Interpretation of ANA Indirect Immunofluorescence Test Outside the Darkroom Using NOVA View Compared to Manual Microscopy

Overview

Journal J Immunol Res

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Allergy & Immunology

Date 2014 Apr 18

PMID 24741573

Citations 8

Authors

Susan S Copple

Troy D Jaskowski

Rashelle Giles

Harry R Hill

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate NOVA View with focus on reading archived images versus microscope based manual interpretation of ANA HEp-2 slides by an experienced, certified medical technologist.

Methods: 369 well defined sera from: 44 rheumatoid arthritis, 50 systemic lupus erythematosus, 35 scleroderma, 19 Sjögren's syndrome, and 10 polymyositis patients as well as 99 healthy controls were examined. In addition, 12 defined sera from the Centers for Disease Control and 100 random patient sera sent to ARUP Laboratories for ANA HEp-2 IIF testing were included. Samples were read using the archived images on NOVA View and compared to results obtained from manual reading.

Results: At a 1 : 40/1 : 80 dilution the resulting comparison demonstrated 94.8%/92.9% positive, 97.4%/97.4% negative, and 96.5%/96.2% total agreements between manual IIF and NOVA View archived images. Agreement of identifiable patterns between methods was 97%, with PCNA and mixed patterns undetermined.

Conclusion: Excellent agreements were obtained between reading archived images on NOVA View and manually on a fluorescent microscope. In addition, workflow benefits were observed which need to be analyzed in future studies.

Citing Articles

Harmonization of ANA testing challenge: quantification strategy to accurately predict end-point titers avoiding serial dilution.

Carbone T, Pafundi V, Ciardo V, Infantino M, Muscella A, DAngelo S Immunol Res. 2023; 72(1):96-102.

PMID: 37792145 DOI: 10.1007/s12026-023-09417-w.

Standardization and Quality Assessment Under the Perspective of Automated Computer-Assisted HEp-2 Immunofluorescence Assay Systems.

Cinquanta L, Bizzaro N, Pesce G Front Immunol. 2021; 12:638863.

PMID: 33717188 PMC: 7947926. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.638863.

Anti-NT5c1A Autoantibodies as Biomarkers in Inclusion Body Myositis.

Amlani A, Choi M, Tarnopolsky M, Brady L, Clarke A, Torre I Front Immunol. 2019; 10:745.

PMID: 31024569 PMC: 6465553. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00745.

Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing.

Ricchiuti V, Adams J, Hardy D, Katayev A, Fleming J Front Immunol. 2018; 9:927.

PMID: 29780386 PMC: 5946161. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00927.

The burden of the variability introduced by the HEp-2 assay kit and the CAD system in ANA indirect immunofluorescence test.

Infantino M, Meacci F, Grossi V, Manfredi M, Benucci M, Merone M Immunol Res. 2016; 65(1):345-354.

PMID: 27456204 DOI: 10.1007/s12026-016-8845-3.

References

Swaak A . [Diagnostic significance of antinuclear antibodies]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000; 144(13):585-9. View

Bossuyt X, Cooreman S, De Baere H, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Blockmans D . Detection of antinuclear antibodies by automated indirect immunofluorescence analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2012; 415:101-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2012.09.021. View

Egner W . The use of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of SLE. J Clin Pathol. 2000; 53(6):424-32. PMC: 1731203. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.53.6.424. View

Perner P, Perner H, Muller B . Mining knowledge for HEp-2 cell image classification. Artif Intell Med. 2002; 26(1-2):161-73. DOI: 10.1016/s0933-3657(02)00057-x. View

Hiemann R, Buttner T, Krieger T, Roggenbuck D, Sack U, Conrad K . Challenges of automated screening and differentiation of non-organ specific autoantibodies on HEp-2 cells. Autoimmun Rev. 2009; 9(1):17-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2009.02.033. View

Foggia P, Percannella G, Soda P, Vento M . Benchmarking HEp-2 cells classification methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013; 32(10):1878-89. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2268163. View

Van Blerk M, Van Campenhout C, Bossuyt X, Duchateau J, Humbel R, Servais G . Current practices in antinuclear antibody testing: results from the Belgian External Quality Assessment Scheme. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008; 47(1):102-8. DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.021. View

Tan E, Smolen J, McDougal J, Butcher B, Conn D, Dawkins R . A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassays for detection of antinuclear autoantibodies of defined specificities. I. Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Arthritis Rheum. 1999; 42(3):455-64. DOI: 10.1002/1529-0131(199904)42:3<455::AID-ANR10>3.0.CO;2-3. View

Agmon-Levin N, Damoiseaux J, Kallenberg C, Sack U, Witte T, Herold M . International recommendations for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013; 73(1):17-23. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203863. View

10.

Tonuttia E, Bassetti D, Piazza A, Visentini D, Poletto M, Bassetto F . Diagnostic accuracy of ELISA methods as an alternative screening test to indirect immunofluorescence for the detection of antinuclear antibodies. Evaluation of five commercial kits. Autoimmunity. 2004; 37(2):171-6. DOI: 10.1080/08916930310001657010. View

11.

Fenger M, Wiik A, Hoier-Madsen M, Lykkegaard J, Rozenfeld T, Hansen M . Detection of antinuclear antibodies by solid-phase immunoassays and immunofluorescence analysis. Clin Chem. 2004; 50(11):2141-7. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2004.038422. View

12.

Willitzki A, Hiemann R, Peters V, Sack U, Schierack P, Rodiger S . New platform technology for comprehensive serological diagnostics of autoimmune diseases. Clin Dev Immunol. 2013; 2012:284740. PMC: 3536031. DOI: 10.1155/2012/284740. View

13.

Roggenbuck D, Hiemann R, Bogdanos D, Reinhold D, Conrad K . Standardization of automated interpretation of immunofluorescence tests. Clin Chim Acta. 2013; 421:168-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.03.019. View

14.

Emlen W, ONeill L . Clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies: comparison of detection with immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Arthritis Rheum. 1997; 40(9):1612-8. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780400910. View

15.

Roggenbuck D, Hiemann R, Schierack P, Reinhold D, Conrad K . Digital immunofluorescence enables automated detection of antinuclear antibody endpoint titers avoiding serial dilution. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013; 52(2):e9-11. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2013-0543. View

16.

Voigt J, Krause C, Rohwader E, Saschenbrecker S, Hahn M, Danckwardt M . Automated indirect immunofluorescence evaluation of antinuclear autoantibodies on HEp-2 cells. Clin Dev Immunol. 2012; 2012:651058. PMC: 3502836. DOI: 10.1155/2012/651058. View

17.

Mahler M, Fritzler M, Bluthner M . Identification of a SmD3 epitope with a single symmetrical dimethylation of an arginine residue as a specific target of a subpopulation of anti-Sm antibodies. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005; 7(1):R19-29. PMC: 1064884. DOI: 10.1186/ar1455. View

18.

Bizzaro N, Antico A, Platzgummer S, Tonutti E, Bassetti D, Pesente F . Automated antinuclear immunofluorescence antibody screening: a comparative study of six computer-aided diagnostic systems. Autoimmun Rev. 2013; 13(3):292-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2013.10.015. View

19.

Bonroy C, Verfaillie C, Smith V, Persijn L, De Witte E, De Keyser F . Automated indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody analysis is a standardized alternative for visual microscope interpretation. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013; 51(9):1771-9. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2013-0016. View

20.

Schouwers S, Bonnet M, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Blockmans D, Marien G . Value-added reporting of antinuclear antibody testing by automated indirect immunofluorescence analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013; 52(4):547-51. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2013-0610. View