Association of Anti–Transcription Intermediary Factor 1γ Antibodies With Paraneoplastic Rheumatic Syndromes Other Than Dermatomyositis. Issue 4 (29th March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Venalis, Paulius; Selickaja, Sandra; Lundberg, Karin; Rugiene, Rita; Lundberg, Ingrid E.
• Is Part Of: Arthritis care & research. Volume 70:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 648
• Page End: 651
• Publication Date: 2018-03-29
• Subjects: Arthritis -- Periodicals; Rheumatism -- Periodicals; 616.72
• DOI: 10.1002/acr.23325
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2151-464X

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: An association between cancer and dermatomyositis (DM) is well recognized. The high frequency of malignancies detected close to DM diagnosis suggest that DM can be a paraneoplastic syndrome. Recently, anti–transcription intermediary factor 1γ (anti‐TIF1γ) has been discovered to be associated with cancer and with DM. A meta‐analysis reported the pooled sensitivity of anti‐p155 for diagnosing cancer‐associated DM to be 78% and the specificity to be 89%. Thus, anti‐TIF1γ has shown promising results as a marker for cancer‐associated DM. However, none of the studies evaluated the association of anti‐TIF1γ with cancer with or without rheumatic diseases other than DM. To clarify the specificity of anti‐TIF1γ antibodies as a biomarker for cancer‐associated DM, we analyzed the frequency of anti‐TIF1γ antibodies in other cancer‐associated rheumatic syndromes, as well as in cancer patients and healthy controls. Methods: Sera from patients with paraneoplastic rheumatic syndrome (n = 91), patients with solid cancer (n = 95), and healthy controls (n = 80) were analyzed for the frequency of anti‐TIF1γ IgG by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay using a commercially available recombinant TIF1γ protein as coating antigen. The cutoff value was calculated by adding 2 SD to the mean optical density value of 80 healthy controls. Results: The rate of anti‐TIF1γ IgG positivity was 3.3% (n = 3) in patients with paraneoplastic rheumatic syndrome, 3.1% (n = 3) in cancer patients, and 1.3% (n = 1) in healthy controls. There were no significant differences in positivity between the groups ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Anti‐TIF1γ antibodies are rarely present in patients with solid cancers or paraneoplastic rheumatic syndromes. This finding strengthens the approach to using anti‐TIF1γ IgG as a marker for cancer‐associated DM.