Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, July 2000, p. 549-552, Vol. 7, No. 4
Departments of Medical
Microbiology1 and Image
Diagnosis,3 Clinic Hospital of Valencia,
University of Valencia, and Department of Statistics and
Operation Research, University of Valencia,2
Valencia, Spain
Received 5 January 2000/Returned for modification 17 February
2000/Accepted 23 March 2000
A discriminant technique was applied to the different serological
patterns obtained by enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blotting
(EITB) and by conventional immunological tests, in order to
differentiate the residual antibody patterns present in healed hydatidosis from the ones present in patients with active hydatidosis. For this purpose, specific antibodies against Echinococcus
granulosus were detected by indirect hemagglutination,
agglutination of latex particles, basophil degranulation, and EITB for
23 patients with active hydatidosis and 45 patients with surgically
cured hydatidosis. Discriminant analysis of the different serological
patterns obtained by EITB and conventional serology correctly
classified 92.54% of patients (93.3% if the patients are
differentiated according to the time elapsed since surgery). This
method detected the presence of active hydatidosis in 95.6% of
patients for whom abdominal ultrasonography had confirmed the presence
of active hydatid cysts. The global specificity was 88.9%. The
specificity was 97.1% for patients who had been operated on 3 years
ago or more and 63.6% for patients with less time since surgery.
Hydatidosis is a disease caused by
the larval stages of several cestodes belonging to the
Echinococcus genus, and diagnosis is still an unresolved
problem (15, 17). Echinococcus granulosus has a
very complex antigenic structure, and hydatid disease has a slowly
developing course, but there is no immunological test with 100%
sensitivity to detect antibodies against the parasite. In different
series of patients, from 3 to 40% of human hydatidosis cases are found
to be seronegative (5). These negative reactions are more
frequent when the cysts are located in the lung and brain or in those
cysts with hyaline or calcified walls (3, 16).
The "gold standard" immunological test would be one which could
detect early on the complete resolution of the disease after medical or
surgical treatment. Many attempts have been made to assess complete
resolution of the disease after adequate therapy by immunological
methods. Detection of serum antibodies, circulating antigen, and
circulating immune complexes has been reported to be of potential use
in monitoring cystic echinococcosis patients after surgical and
chemotherapeutic treatments. Classical immunological tests can be
positive for a long time after the surgical eradication of all of the
hydatid cysts. Only when a progressive decrease in antibody titers
could be detected would the supposition of complete healing appear to
be more feasible. Complement fixation and indirect immunofluorescence
are the classical tests that more quickly become negative after
complete resolution of hydatid cysts, but the results are inconsistent,
and, in different revisions, there have been positive results with
these immunological tests more than 10 years after curative treatment
(4, 7, 12, 14, 22, 23, 28-30, 32).
The main subject of this paper is use of the serological pattern
obtained by enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blotting (EITB) in
order to improve the sensitivity of this procedure for the diagnosis of
hydatid cyst relapse, differentiating the serological patterns of
patients with active hydatid disease from those of patients who had had
hydatid cysts but who were successfully treated by surgical methods.
Second, the effect of the time elapsed after surgery on the accuracy of
the prediction of the relapses by serological patterns was studied. For
these purposes, a discriminant analysis of the bands obtained by EITB,
a sensitive and specific method to diagnose hydatid disease (8,
13, 14, 25, 27, 31), and of conventional serology results was
performed in order to detect relapses with a good sensitivity and
specificity. The usefulness of this procedure to enhance EITB
resolution in the diagnosis of hydatid disease has been described
earlier (8).
Patients studied.
Sixty-eight patients were included in the
study and were separated into the following groups. Group 1 consisted
of 25 patients with active hydatid cysts. Twenty-two of them had
fertile hepatic cysts. One patient had a meningeal relapse. Sixteen
patients had newly diagnosed cysts, and seven corresponded to
postsurgical relapses. Group 2 consisted of 45 patients with a past
history of hydatidosis who were cured by surgical treatment and who did not have any sign of active hydatidosis at the time of the study. Thirty-four of them had been treated 3 years or more before this study
(group 2.1), and 11 had been treated within the previous 3 years (group
2.2).
1071-412X/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Immunological Diagnosis of Human Hydatid Cyst Relapse:
Utility of the Enzyme-Linked Immunoelectrotransfer Blot and
Discriminant Analysis

and
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
40°C. Complete blood samples, anticoagulated with lithium heparin,
were drawn from 67 of the patients for immediate performance of the BD test.
