Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026

Anti-Nuclear Antibody Screening Using HEp-2 Cells
Published on: June 23, 2014
Concurrent Anti-PR3 Immunoassay and cANCA Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing Provide Complementary Information for
Reagan Badger1,2, Susan L Fink1, Kathleen Hutchinson1
1Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Background:
Multiplex immunoassays and indirect immunofluorescence assays (IFA) are frequently used for the detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) but can produce differing results.
Methods:
To understand the settings in which discordant results occur, we retrospectively investigated first-recorded cytoplasmic ANCA (cANCA) IFA and antiproteinase 3 (PR3) results (n = 15 772) generated over 4 years in our clinical laboratory.
Results:
We detected significant bidirectional disagreement between cANCA and anti-PR3-antibody results that was not immunoassay or instrument specific. Sixteen percent (22/139) of cANCA-positive specimens were negative for anti-PR3 by multiplex immunoassay. Similarly, 61% (175/285) of anti-PR3 positive specimens were negative for cANCA by IFA. Borderline or indeterminate positivity thresholds could not fully explain the discrepancy between results, suggesting that patient-associated characteristics may contribute. Medical record review of patients with discordant testing over time revealed cANCA/anti-PR3 disagreement in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis on chronic immunomodulatory therapy, suggesting a treatment-related phenomenon. Among 59% (13/22) of patients for whom serial ANCA testing was evaluated, cANCA semiquantitative titers and anti-PR3 antibody quantitative results trended together and correlated with disease activity in response to immunomodulatory therapy. However, asynchronous changes were observed in 41% (9/22) of patients, leading to significant differences in anti-PR3 or cANCA results despite sustained cANCA or anti-PR3 antibody negativity, respectively.
Conclusion:
In certain individuals, anti-PR3 antibodies and cANCA titers may differentially capture disease activity, and cANCA/anti-PR3-discordant results may have clinical significance in the setting of immunomodulatory therapy. Our data argue for a complementary testing approach that implements both immunoassay and IFA methods to detect these changes over time.
More Related Videos
10:05Simultaneous Distinction of Monospecific and Mixed DFS70 Patterns During ANA Screening with a Novel HEp-2 ELITE/DFS70 Knockout Substrate
Published on: January 17, 2018
09:45In Vitro Canine Neutrophil Extracellular Trap Formation: Dynamic and Quantitative Analysis by Fluorescence Microscopy
Published on: August 24, 2018