From the Neuroimmunology Program (F.G., J.D.), Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain; Centre de Référence National pour les Syndromes Neurologiques Paranéoplasique (A.V., S.M.-C., J.-C.G.A., V.D., B.J., L.T., J.H.), Hôpital Neurologique, Hospices Civils de Lyon; SynatAc Team (A.V., S.M.-C., V.D., B.J., L.T., J.H.), NeuroMyoGene Institute, INSERM U1217/CNRS UMR5310, Lyon; Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (A.V., S.M.-C., V.D., B.J., L.T., J.H.), Université de Lyon; Service de Neurologie (J.-C.G.A.), CHU de Saint-Etienne, France; Department of Neurology (D.D., A.M.), Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Neurology Unit (B.G.), Trento Hospital, Azienda Provinciale per I Servizi Sanitari (APSS) di Trento, Italy; Oxford Autoimmune Neurology Group (S.R.I.), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, United Kingdom; Neuroimmunology Section (F.L.), Institute of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Kiel/Lübeck; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin (H.P.), and Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (H.P.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Centre de Compétence des Syndromes Neurologiques Paranéoplasiques et Encéphalites Autoimmunes (D.P.), Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France; Department of Neurology 2 Mazarin (D.P.), and INSERM U 1127 (D.P.), CNRS UMR 7225, Centre de Recherche de l'Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle Epinière Groupe, Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtriêre et Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, AP-HP, France; Department of Neurology (M.J.T.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Medicine (C.A.V.), University of Bergen; Department of Neurology (C.A.V.), Haukeland University Hospital; Neuro-SysMed-Centre of Excellence for Experimental Therapy in Neurology (C.A.V.), Departments of Neurology and Clinical Medicine, Bergen, Norway; and Neurology Department (J.J.V.), Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2021 May 18;8(4). doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000001014. Print 2021 Jul.
The contemporary diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes (PNSs) requires an increasing understanding of their clinical, immunologic, and oncologic heterogeneity. The 2004 PNS criteria are partially outdated due to advances in PNS research in the last 16 years leading to the identification of new phenotypes and antibodies that have transformed the diagnostic approach to PNS. Here, we propose updated diagnostic criteria for PNS.
A panel of experts developed by consensus a modified set of diagnostic PNS criteria for clinical decision making and research purposes. The panel reappraised the 2004 criteria alongside new knowledge on PNS obtained from published and unpublished data generated by the different laboratories involved in the project.
The panel proposed to substitute "classical syndromes" with the term "high-risk phenotypes" for cancer and introduce the concept of "intermediate-risk phenotypes." The term "onconeural antibody" was replaced by "high risk" (>70% associated with cancer) and "intermediate risk" (30%-70% associated with cancer) antibodies. The panel classified 3 levels of evidence for PNS: definite, probable, and possible. Each level can be reached by using the PNS-Care Score, which combines clinical phenotype, antibody type, the presence or absence of cancer, and time of follow-up. With the exception of opsoclonus-myoclonus, the diagnosis of definite PNS requires the presence of high- or intermediate-risk antibodies. Specific recommendations for similar syndromes triggered by immune checkpoint inhibitors are also provided.
The proposed criteria and recommendations should be used to enhance the clinical care of patients with PNS and to encourage standardization of research initiatives addressing PNS.
目前,副肿瘤性神经系统综合征(PNS)的诊断需要深入了解其临床、免疫和肿瘤学的异质性。由于过去 16 年 PNS 研究取得了进展,出现了新的表型和抗体,改变了 PNS 的诊断方法,因此 2004 年的 PNS 标准已经部分过时。在此,我们提出了更新的 PNS 诊断标准。
通过共识,由一组专家制定了一套用于临床决策和研究目的的改良 PNS 诊断标准。专家组重新评估了 2004 年的标准,并结合了不同实验室在项目中发表和未发表的数据中获得的关于 PNS 的新知识。
专家组提议用“高危表型”取代“经典综合征”一词来描述癌症,同时引入“中危表型”的概念。术语“神经肿瘤抗体”被“高风险”(>70%与癌症相关)和“中风险”(30%-70%与癌症相关)抗体取代。专家组将 PNS 的证据水平分为 3 类:明确、可能和很可能。每个级别都可以通过使用 PNS-Care 评分来达到,该评分结合了临床表型、抗体类型、癌症的存在与否以及随访时间。除了眼阵挛-肌阵挛外,明确的 PNS 诊断需要存在高风险或中风险的抗体。还为免疫检查点抑制剂引发的类似综合征提供了具体的建议。
建议的标准和建议应用于提高 PNS 患者的临床护理水平,并鼓励针对 PNS 的研究计划的标准化。