IHA test. The commercial Cellognost Echinococcosis (Behring Diagnostics GmbH, Marburg, Germany) test was used. Results equal to or higher than 1:64 were considered positive when hemagglutinins against type O erythrocytes were absent.
LA test. The commercial Agglutinotest Echinococcosis (Ismunit Woerden Netherlands) test was employed according to the manufacturer's recommendations, and sera whose titers were equal to or greater than 1:2 were considered positive.
BD test. The BD test was performed by the method of Mir et al. (18).
Immunoelectrotransfer performance.
Hydatid cyst fluid from a
human fertile hepatic cyst was obtained by sterile puncture during
surgery and was processed as described earlier (8). Briefly,
hydatid fluid was centrifuged at 900 × g for 15 min,
and the supernatant was sterilized by filtration through a Millipore
filter (pore diameter, 0.45 µm). Thereafter, it was dialyzed in
phosphate-buffered saline at 4°C for 24 h and kept at
100°C.
Statistical analysis.
The presence or absence of any
specific reactive band and the results of conventional serology
considered in a qualitative manner were used to build a polynomial
equation named the discriminant function by using the minimization of
the Wilks
method (1, 24, 26). An extensive description
of the statistical method used was reported previously (8).
The function built in this way, and applied to each patient, yielded an
individual value named the discriminant score which allowed the
calculation of the probability of having an active hydatid cyst or
cured hydatid disease, considering the antibody patterns. The absence
of any specific reactive band and negative conventional serology
results had a value of 0 in the discriminant function, and the presence of such a band and positive conventional serology had a value of 1. This statistical method was subsequently applied with differentiation of the time elapsed after the surgical treatment of cured patients (groups 2.1 and 2.2).
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Conventional serology.
Percentages of positive results
obtained with conventional serology are shown in Table
1. IHA was not a good method for the postsurgery surveillance of hydatid disease, as it remained positive in
91% of patients with proved hydatid disease 3 years after effective surgical treatment. BD and LA had better results but remained positive
in 41 and 35% of the cured patients 3 or more years after surgical
treatment, respectively.
|
EITB.
The bands obtained by EITB with or without
2-mercaptoethanol treatment for the two groups of patients studied are
shown in Fig. 1; only the bands which
appeared in all of the tests performed with the same positive control
serum are marked, and they are the only ones which were used in the
statistical analysis. In order to facilitate the statistical analysis
of the results, the different bands were given separate designations.
Bands obtained when the hydatid fluid was treated with
2-mercaptoethanol were designated as follows: X1, the two
bands of more than 200 kDa; X2, band of 145 kDa;
X3, band of 36 kDa; X4, band of 33 kDa;
X5, band of 20 kDa; X6, band of 17 kDa; and
X7, band of 9 kDa. Bands obtained when the hydatid fluid
was treated with sample buffer without 2-mercaptoethanol were
designated as follows: X8, band of more than 200 kDa;
X9, band of 70 kDa; X10, band of 60 kDa; X11, band of 50 kDa; X12, band of 32 kDa;
X13, band of 21 kDa; X14, band of 16 kDa; and
X15, band of 9 kDa.
|
|
2.3446, where DS is the discriminating
score for each patient and X1, X9, and
X18 are 1 or 0, according to the criteria described above.
The mean values of the discriminating score (centroids) for each group
were 2.3882 for patients with active hydatid cysts and
1.1676 for
patients without hydatid cysts. A patient was classified in group 1 (with active hydatid disease) if the discriminant score for this
patient was greater than or equal to half of the sum of the centroids
(mean values of discriminant scores for each group) and in group 2 if
the discriminant score was less than half of the sum of the centroids.
The accuracies of the classifications are as follows. Among the 45 patients in group 2 whose clinical condition was confirmed, 40 (88.9%)
were predicted to be in group 2 and 5 (11.1%) were predicted to be in
group 1. Among the 23 patients in group 1 whose clinical condition was
confirmed, 22 (95.65%) were correctly predicted to be in group 1, and
1 (4.34%) was predicted to be in group 2. Therefore, the discriminant
function outlined above has a sensitivity of 95.65% and a specificity
of 88.9% for the diagnosis of the presence of active hydatid cysts
versus the presence of residual antibodies. The positive predictive
value of this method was 81.88%, while the negative predictive value
was 97.56%.
Discriminant analysis was then applied with subdivision of group 2 into
two subgroups according to the time elapsed following successful
surgical treatment. Group 2.1 consisted of patients treated 3 years or
more before this study was done, and group 2.2 consisted of patients
treated less than 3 years before the study.
