Bogdan F G Popescu1, Yong Guo1, Mark E Jentoft1, Joseph E Parisi1, Vanda A Lennon1, Sean J Pittock1, Brian G Weinshenker1, Dean M Wingerchuk1, Caterina Giannini1, Imke Metz1, Wolfgang Brück1, Elizabeth A Shuster1, Jonathan Carter1, Clara D Boyd1, Stacey Lynn Clardy1, Bruce A Cohen1, Claudia F Lucchinetti2. 1. From the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology and Cameco MS Neuroscience Research Center (B.F.G.P.), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; the Departments of Neurology (Y.G., J.E.P., V.A.L., S.J.P., B.G.W., S.L.C., C.F.L.), Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (M.E.J., J.E.P., V.A.L., S.J.P., G.G.), and Immunology (V.A.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; the Department of Neurology (D.M.W., J.C.), Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; the Department of Neuropathology (I.M., W.B.), University Medical Center, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany; the Department of Neurology (E.A.S.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; the Department of Neurology (C.D.B.), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; and the Department of Neurology (B.A.C.), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. 2. From the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology and Cameco MS Neuroscience Research Center (B.F.G.P.), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; the Departments of Neurology (Y.G., J.E.P., V.A.L., S.J.P., B.G.W., S.L.C., C.F.L.), Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (M.E.J., J.E.P., V.A.L., S.J.P., G.G.), and Immunology (V.A.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; the Department of Neurology (D.M.W., J.C.), Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; the Department of Neuropathology (I.M., W.B.), University Medical Center, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany; the Department of Neurology (E.A.S.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; the Department of Neurology (C.D.B.), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; and the Department of Neurology (B.A.C.), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. lucchinetti.claudia@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess, in a surgical biopsy cohort of active demyelinating lesions, the diagnostic utility of aquaporin-4 (AQP4) immunohistochemistry in identifying neuromyelitis optica (NMO) or NMO spectrum disorder (NMOSD) and describe pathologic features that should prompt AQP4 immunohistochemical analysis and AQP4-immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic testing. METHODS: This was a neuropathologic cohort study of 20 surgical biopsies (19 patients; 11 cord/9 brain), performed because of diagnostic uncertainty, interpreted as active demyelinating disease and containing 2 or more of the following additional features: tissue vacuolation, granulocytic infiltrates, or astrocyte injury. RESULTS: AQP4 immunoreactivity was lost in 18 biopsies and increased in 2. Immunopathologic features of the AQP4 loss cohort were myelin vacuolation (18), dystrophic astrocytes and granulocytes (17), vascular hyalinization (16), macrophages containing glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP)-positive debris (14), and Creutzfeldt-Peters cells (0). All 14 cases with available serum tested positive for AQP4-IgG after biopsy. Diagnosis at last follow-up was NMO/NMOSD (15) and longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis (1 each relapsing and single). Immunopathologic features of the AQP4 increased cohort were macrophages containing GFAP-positive debris and granulocytes (2), myelin vacuolation (1), dystrophic astrocytes (1), Creutzfeldt-Peters cells (1), and vascular hyalinization (1). Diagnosis at last follow-up was multiple sclerosis (MS) and both tested AQP4-IgG seronegative after biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: AQP4 immunohistochemistry with subsequent AQP4-IgG testing has diagnostic utility in identifying cases of NMO/NMOSD. This study highlights the importance of considering NMOSD in the differential diagnosis of tumefactive brain or spinal cord lesions. AQP4-IgG testing may avert biopsy and avoid ineffective therapies if these patients are erroneously treated for MS.
OBJECTIVE: To assess, in a surgical biopsy cohort of active demyelinating lesions, the diagnostic utility of aquaporin-4 (AQP4) immunohistochemistry in identifying neuromyelitis optica (NMO) or NMO spectrum disorder (NMOSD) and describe pathologic features that should prompt AQP4 immunohistochemical analysis and AQP4-immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic testing. METHODS: This was a neuropathologic cohort study of 20 surgical biopsies (19 patients; 11 cord/9 brain), performed because of diagnostic uncertainty, interpreted as active demyelinating disease and containing 2 or more of the following additional features: tissue vacuolation, granulocytic infiltrates, or astrocyte injury. RESULTS:AQP4 immunoreactivity was lost in 18 biopsies and increased in 2. Immunopathologic features of the AQP4 loss cohort were myelin vacuolation (18), dystrophic astrocytes and granulocytes (17), vascular hyalinization (16), macrophages containing glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP)-positive debris (14), and Creutzfeldt-Peters cells (0). All 14 cases with available serum tested positive for AQP4-IgG after biopsy. Diagnosis at last follow-up was NMO/NMOSD (15) and longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis (1 each relapsing and single). Immunopathologic features of the AQP4 increased cohort were macrophages containing GFAP-positive debris and granulocytes (2), myelin vacuolation (1), dystrophic astrocytes (1), Creutzfeldt-Peters cells (1), and vascular hyalinization (1). Diagnosis at last follow-up was multiple sclerosis (MS) and both tested AQP4-IgG seronegative after biopsy. CONCLUSIONS:AQP4 immunohistochemistry with subsequent AQP4-IgG testing has diagnostic utility in identifying cases of NMO/NMOSD. This study highlights the importance of considering NMOSD in the differential diagnosis of tumefactive brain or spinal cord lesions. AQP4-IgG testing may avert biopsy and avoid ineffective therapies if these patients are erroneously treated for MS.
Authors: Sean J Pittock; Brian G Weinshenker; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Dean M Wingerchuk; John R Corboy; Vanda A Lennon Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2006-07
Authors: Shannon R Hinson; Michael F Romero; Bogdan F Gh Popescu; Claudia F Lucchinetti; James P Fryer; Hartwig Wolburg; Petra Fallier-Becker; Susan Noell; Vanda A Lennon Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: T Takahashi; I Miyazawa; T Misu; R Takano; I Nakashima; K Fujihara; M Tobita; Y Itoyama Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2008-04-17 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: M Nakamura; T Misu; K Fujihara; I Miyazawa; I Nakashima; T Takahashi; S Watanabe; Y Itoyama Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: W Oliver Tobin; Chiara Costanzi; Yong Guo; Joseph E Parisi; Stephen D Weigand; Claudia F Lucchinetti Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Matthew A Tremblay; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Soonmee Cha; Tarik Tihan; Jeffrey M Gelfand Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Heather E Moss; Tiffani S Stroup; Amy Y Lin; Oliver W Graf; Aaron M Halfpenny; Howard L Lipton; Ari M Blitz; Tibor Valyi-Nagy Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Dean M Wingerchuk; Brenda Banwell; Jeffrey L Bennett; Philippe Cabre; William Carroll; Tanuja Chitnis; Jérôme de Seze; Kazuo Fujihara; Benjamin Greenberg; Anu Jacob; Sven Jarius; Marco Lana-Peixoto; Michael Levy; Jack H Simon; Silvia Tenembaum; Anthony L Traboulsee; Patrick Waters; Kay E Wellik; Brian G Weinshenker Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 9.910