Taylor, Bruce

To examine the extent of the evaluation required to achieve diagnostic resolution and the test performance characteristics of a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test, ~6200 participants ≥50 years with (cohort A) or without (cohort B) ≥1 of 3 additional specific cancer risk factors will be enrolled in PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), a prospective, longitudinal, interventional, multi-center study. Plasma cfDNA from blood samples will be analyzed to detect abnormally methylated DNA associated with cancer (i.e., cancer “signal”) and a cancer signal origin (i.e., tissue of origin). Participants with a “signal detected” will undergo further diagnostic evaluation per guiding physician discretion; those with a “signal not detected” will be advised to continue guideline-recommended screening. The primary objective will be to assess the number and types of subsequent diagnostic tests needed for diagnostic resolution. Based on microsimulations (using estimates of cancer incidence and dwell times) of the typical risk profiles of anticipated participants, the median (95% CI) number of participants with a “signal detected” result is expected to be 106 (87–128). Subsequent diagnostic evaluation is expected to detect 52 (39–67) cancers. The positive predictive value of the MCED test is expected to be 49% (39–58%). PATHFINDER will evaluate the integration of a cfDNA-based MCED test into existing clinical cancer diagnostic pathways. The study design of PATHFINDER is described here.

Abstract Background: Early detection decreases patient mortality for many cancers, but prevailing paradigms focus on distinct screening modalities for each cancer type. A minimally invasive test that detects multiple tumor types could substantially reduce cancer mortality and improve screening efficiency. In preliminary studies, we showed that a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test can detect cancer and determine the tissue of origin (TOO) of abnormally methylated cfDNA with high sensitivity and specificity; however, blood was collected at the time of diagnosis and results were not disclosed to inform care. The current study includes disclosure of results to the study investigator to understand the care pathways prompted by a “signal detected” test result, and the benefits, harms, and burdens associated with a multi-cancer detection test. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is a prospective, longitudinal, multi-center clinical study. Approximately 6,200 participants with varying levels of cancer risk will be enrolled at 5-10 clinical sites in the United States. Participants must be ≥50 years of age. If participants have at least 1 of the following–a smoking history of ≥100 cigarettes, a genetic cancer predisposition, or a history of invasive or hematologic malignancy with definitive treatment completed >3 years prior to enrollment–they are eligible for the Elevated Risk Cohort (n = 4340); otherwise, they are eligible for the Non-Elevated Risk Cohort (n = 1860). Individuals being evaluated for cancer or who have a history of invasive or hematologic malignancy within 3 years of enrollment will be excluded. Blood drawn at study sites will be analyzed at GRAIL, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA). Participants and study investigators will be informed of the test results. Participants with “signal not detected” results will be advised to continue routine clinical care, including age- and risk-based cancer screening. Those with “signal detected” test results will be informed of the predicted origin and undergo diagnostic evaluation. The primary study objective is to determine the extent of diagnostic testing required to achieve diagnostic resolution following a “signal detected” test result, defined as the date when the study investigator determines to end diagnostic evaluation triggered by a “signal detected” test result. Health resource utilization, the number and types of tests and time required to reach this point, is the primary endpoint. Secondary objectives include evaluation of test performance (specificity, positive predictive value, and TOO accuracy), and assessment of participants' perceptions about the test and changes in anxiety and health-related quality of life. Exploratory aims include assessment of the number and types of invasive cancer diagnoses among participants with “signal not detected” test results and changes in attitude toward adherence to guideline-recommended screening. Citation Format: Lincoln Nadauld, Charles H. McDonnell III, Minetta C. Liu, Eric Klein, Tomasz M. Beer, Deborah Schrag, Andrew G. Hudnut, Richard Whittington, Bruce Taylor, Joanna Tierney, Catherine Marinac, Jafi Lipson, Margarita Lopatin, Karen C. Chung, Eric Fung, Anne-Renee Hartman, Geoffrey R. Oxnard. The PATHFINDER Study: Assessment of the implementation of an investigational multi-cancer early detection test into clinical practice [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT291.

Abstract Objectives: The objective of the study is to distinguish the mechanisms of disease for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN), which we believe to be fundamentally different. However, distinguishing the mechanisms is more difficult when the presentation of CIDP is motor-predominant, focal, or asymmetric. Methods: We describe 3 focal, motor-predominant, representative cases that could be interpreted on clinical and/or electrophysiological grounds as either MMN or focal CIDP, and present pathological findings. Results: We highlight pathological differences in these cases, and provide an argument that CIDP and MMN are distinct entities with different pathophysiological mechanisms—chronic demyelination for CIDP, and an immune-mediated attack on paranodal motor axons for MMN. Conclusions: Based on clinical evaluation, electrophysiology, and nerve biopsy pathology, we can divide the conditions into inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy (focal CIDP) versus chronic axonal neuropathy (MMN). The divergent pathological findings provide further evidence that CIDP and MMN are fundamentally different disorders.

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a motor only, asymmetric onset neuropathy that is relatively treatment‐refractory compared with classic chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and multifocal acquired demyelinating sensory and motor (MADSAM) neuropathy. Methods: We reviewed 35 patients seropositive for GM1 (monosialo‐asialo [immunoglobulin M, IgM; immunoglobulin G, IgG]) and/or GD1b (disialo [IgG, IgM]) autoantibodies having MMN, classic CIDP, or MADSAM. Immune‐treatment responsiveness and clinical course was compared with antibody negative disease controls. Results: Seventy‐nine percent of seropositives with an initial diagnosis of MMN were immunotherapy responsive compared with 46% of seronegatives (P = 0.045). Eight ganglioside antibody positive MMN patients of 19 (42%) developed sensory findings consistent with MADSAM compared with 3 of 41 (7%) seronegative MMN patients (P = 0.003). MMN and MADSAM patients with ganglioside antibody positivity had more sustained treatment responses (P = 0.03). Discussion: Patients initially diagnosed with MMN seropositive for diverse GM1 autoantibodies appear more likely to have sustained treatment response and evolution to MADSAM. Muscle Nerve 57: 1000–1005, 2018

ABSTRACTIntravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg], plasma exchange [PE], and corticosteroids are efficacious treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy [CIDP]. IVIg is effective in multifocal motor neuropathy [MMN]. NIS, NIS‐weakness, sum scores of raw amplitudes of motor fiber (CMAPs) amplitudes, and Dyck/Rankin score provided reliable measures to detect and scale abnormality and reflect change; they are therefore ideal for office management of response‐based immunotherapy (R‐IRx) of CIDP. Using efficacious R‐IRx, a large early and late therapeutic response (≥ one‐fourth were in remission or had recovered) was demonstrated in CIDP. In MMN only an early improvement with late non‐significant worsening was observed. The difference in immunotherapy response supports a fundamental difference between CIDP (immune attack on Schwann cells and myelin) and MMN (attack on nodes of Ranvier and axons). Muscle Nerve 52: 488–497, 2015