The discriminant function which best differentiates group 1 from group
2.1 was DS = 2.08(X1) + 2.04(X2)
1.77(X4)
1.1(X8) + 9.21(X9) + 1.02(X18)
5.1. The
centroids (mean values of discriminant scores for each group) were
6.1712 for group 1 and
3.9931 for group 2.1. The accuracies of this
second classification were as follows. Among the 34 patients in group
2.1, 33 (97.1%) were predicted to be in group 2.1 and 1 (2.9%) was
predicted to be in group 1. Among the 23 patients in group 1 whose
clinical condition was confirmed, 22 (95.65%) were correctly predicted
to be in group 1, and 1 (4.34%) was predicted to be in group 2.
For patients treated 3 years ago or more, this method had a positive
predictive value of having active disease of 95.7%. A negative result
corresponded to a probability of 97.06% of having been successfully treated.
Similarly, applying this method when cured patients had been surgically
treated less than 3 years before (group 2.2), the discriminant function
was DS = 3.1268(X9) + 0.6398(X16)
2.8514. The centroids were 0.7699 in
group 1 and
1.5398 in group 2.2. Among 23 patients in group 1, 22 (95.7%) were predicted to be in group 1 and 1 was predicted to be in
group 2.2. Among 11 patients in group 2.2, 7 (63.6%) were correctly
predicted to be in group 2.2 and 4 (36.4%) were predicted to be in
group 1.
For patients treated less than 3 ago, this method had a positive
predictive value of having active disease of 84.6%. A negative result
corresponded to a probability of 87.5% of having been successfully treated.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A comparative study between a group of patients with active hydatid disease and a group of patients with cured hydatid disease with various times of evolution has been performed. We realize that the most accurate method to study the serological patterns of relapsed hydatid disease would be to compare the serological patterns of patients with cured hydatid disease with those of patients with relapses of hydatid disease or, to perform better, a prospective study of the serological evolution of a significant number of patients with hydatid disease. This accurate study could not be performed because we did not have enough patients with hydatid relapse. Therefore, the patients with hydatid relapse and the patients with untreated and active hydatid cysts were considered to represent similar situations and were put in the same group. Hyaline hydatid cysts of lungs were excluded because they do not represent a situation comparable to relapsed cysts. On the other hand, the serological patterns obtained from the patients with postsurgical relapse were quite similar to the ones obtained from patients with new hydatid cysts.
The results obtained with the conventional serological tests were comparable to those reported in other series (2, 14, 17, 20, 29). As was expected, no conventional test allowed an accurate differentiation between active and cured hydatid disease. LA was negative in 33.3% of patients in group 2 (treated and cured), but it was positive in only 73.9% of patients with active disease. IHA detected all active cysts because only active hydatid cysts from the liver and one disseminated relapse were included; on the other hand, it remained positive in 89% of the patients treated and cured. BD had the best results of the three conventional tests. It was positive in 95.4% of patients with active cysts and negative in 53.3% of patients in group 2 (treated and cured); the percentage of negatives rose to 58.8% in group 2.1 (patients treated more than 3 years before). BD was the only conventional test that was included in the discriminant functions. BD results did not affect the specificity of the predictions, and they only had little effect on the final probability values.
EITB coupled to a discriminant analysis had greater power to differentiate residual antibody patterns of cured hydatidosis from those of active hydatid disease. The results were much better when EITB was applied to a population that had been surgically treated 3 years or more before the study. In this case, the predictive value of a positive result was 95.7% and the negative predictive value was 97.06%. When the patient had been surgically treated less than 3 years before, the antibody patterns were less distinctive, and the predictive value of a positive result was 84.6%. The negative predictive value was also lower too, probably because of the low number of patients studied who were cured less than 3 years before (11 patients).
As may be seen in the three discriminant functions built, the presence of antibodies against the 70-kDa unreduced protein (X9) was the most useful marker of active disease when it was considered separately. It was negative only in the patient with meningeal relapse due to an arterial dissemination through aorta invasion of a giant hepatic cyst, which caused him to be erroneously diagnosed in all discriminant analyses. Hydatid cyst rupture is associated with the presence of circulating antigen and immune complexes (33); therefore, the intra-aortic disruption of the hydatid cyst was probably correlated with the presence of circulating antigen, a known cause of false-negative results in antibody assays (5), and it could explain the clearance of certain EITB bands which would be forming immune complexes.
