: syndrome known to be associated with the antibody, clinical improvement with treatment, and new malignancy. Comparisons of diagnostic testing and treatments between false and true positives were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between patient-level factors and true positives.
Results: The mean (SD) age of the population was 55.4 (17.1) years, and 55.4% were female, with 1.3 (1.2) years of follow-up. Of the 500 tests, 87 (17.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.1%-20.7%) were positive and 62 (71.3%, 95% CI 61.8%-80.8%) of these were false positives. Of those with a possible/other presentation (n = 369), 2 (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%-1.0%) were true positives. CT of the chest (30.7% vs 11.8%, p ≤ 0.01) was performed more often in false positives than true negatives. Probable presentation type (odds ratio [OR] 57.9, 95% CI 12.5-268.0) and outpatient setting (OR 8.7, 95% CI 2.4-31.8) were associated with true-positive results.
Conclusion: Paraneoplastic tests result in a large proportion of false positives, particularly in those with clinical presentations that are not well established as paraneoplastic diseases. Future work should construct panels targeted to specific clinical presentations and ensure that tests are ordered in the appropriate clinical context.
© 2018 American Academy of Neurology.
Figures
Comment in
-
Reader response: Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations.Neurology. 2019 Sep 24;93(13):602. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008174. Neurology. 2019. PMID: 31551271 No abstract available.
-
Reader response: Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations.Neurology. 2019 Sep 24;93(13):603. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008178. Neurology. 2019. PMID: 31551272 No abstract available.
-
Author response: Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations.Neurology. 2019 Sep 24;93(13):604. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008177. Neurology. 2019. PMID: 31551273 No abstract available.
-
Reader response: Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations.Neurology. 2019 Sep 24;93(13):606. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008179. Neurology. 2019. PMID: 31551274 No abstract available.
-
Author response: Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations.Neurology. 2019 Sep 24;93(13):606-607. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008180. Neurology. 2019. PMID: 31551275 No abstract available.
References
-
- Darnell RB, Posner JB. Paraneoplastic syndromes involving the nervous system. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1543–1554. - PubMed
-
- Yanagihashi M, Kawabe K, Ikeda K. Presence of paraneoplastic antibodies in non-carcinomatous patients with neurological involvements of unknown cause. J Neurol Sci 2013;335:197–200. - PubMed
-
- Berger B, Bischler P, Dersch R, Hottenrott T, Rauer S, Stich O. “Non-classical” paraneoplastic neurological syndromes associated with well-characterized antineuronal antibodies as compared to “classical” syndromes: more frequent than expected. J Neurol Sci 2015;352:58–61. - PubMed
-
- Giometto B, Grisold W, Vitaliani R, et al. Paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome in the PNS Euronetwork database: a European study from 20 centers. Arch Neurol 2010;67:330–335. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources