Terence Ang1, Valerie Juniat2, Dinesh Selva2. 1. Discipline of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. terencewxang@gmail.com. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Immunogenic causes of inflammation may be difficult to differentiate in the work-up of orbital inflammatory disease. The study aims to investigate the utility of autoimmune markers in the screening for orbital inflammation. Markers studied included angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), antinuclear antibody (ANA), anti-neutrophilic cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA), extractable nuclear antigen (ENA), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (Anti-CCP) and anti-double stranded DNA antibody (Anti-dsDNA antibody). METHODS: A retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients with non-infective orbital inflammation screened for autoimmune markers at presentation. Serology was interpreted alongside clinical course and other investigations (e.g. radiographic features and histopathology). Tabulated data and Pearson's Chi-square allowed analysis of trends between serology, diagnosis and the decision to biopsy. RESULTS: 79 patients, between 1999 and 2021, were included (50 females, mean age was 50.4 ± 17.4 years). 28 (34.6%) patients had specific orbital inflammation and 53 (65.4%) patients had non-specific orbital inflammation (NSOI). Of the 12 patients with positive serology and a specific diagnosis, only 5 (41.7%) patients had concordant serological results. There was no association between serology results and the patient undergoing biopsy (P = 0.651). Serology was unable to exclude nor differentiate NSOI from other specific conditions and ANA had limited discriminatory value between specific conditions and NSOI. CONCLUSION: Serological testing alone may not provide a clear direction for further investigation of orbital inflammation and a biopsy may occur independently of the serological results. The value of autoimmune markers may lie in subsequent follow-up as patients may develop suggestive symptoms after an indeterminate positive result or initially seronegative disease.
PURPOSE: Immunogenic causes of inflammation may be difficult to differentiate in the work-up of orbital inflammatory disease. The study aims to investigate the utility of autoimmune markers in the screening for orbital inflammation. Markers studied included angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), antinuclear antibody (ANA), anti-neutrophilic cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA), extractable nuclear antigen (ENA), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (Anti-CCP) and anti-double stranded DNA antibody (Anti-dsDNA antibody). METHODS: A retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients with non-infective orbital inflammation screened for autoimmune markers at presentation. Serology was interpreted alongside clinical course and other investigations (e.g. radiographic features and histopathology). Tabulated data and Pearson's Chi-square allowed analysis of trends between serology, diagnosis and the decision to biopsy. RESULTS: 79 patients, between 1999 and 2021, were included (50 females, mean age was 50.4 ± 17.4 years). 28 (34.6%) patients had specific orbital inflammation and 53 (65.4%) patients had non-specific orbital inflammation (NSOI). Of the 12 patients with positive serology and a specific diagnosis, only 5 (41.7%) patients had concordant serological results. There was no association between serology results and the patient undergoing biopsy (P = 0.651). Serology was unable to exclude nor differentiate NSOI from other specific conditions and ANA had limited discriminatory value between specific conditions and NSOI. CONCLUSION: Serological testing alone may not provide a clear direction for further investigation of orbital inflammation and a biopsy may occur independently of the serological results. The value of autoimmune markers may lie in subsequent follow-up as patients may develop suggestive symptoms after an indeterminate positive result or initially seronegative disease.
Authors: R Kapur; A R Sepahdari; M F Mafee; A M Putterman; V Aakalu; L J A Wendel; P Setabutr Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R Y Leavitt; A S Fauci; D A Bloch; B A Michel; G G Hunder; W P Arend; L H Calabrese; J F Fries; J T Lie; R W Lightfoot Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1990-08
Authors: Archana Srinivasan; Teri T Kleinberg; Ann P Murchison; Jurij R Bilyk Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.746
Authors: Archana Srinivasan; Teri T Kleinberg; Ann P Murchison; Jurij R Bilyk Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 1.746
Authors: Teresa A Ferreira; P Saraiva; S W Genders; M V Buchem; G P M Luyten; J-W Beenakker Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 2.804