Thus, in patients surgically treated 3 years before or more, the presence of antibodies against the 70-kDa unreduced protein in EITB (band X9) makes reinfection or relapse quite probable; the discriminant analysis of the complete antibody pattern will quantify the value of the probability of having a relapse.
It is evident that the discriminant functions obtained in this study are the best ones for classifying the patients for whom they were constructed; therefore, with the general population, the predictive values will presumably be lower. On the other hand, better discriminant functions would be constructed if EITB were applied to more patients.
In spite of the hopeful results, we cannot conclude that the morphological methods for the surveillance of hydatidosis may be avoided. Broader studies will probably give better discriminant functions for the early diagnosis of hydatid relapse by immunological methods.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Present address: Departamento de Microbiología Médica de la Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Avenida Reyes Católicos 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Phone: 34 91 550 49 00. Fax: 34 91 549 47 64. E-mail: igadea{at}fjd.es.
Present address: Departamento de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital
Luis Alcañiz, Játiva (Valencia), Spain.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Anderson, T. V. 1984. An introduction to multivariate analysis, 2nd ed., p. 195-243. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 2. | Babba, H., A. Messedi, S. Masmoudi, M. Zribi, R. Grillot, P. Ambriose-Thomas, I. Beyrouti, and Y. Sahnoun. 1994. Diagnosis of human hydatidosis: comparison between imagery and six serologic techniques. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 50:64-68. |
| 3. | Capron, A. L. Yarzabal, A. Vernes, and J. Fruit. 1970. Le diagnostic immunologique de l'equinococcose humaine. Pathol. Biol. 18:357-365[Medline]. |
| 4. | Coudert, J., P. Ambroise-Thomas, K. T. Thai, and M. A. Pothier. 1967. Premiers resultats concernant le diagnostic serologique du kiste hidatique par une nouvelle technique d'immunofluorescence sur lames. Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exp. 6:555-563. |
| 5. | Craig, P. S., and G. S. Nelson. 1984. The detection of circulating antigen in human hydatid disease. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 78:219-227[Medline]. |
| 6. | D'Amelio, R., O. Pontesilli, R. Dayal, F. de Rosa, M. Barnet, A. Teggi, and G. Brighuose. 1985. Characterisation of parasite antigens from human hydatid cyst fluid by SDS-PAGE and IEF. Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 174:43-50[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 7. | Dighero, M. W., and C. M. P. Bradstreet. 1979. The serodiagnosis of human hydatid disease. 1. The routine use of latex-agglutination and complement fixation in diagnosis. J. Helmintol. 53:283-286. |
| 8. |
Gadea, I.,
G. Ayala,
M. T. Diago,
A. Cuñat, and J. García de Lomas.
1999.
Immunological diagnosis of human cystic echinococcosis: utility of discriminant alalysis applied to the enzime-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot.
Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol.
6:504-508 |
| 9. | Gottstein, B., J. Eckert, S. A. Michael, and R. C. A. Thompson. 1987. Echinococcus granulosus antigens: immunoelectrophoretic and Western Blot analysis of hydatid cysts fluids. Parasitol. Res. 73:186-189[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 10. | Gottstein, B., V. C. W. Tsang, and P. M. Schantz. 1986. Demonstration of species-specific and cross reactive components of Taenia solium metacestode antigens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35:308-313. |
| 11. | Hancock, K., and V. C. W. Tsang. 1988. India ink staining of proteins on nitrocellulose paper. Anal. Biochem. 133:157-162. |
| 12. | Hira, P. R., H. M. Shweiki, R. Siboo, and K. Behbehani. 1987. Counterimmunoelectrophoresis using an arc 5 antigen for the rapid diagnosis of hydatidosis and comparison with the indirect hemagglutination test. Am. J. Trop. Hyg. 36:592-597. |
| 13. | Kanwar, J. R., S. P. Kaushick, I. M. S. Sawahaney, M. S. Kamboj, S. K. Mehta, and V. K. Vinayak. 1992. Specific antibodies in serum of patients with hydatidosis recognized by immunoblotting. J. Med. Microbiol. 36:46-51[Abstract]. |
| 14. | Larrand, L., R. Benito, A. Sarria, M. P. Lasierra, J. Fleta, A. Legido, I. González, R. Gomez, and M. Bueno. 1984. Postoperative control for the persistence of positivity in three immunological tests used in the diagnosis of hydatidosis in children (ELISA-specific IgE, indirect hemagglutination and ELISA-total IgE). Allerg. Immunopathol. 12:199-206. |
