Paraneoplastic Autoantibody Testing at an Academic Medical Center

Published: 15 July 2021| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/ydskhmmmz4.1
Contributors:
Matthew Krasowski,
,
,
,

Description

Supplementary file 1: Data for 487 Mayo serum paraneoplastic panel orders (test code: PAVAL) on 483 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2018. Supplementary file 2: Data for 280 Mayo CSF paraneoplastic panel (test code: PAC1) orders on 276 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is January 6, 2009 through November 30, 2018. Supplementary file 3: Data for 142 ARUP Laboratories NMDA receptor antibodies in CSF (test code: 2005164) orders on 135 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is November 19, 2012 through November 30, 2018. Supplementary file 4: Data for 150 ARUP Laboratories NMDA receptor antibodies in serum (test code: 2004221) orders on 144 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is July 31, 2012 through November 30, 2018. Supplementary file 5: Data for 56 ARUP Laboratories voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) antibodies in serum (test code: 2004890) orders on 45 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is July 25, 2012 through November 30, 2018. Supplementary file 6: Data for 120 ARUP Laboratories voltage-gated potassium channel (VGKC) antibodies in serum (test code: 3002046) orders on 110 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is July 25, 2012 through November 30, 2018. Supplementary file 7: Data for 215 ARUP serum paraneoplastic reflexive panel (test code: 3002929) orders on 205 unique patients. The retrospective timeframe is October 8, 2015 through November 30, 2018.

Files

Steps to reproduce

Although the overall retrospective analysis period was December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2018, some of the tests in the present study became available for ordering at various years after 2018. The details for the Supplementary Files above indicate the first date at which the particular panel or stand-alone test was available at our medical center. A reporting tool within the electronic medical record, known as Epic Reporting Workbench, was used to identify all tests performed in the retrospective timeframe. Detailed chart review was performed on all results, regardless of whether the particular test was positive or negative. For classification of presenting symptoms, we followed the categories utilized by Alabareen et al. (autonomic, bulbar, cognitive, constitutional, coordination, motor, sensory, or vision) in their retrospective analysis of patients tested by the Mayo paraneoplastic autoantibody panel. Reference: Albadareen R, Gronseth G, Goeden M, Sharrock M, Lechtenberg C, Wang Y: Paraneoplastic autoantibody panels: sensitivity and specificity, a retrospective cohort. Int J Neurosci 2017, 127(6):531-538.

Categories

Cancer, Laboratory Medicine, Paraneoplastic Syndrome

License