Citations

AbstractBackgroundNeurodegenerative disease (NDD) is associated with sleep disturbances, including decreased stage N3 and REM sleep and reduced spindle activity. Further, supine sleep position may impact NDD risk by altering glymphatic clearance. This study evaluated conventional and exploratory sleep metrics in the differentiation of subjects with normal cognition (NC) and patients with Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD) and alpha‐synucleinopathies (α‐Syn).MethodHome sleep data were acquired across multiple study sites using the self‐applied Sleep ProfilerTM, including 44 NC subjects (age=69+5.0), 22 patients diagnosed with AD (age=75+7.1) and 25 with α‐Syn (Parkinson’s disease=14, Parkinson’s disease with Dementia or Dementia with Lewy Bodies=11; age=69+6.9). Recordings were auto‐staged and technically reviewed, with 86% of the records having two‐night averages. Logistic regression and Mann‐Whitney U tests were used to characterize group differences based on age, conventional sleep metrics (i.e., sleep efficiency, sleep onset (SO), awakenings, percent of sleep time (%) in REM,N1, N2 and N3, and sleep spindles) and exploratory sleep measures [i.e., % supine, % Light N2 (L2=N2 epochs absent of spindles with K‐complexes and/or alpha or EMG (>40 Hz) intrusion), % NREM sleep with hypertonia (NRSH=>4 consecutive epochs with persistently elevated EMG power relative to delta and theta power) and % atypical N3 (AN3=epochs staged N3 with low theta and sigma power relative to delta, alpha, beta and EMG)].ResultAD were older than both NC and α‐Syn patients (p<0.005). Both AD and α‐Syn had lower %REM and greater %supine than NC (p<0.005), and %NRSH was greater in α‐Syn than NC or AD (p<0.005). Based on logistic regression, AD was differentiated from NC based on age, %REM, %L2 (p<0.05) and %supine (p=0.06). α‐Syn was distinguished from NC using both conventional (%N3 and SO, p<0.05) and exploratory sleep metric (%AN3 and %NRSH, p<0.05; %supine, p=0.06). Age (p=0.05) and %NRSH (p<0.01) were the only metrics that differentiated α‐Syn from AD.ConclusionObjective home sleep profiles hold promise for differentiating NDD patients from NC. The sleep metrics that provided the greatest distinction between NDD and NC were %REM, %supine and NRSH, while only NRSH distinguished AD from α‐Syn patients. Further confirmatory studies are underway.