| 15. | Macpherson, C. N. L., T. Romig, E. Zeyhle, P. H. Rees, and J. B. O. Were. 1987. Portable ultrasound scaner versus serology in screening for hydatid cysts in a nomadic population. Lancet ii:259-261. |
| 16. | Maddison, S. E., S. B. Slemenda, and P. M. Schantz. 1989. A specific diagnostic antigen of Echinococcus granulosus with an apparent molecular weight of 8 KDA. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 40:337-383. |
| 17. | Matossian, R. M. 1987. The immunological diagnosis of human hydatid disease. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 71:101-104[CrossRef]. |
| 18. | Mir, A., J. García de Lomas, P. Olmos, J. M. Nogueira, and F. Buesa. 1982. Degranulación de basófilos humanos en el diagnóstico de la hidatidosis. Rev. Clin. Esp. 167:31-34[Medline]. |
| 19. | Norusis, M. J. 1994. SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1. Discriminant analysis. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill. |
| 20. | Pelaez, A., A. Sastre, C. Morales, M. L. Martínez, and A. Basomba. 1988. A comparative study of the EAST, indirect haemagglutination, basophil degranulation and latex tests in the diagnosis of human hydatid disease. Allerg. Immunopathol. 16:109-112. |
| 21. | Plikaytis, B. D., G. H. Carlone, P. Edmans, and L. W. Mayer. 1986. Robust estimation of standard curves for protein molecular weight and linear-duplex DNA base pair number after gel electrophoresis. Anal. Biochem. 152:346-364[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 22. | Rickard, M. D. 1984. Serological diagnosis and post-operative surveillance of human hydatid disease. I. Latex agglutination and immunoelectrophoresis using crude cyst fluid antigen. Pathology 16:207-210[Medline]. |
| 23. | Rickard, M. D., R. D. Honey, J. L. Brumel, and G. F. Mitchell. 1984. Serological diagnosis and post-operative surveillance of human hydatid disease. II The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using various antigens. Pathology 16:211-215[Medline]. |
| 24. | Seber, G. A. F. 1989. Multivariate observations, p. 279-364. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 25. | Shaphiro, S. Z. 1992. Analysis of host components in hydatid cyst fluid and immunoblot diagnosis of human Echinococcus granulosus infection. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 86:503-509[Medline]. |
| 26. | Sharma, S. 1996. Applied multivariate techniques, p. 237-286. John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 27. | Siracusano, A., S. Ioppolo, S. Notargiacomo, E. Ortona, R. Riganó, A. Teggi, F. De Rosa, and G. Vicari. 1991. Detection of antibodies against Echinococcus granulosus major antigens and their subunits by immunoblotting. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 85:239-343[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 28. | Tassi, C., F. Baldeelli, R. Papili, and R. Valigi. 1984. Specific IgM antibody response, evaluated by micro-ELISA, to various antigen fractions from sheep hydatid fluid and scolices of Echinococcus granulosus, in sera from patients affected by hydatid disease, before and after surgery. Boll. Ist. Sieroter. Milan 63:140-144[Medline]. |
| 29. | Todorov, T., and G. Stojanov. 1979. Circulating antibodies in human echinococcosis before and after surgical treatment. Bull. W. H. O. 57:757-758. |
| 30. | Tsang, V. C. W., J. M. Peralta, and A. R. Simons. 1983. Enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot techniques (EITB) for studying the specificities of antigens and antibodies separated by gel electrophoresis. Methods Enzymol. 92:377-391[Medline]. |
| 31. |
Verasategui, M.,
P. Moro,
A. Guevara,
T. Rodríguez,
E. Miranda, and R. H. Gilman.
1992.
Enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot test for diagnosis of human hydatid disease.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1557-1561 |
| 32. | Wen, H., S. Bresson-Hadni, D. A. Vuitton, D. Lenys, B. M. Yang, Z. X. Ding, and P. S. Craig. 1995. Analysis of immunoglobulin G subclasses in the serum antibody responses of alveolar echinococcosis patients after surgical treatment and chemotherapy as aid to assessing the outcome. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 89:692-697[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 33. | Zhanquing, S., F. Xinhua, Q. Zhongxi, L. Ruilin, and Y. Chunrong. 1988. Application of biotin-avidin system, determination of circulating immune complexes, and evaluation of antibody response in different hydatidosis patients. Am. J. Med. Hyg. 39:93-96. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. | Clin. Microbiol. Rev. | Infect. Immun. |
|---|---|---|
| J. Clin. Microbiol. | J. Virol. | ALL ASM JOURNALS |