A survey of Canadian neurologists' perspectives and preferences for laboratory reporting of CSF oligoclonal banding

Victoria Higgins; Michelle L Parker; Daniel R Beriault; Ahmed Mostafa; Mathew P Estey; Terence Agbor; Ola Z Ismail

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2024.110855

A survey of Canadian neurologists' perspectives and preferences for laboratory reporting of CSF oligoclonal banding

Clin Biochem. 2024 Nov 22:135:110855. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2024.110855. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Victoria Higgins¹, Michelle L Parker², Daniel R Beriault³, Ahmed Mostafa², Mathew P Estey², Terence Agbor⁴, Ola Z Ismail²

Affiliations

¹ Alberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Electronic address: victoria.higgins@albertaprecisionlabs.ca.
² Alberta Precision Laboratories, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
³ Department of Laboratory Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁴ LifeLabs, Toronto, ON, Canada.

PMID: 39577716
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2024.110855

Abstract

Introduction: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) oligoclonal banding (OCB) analysis aids in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). Despite its clinical importance, there is profound variation in processes, reporting, and interpretation of CSF OCB and associated tests/indices across Canadian laboratories. This is likely due to the lack of clear, evidence-based recommendations on CSF OCB analysis processes and reporting. Here, we assessed the CSF OCB reporting needs and preferences of Canadian neurologists as a first step in clinical stakeholder engagement to aid in the development of CSF OCB reporting recommendations.

Methods: A 16-question survey was sent to neurologists across Canada in January 2022, and it closed in March 2022. The survey included questions regarding location and length of clinical practice; preferred maximum time limit for paired CSF and serum samples; reporting preferences for CSF-specific OCB, banding patterns, and associated tests/indices; as well as the clinical utility of CSF OCB and associated tests/indices.

Results: Twenty-two neurologists from nine provinces participated, with a median practice length of 13 years. Most (64 %) preferred a 24-hour limit for paired serum and CSF sample collection. The majority (73 %) favored a cutoff of ≥ 2 CSF-specific bands for positivity, aligning with the 2017 McDonald criteria. Opinions varied on reporting the number of bands and listing specific conditions in the interpretive comments. Some highlighted the need for further research on band count interpretation and its clinical implications. All respondents found CSF OCB results useful, with 64 % valuing it more than other CSF tests for MS evaluation.

Conclusions: Our survey reveals diverse preferences among Canadian neurologists for CSF OCB reporting. Stakeholder engagement and further research are crucial for standardized, improved MS diagnostic practices.

Keywords: Cerebrospinal fluid; Harmonization; Multiple sclerosis; Oligoclonal banding.