Patel, Rajiv M

AbstractBackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient‐centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests.MethodsRAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2.ResultsFor 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid‐Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated “usually appropriate” or “rarely appropriate” and 45 of 148 (30%), “appropriateness uncertain.” Limitations: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded.ConclusionsAUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

AbstractCIC rearranged sarcomas have significant overlap with Ewing sarcoma, are aggressive, and typically present in deep soft tissue. They most commonly have a t(4;19)(q35;q13) with CIC‐DUX4 fusion. Superficial presentation is rare. We report eight (6F, 2M; median 45‐years‐old, range 14‐65) superficial CIC‐rearranged sarcomas, involving the extremities (n = 4), vulva (n = 2), and trunk (n = 2). The tumors were composed of nodules/sheets of round cells with necrosis and hemorrhage separated by dense hyaline bands. Tumor cells had vesicular chromatin, prominent nucleoli and frequent mitotic figures. One showed pagetoid spread. Targeted next‐generation sequencing was positive for CIC‐DUX4 fusion (6/6); fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was positive for CIC rearrangement (2/3). Eight of eight had evidence of CIC‐DUX4 fusion/rearrangement by molecular techniques. Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD99+ (8/8) and DUX4+ (4/4). FISH for EWSR1 rearrangement was negative (5/5). Of five patients with at least 6 months follow‐up, three of five died of disease, all within 2 years of presentation. One is alive with disease at 48 months. One is disease free at 3 months. Superficial CIC‐rearranged sarcomas should be considered in cases exhibiting features reminiscent of Ewing sarcoma, but with increased pleomorphism and/or geographic necrosis. In contrast to superficial Ewing sarcomas, superficial CIC‐rearranged sarcomas are aggressive.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) can reverse chemoresistance, enhance chemotherapy-induced cytotoxicity, and reduce sarcoma proliferation in cell lines and animal models. We sought to determine the safety and toxicity of mocetinostat and its ability to reverse chemoresistance when administered with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic leiomyosarcoma resistant to prior gemcitabine-containing therapy. Participants with metastatic leiomyosarcoma received mocetinostat orally, 70 mg per day, three days per week, increasing to 90 mg after three weeks if well tolerated. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously at 10 mg/m2/minute on days five and 12 of every 21-day cycle. Disease response was evaluated with CT or MRI. Twenty participants with leiomyosarcoma were evaluated for toxicity. Median time to disease progression was 2.0 months (95% CI 1.54–3.12). Eighteen participants were evaluated for radiologic response by RECIST 1.1. Best responses included one PR and 12 SD. Tumor size reduced in 3 patients. Most common toxicities were fatigue, thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, and anorexia. One patient experienced a significant pericardial adverse event. No study-related deaths were observed. Rechallenging with gemcitabine by adding mocetinostat was feasible and demonstrated modest activity in patients with leiomyosarcoma. Further studies are needed to better define the role of HDAC inhibitors in patients with metastatic leiomyosarcoma.