AbstractBackgroundResting state electroencephalography (rsEEG) is a neurophysiologic Alzheimer disease (AD) and alpha‐synucleinopathy (dementia with Lewy body (DLB) and Parkinson disease (PDD)) biomarker [1]–[5]. Background slowing (increased low frequency power, dominant rhythm (DR) slowing) is frequent in AD and DLB, more so in DLB. We sought to identify distinguishing rsEEG signatures between DLB and AD.MethodParticipants included dementia patients [AD (n=26), DLB (n=12), PD (PDD; n=5)] and controls (HC; n=56). 20‐channel rsEEG was collected in eyes‐closed/eyes‐open conditions (5‐min each). Power spectral densities and coherences were measured using established methods [6]. Individual rsEEG power (delta, 1‐3 Hz; theta, 3‐7 Hz; alpha, 8‐13 Hz), theta/alpha ratio (TAR), dominant rhythm (DR), and DR frequency domain prominence were measured and averaged across groups, and effect sizes were determined and compared using Hedges g.ResultAD, DLB, and PDD groups exhibited increased low frequency (delta‐theta, 1‐5 Hz) power and TAR compared to controls (p<4x10‐4), with higher effect sizes in the DLB and PDD groups compared to AD. DR frequency was also decreased in all patient groups (DLB>PDD>AD) compared to controls (p=3x10‐9, p=3x10‐5, p=4x10‐4).AD alpha power and DR frequency domain prominence were reduced compared to controls and PDD/DLB groups (p<0.003). Both AD patients and controls had comparable posterior power distribution predominance of DR, while DLB power of DR was more anteriorly distributed. Compared to controls, delta coherence was higher in AD, but lower in DLB. Delta power was positively correlated with cognitive fluctuation (CAF) in DLB (r(8)=+0.67, p=0.03), while negatively correlated with MMSE in AD (r(24)=‐0.64, p=10‐5).ConclusionDLB and AD had both common and distinct rsEEG signatures. Both had DR slowing and background slowing that was more severe in DLB than AD. Distinctive DLB findings included reduced posterior DR spatial dominance and decreased delta coherence. Conversely, distinct AD features were increased delta coherence, decreased alpha power, and decreased DR frequency prominence. Finally, the DLB and PDD groups had a similar magnitude of DR slowing, consistent with posteriorly dominant functional impairment in synucleinopathy reflected by corresponding regional rsEEG slowing, although future longitudinal prospective sequential rsEEG analyses are necessary to confirm these findings.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer–focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in polycythemia vera (PV) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC). This analysis involved a primary comparison between the RUX and BAT arms for quality of life (QOL) durability over 60 months, with secondary comparisons of best QOL response within first year in complete hematologic responders (CR) vs a group of partial or no response (NR/PR). This is a unique analysis due to cross-over nature of prior studies. Patients were stratified by treatment arm with either RUX or BAT. QOL was assessed over 0-60 months using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) was computed as the average of all completed items multiplied by 10 (scale 0-100, higher score represents higher symptom burden). Estimates of change from baseline and between arm differences in change by timepoint were made using a linear mixed model with compound symmetry covariance structure, which included covariates for categorical time point, treatment arm, and the interaction between time point and treatment arm. The difference between arms in proportion of patients with best post-baseline TSS response of 50% or greater was testing using a Chi-square test. In this study, 147 of the 190 trial patients had started treatment and completed at least their baseline assessment and were included in the analysis with 39 patients completing through 60 months. Groups were comprised of 76 patients in the RUX group (31 females, 45 males, mean age 64.2 [SD 11.4]) and 71 patients in the BAT group (29 females, 42 males, mean age 64.6 [SD 11.5]). Symptom scores at baseline were similar between arms, with MPN-SAF weight loss the only statistically significant difference (BAT 0.7 [SD 1.71] vs RUX 1.7 [SD 2.83], p=0.02). Significant, durable improvements in TSS were noted in RUX patients with symptom improvements lasting a mean of 52 months. BAT patients experienced a worsening of their symptom burden with improvements back to baseline notable at 56 months (Figure 1). MPN-SAF TSS there were significant differences between treatment arms in change from baseline to months 2-32, 44, and 48 (all p&lt;0.05). In all months the trend was in the direction of larger improvement in the RUX arm, with the point estimate for difference ranging from 2.1 (at month 56) to 11.3 (at month 4) with most prominent changes occurring between months 2 and 32. Of the 80 patients with MPN-SAF TSS scores at baseline and at least one post-baseline timepoint, 13/41 (31.7%) BAT and 24/39 (61.5%) RUX patients had TSS reduction of 50% or greater in at least one time point, which was statistically significant (p=0.008). In regard to specific symptoms, there was a statistically significant between arm difference seen in over 5 timepoints for fatigue, early satiety, night-sweats, itching, bone pain, and weight loss. Comparing MPN-SAF TSS in Complete Response (CR n=51) vs Non-Responder/Partial Responders (NR/PR) (n=96) there was no difference at baseline in any of the measures at any time point. A possible limitation of this study is the potential for bias in which the patients who were lost to follow up could be different then the patients who remained in the study through all 60 months which would affect generalization, particularly at time points at the later years. The novel findings of this investigation demonstrate that Ruxolitinib ameliorates the PV symptom burden in patients resistant or intolerant to HC in a robust durable manner over at least four years, while patients receiving BAT have worsening of their symptom burden over this same time period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yap: Celgene: Honoraria; Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p&gt;0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P&gt;0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p&gt;0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P&gt;0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did not substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract: Many sports medicine physicians are currently considering introducing regenerative medicine into their practice. Regenerative medicine and the subclassification of orthobiologics are a complicated topic and have produced widely varying opinions. Although there is concern by government regulators, clinicians, scientists, patient advocacy organizations, and the media regarding the use of regenerative medicine products, there is also excitement about the potential benefits with growing evidence that certain regenerative medicine products are safe and potentially efficacious in treating musculoskeletal conditions. Sports medicine physicians would benefit from decision-making guidance about whether to introduce orthobiologics into their practice and how to do it responsibly. The purpose of this position statement is to provide sports medicine physicians with information regarding regenerative medicine terminology, a brief review of basic science and clinical studies within the subclassification of orthobiologics, regulatory considerations, and best practices for introducing regenerative medicine into clinical practice. This information will help sports medicine physicians make informed and responsible decisions about the role of regenerative medicine and orthobiologics in their practice.

