Encephalitis is a severe inflammatory disorder of the brain with many possible causes and a complex differential diagnosis. Advances in autoimmune encephalitis research in the past 10 years have led to the identification of new syndromes and biomarkers that have transformed the diagnostic approach to these disorders. However, existing criteria for autoimmune encephalitis are too reliant on antibody testing and response to immunotherapy, which might delay the diagnosis. We reviewed the literature and gathered the experience of a team of experts with the aims of developing a practical, syndrome-based diagnostic approach to autoimmune encephalitis and providing guidelines to navigate through the differential diagnosis. Because autoantibody test results and response to therapy are not available at disease onset, we based the initial diagnostic approach on neurological assessment and conventional tests that are accessible to most clinicians. Through logical differential diagnosis, levels of evidence for autoimmune encephalitis (possible, probable, or definite) are achieved, which can lead to prompt immunotherapy.

ObjectiveThe contemporary diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes (PNSs) requires an increasing understanding of their clinical, immunologic, and oncologic heterogeneity. The 2004 PNS criteria are partially outdated due to advances in PNS research in the last 16 years leading to the identification of new phenotypes and antibodies that have transformed the diagnostic approach to PNS. Here, we propose updated diagnostic criteria for PNS.MethodsA panel of experts developed by consensus a modified set of diagnostic PNS criteria for clinical decision making and research purposes. The panel reappraised the 2004 criteria alongside new knowledge on PNS obtained from published and unpublished data generated by the different laboratories involved in the project.ResultsThe panel proposed to substitute “classical syndromes” with the term “high-risk phenotypes” for cancer and introduce the concept of “intermediate-risk phenotypes.” The term “onconeural antibody” was replaced by “high risk” (>70% associated with cancer) and “intermediate risk” (30%–70% associated with cancer) antibodies. The panel classified 3 levels of evidence for PNS: definite, probable, and possible. Each level can be reached by using the PNS-Care Score, which combines clinical phenotype, antibody type, the presence or absence of cancer, and time of follow-up. With the exception of opsoclonus-myoclonus, the diagnosis of definite PNS requires the presence of high- or intermediate-risk antibodies. Specific recommendations for similar syndromes triggered by immune checkpoint inhibitors are also provided.ConclusionsThe proposed criteria and recommendations should be used to enhance the clinical care of patients with PNS and to encourage standardization of research initiatives addressing PNS.