Citations

726 Background: Primary tumor location is an important prognostic factor in mCRC. Efficacy differences with EGFR antibodies by tumor location show a predictive effect (Arnold et al. Ann Oncol 2017). Two first-line (1L) pivotal bev trials showed the prognostic value of sidedness (Loupakis et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015). In this exploratory study, further analysis of the predictive effect of bev is presented. Methods: Data from two randomized phase III studies (NO16966 [NCT00069095], AVF2107g [NCT00109070]) of bev+CT vs CT-alone as 1L treatment for mCRC were analyzed retrospectively. Patients (pts) with sidedness information available were included; pts from NO16966 (part 1) randomized to CT only were excluded. Sidedness was identified by case report forms. Results: Sidedness was determined in 1590 pts (27% Right and 73% Left) out of 2214 pts total (Table). In the pooled analysis, PFS improved with bev+CT compared to CT only in both right-sided (HR=0.75; 95% CI 0.61, 0.93) and left-sided (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.67, 0.86) mCRC with similar magnitude of benefit in both sides. OS also improved with bev+CT in right-sided (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.65, 1.03) and left-sided (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.74, 0.98) pts. Conclusions: This exploratory subgroup analysis of two pivotal studies indicates that the effect of bev is independent of tumor location in mCRC patients. Survival outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT00069095 and NCT00109070. [Table: see text]

AbstractTrisomies of odd numbered chromosomes are seen in nearly half of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and typically correlate with a hyperdiploid state and better overall survival (OS). We compared DNA ploidy of monoclonal plasma cells (as a surrogate for the presence of trisomies) assessed simultaneously by PCPRO (plasma cell proliferative index), a novel method that estimates DNA index by multi‐parametric flow cytometry to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 1703 patients with plasma cell disorders. The distribution of ploidy was hyperdiploid: 759 (45%), diploid 765 (45%), hypodiploid: 71 (4%), tetraploid/near‐tetraploid: 108 (6%). FISH identified trisomies in 82% (621/756) of patients with hyperdiploidy by PCPRO and no trisomy by FISH was observed in 88% (730/834) of patients without hyperdiploidy. 95% (795/834) of patients without hyperdiploidy on PCPRO had one or less trisomy by FISH. Sensitivity and specificity of PCPRO for detecting hyperdiploidy was 86% (621/725) and 84% (730/865), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 94% (579/618) for patients with more than one trisomy. Newly diagnosed MM patients with hyperdiploidy on PCPRO (147/275) had better OS compared to nonhyperdiploid patients (median not reached vs 59 months, P = 0.008) and better progression free survival (median: 33 vs 23 months, P = 0.03). Within the hyperdiploidy group, patients with high‐hyperdiploidy (DNA index: 1.19‐1.50) versus those with low‐hyperdiploidy (DNA index: 1.05‐1.18) had superior OS (3 year OS of 88% vs 68% P = 0.03). Ploidy assessment by flow cytometry can provide rapid, valuable prognostic information and also reduces the number of copy number FISH probes required and hence the cost of FISH.

Health care delivery is increasingly evaluated according to quality measures, yet such measures are underdeveloped for cirrhosis. The Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases was charged with developing explicit process‐based and outcome‐based measures for adults with cirrhosis. We identified candidate measures from comprehensive reviews of the literature and input from expert clinicians and patient focus groups. We conducted an 11‐member expert clinician panel and used a modified Delphi method to systematically identify a set of quality measures in cirrhosis. Among 119 candidate measures, 46 were identified as important measures to define the quality of cirrhosis care, including 26 process measures, 7 clinical outcome measures, and 13 patient‐reported outcome measures. The final process measures captured care processes for ascites (n = 5), varices/bleeding (n = 7), hepatic encephalopathy (n = 4), hepatocellular cancer (HCC) screening (n = 1), liver transplantation evaluation (n = 2), and other care (n = 7). Clinical outcome measures included survival, variceal bleeding and rebleeding, early‐stage HCC, liver‐related hospitalization, and rehospitalization within 7 and 30 days. Patient‐reported outcome measures covered physical symptoms, physical function, mental health, general function, cognition, social life, and satisfaction with care. The final list of patient‐reported outcomes was validated in 79 patients with cirrhosis from nine institutions in the United States. Conclusion: We developed an explicit set of evidence‐based quality measures for adult patients with cirrhosis. These measures are a tool for providers and institutions to evaluate their care quality, drive quality improvement, and deliver high‐value cirrhosis care. The quality measures are intended to be applicable in any clinical care setting in which care for patients with cirrhosis is provided.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has established a comprehensive Code of Ethics for its members. The Code is a formal part of AAPM governance, maintained as Professional Policy 24, and includes both principles of ethical practice and the rules by which a complaint will be adjudicated. The structure and content of the Code have been crafted to also serve the much broader purpose of giving practical ethical guidance to AAPM members for making sound decisions in their professional lives. The Code is structured in four major parts: a Preamble, a set of ten guiding Principles, Guidelines that elucidate the application of the Principles in various practice settings, and the formal Complaint process. Guidelines have been included to address evolving social and cultural norms, such as the use of social media and the broadening scope of considerations important in an evolving workplace. The document presented here is the first major revision of the AAPM Code of Ethics since 2008. This revision was approved by the Board of Directors to become effective 1 January 2019.

Abstract DNA methylation is instrumental for gene regulation. Global changes in the epigenetic landscape have been recognized as a hallmark of cancer. However, the role of DNA methylation in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. In this study, high-density genetic and DNA methylation data in white blood cells from the Framingham Heart Study (N = 1,595) were used to build genetic models to predict DNA methylation levels. These prediction models were then applied to the summary statistics of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of ovarian cancer including 22,406 EOC cases and 40,941 controls to investigate genetically predicted DNA methylation levels in association with EOC risk. Among 62,938 CpG sites investigated, genetically predicted methylation levels at 89 CpG were significantly associated with EOC risk at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P < 7.94 × 10−7. Of them, 87 were located at GWAS-identified EOC susceptibility regions and two resided in a genomic region not previously reported to be associated with EOC risk. Integrative analyses of genetic, methylation, and gene expression data identified consistent directions of associations across 12 CpG, five genes, and EOC risk, suggesting that methylation at these 12 CpG may influence EOC risk by regulating expression of these five genes, namely MAPT, HOXB3, ABHD8, ARHGAP27, and SKAP1. We identified novel DNA methylation markers associated with EOC risk and propose that methylation at multiple CpG may affect EOC risk via regulation of gene expression. Significance: Identification of novel DNA methylation markers associated with EOC risk suggests that methylation at multiple CpG may affect EOC risk through regulation of gene expression.