Abstract Significant progress has been made in understanding the pre-symptomatic phase of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. While much is still unknown, advances in other neurodegenerative diseases offer valuable insights. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that the well-recognized clinical syndromes of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, spinal muscular atrophy and frontotemporal dementia are also each preceded by a pre-symptomatic or prodromal period of varying duration, during which the underlying disease process unfolds, with associated compensatory changes and loss of inherent system redundancy. Key insights from these diseases highlight opportunities for discovery in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The development of biomarkers reflecting amyloid and tau has led to a shift in defining Alzheimer’s disease based on inferred underlying histopathology. Parkinson’s disease is unique among neurodegenerative diseases in the number and diversity of non-genetic biomarkers of pre-symptomatic disease, most notably REM sleep behaviour disorder. Huntington’s disease benefits from an ability to predict the likely timing of clinically manifest disease based on age and CAG-repeat length alongside reliable neuroimaging markers of atrophy. Spinal muscular atrophy clinical trials have highlighted the transformational value of early therapeutic intervention, and studies in frontotemporal dementia illustrate the differential role of biomarkers based on genotype. Similar advances in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis would transform our understanding of key events in pathogenesis, thereby dramatically accelerating progress towards disease prevention. Deciphering the biology of pre-symptomatic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis relies on a clear conceptual framework for defining the earliest stages of disease. Clinically manifest amyotrophic lateral sclerosis may emerge abruptly, especially among those who harbour genetic mutations associated with rapidly progressive amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. However, the disease may also evolve more gradually, revealing a prodromal period of mild motor impairment preceding phenoconversion to clinically manifest disease. Similarly, cognitive and behavioural impairment, when present, may emerge gradually, evolving through a prodromal period of mild cognitive impairment or mild behavioural impairment before progression to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Biomarkers are critically important to studying pre-symptomatic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and essential to efforts to intervene therapeutically before clinically manifest disease emerges. The use of non-genetic biomarkers, however, presents challenges related to counselling, informed consent, communication of results and limited protections afforded by existing legislation. Experiences from pre-symptomatic genetic testing and counselling, and the legal protections against discrimination based on genetic data, may serve as a guide. Building on what we have learned—more broadly from other pre-symptomatic neurodegenerative diseases and specifically from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis gene mutation carriers—we present a road map to early intervention, and perhaps even disease prevention, for all forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Abstract We studied the performance of an algorithm combining multiplex polymerase chain reaction with phenotypic detection of extended-spectrum β-lactamases and carbapenemases directly from positive blood culture bottles in patients with gram-negative bacteremia and found good concordance with routine cultures. Such an algorithm may be a tool to improve time to optimal therapy in patients with gram-negative bacteremia.

Introduction: In order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of neurovascular clinical research studies, increase data quality, facilitate data sharing, help educate new clinical investigators and reduce study start-up time, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) convened a Working Group (WG) that developed Version 1.0 (published 2010) Stroke-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs). Since their initial publication, intervening advances in science and initial experience with the CDEs identified a need to update them and refine guidance on their deployment. Hypothesis/Objective: The NINDS has updated guidance on uniform data structures for use in cerebrovascular research in epidemiology, clinical trials and imaging studies in order to advance the prevention, acute treatment and recovery from cerebrovascular disease. Methods: The NINDS convened experts in research and data element design drawing strongly from investigators in the NIH StrokeNet and other NINDS clinical research projects. Results: Stroke CDE leadership developed a revised process for classifying Stroke CDEs among the four hierarchical categories of Core, Supplemental - Highly Recommended, Supplemental and Exploratory. Due to the heterogeneity of stroke conditions and study types, the classification of Supplemental - Highly Recommended was used for study type (clinical trial or observational), disease type (e.g., ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage) and disease phase (primary prevention, acute, recovery and secondary prevention). Conclusion: The second iteration of NINDS CDE recommendations for neurovascular disease is an important step towards more efficient study start-up time and improved data sharing. The updated CDEs were released on the NINDS CDE website in May 2015. The information at this meeting will include examples of how the Stroke CDEs may be used by a research study, an explanation of the new CDE classifications, and examples of navigating and selecting CDEs from the NINDS CDE website. Support: This project was funded by HHSN271201200034C.

Abstract Purpose: Mutations in KRAS/NRAS (RAS) predict lack of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it is unclear if all RAS mutations have similar impact, and atypical mutations beyond those in standard guidelines exist. Experimental Design: We reviewed 7 tissue and 1 cell-free DNA cohorts of 9,485 patients to characterize atypical RAS variants. Using an in vitro cell-based assay (functional annotation for cancer treatment), Ba/F3 transformation, and in vivo xenograft models of transduced isogenic clones, we assessed signaling changes across mutations. Results: KRAS exon 2, extended RAS, and atypical RAS mutations were noted in 37.8%, 9.5%, and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Among atypical variants, KRAS L19F, Q22K, and D33E occurred at prevalence ≥0.1%, whereas no NRAS codon 117/146 and only one NRAS codon 59 mutation was noted. Atypical RAS mutations had worse overall survival than RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC (HR, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–6.80; P = 0.014). We functionally characterized 114 variants with the FACT assay. All KRAS exon 2 and extended RAS mutations appeared activating. Of 57 atypical RAS variants characterized, 18 (31.6%) had signaling below wild-type, 23 (40.4%) had signaling between wild-type and activating control, and 16 (28.1%) were hyperactive beyond the activating control. Ba/F3 transformation (17/18 variants) and xenograft model (7/8 variants) validation was highly concordant with FACT results, and activating atypical variants were those that occurred at highest prevalence in clinical cohorts. Conclusions: We provide best available evidence to guide treatment when atypical RAS variants are identified. KRAS L19F, Q22K, D33E, and T50I are more prevalent than many guideline-included RAS variants and functionally relevant.