Citations

MDJ and MTJ contributed equally; FLL and AG contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two lines of systemic therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, the median time between apheresis and delivery of CAR T cells to the treating facility was 17 days (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). Bridging therapy, defined as lymphoma therapy given between apheresis and the start of lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was not permitted on ZUMA-1. By contrast, the pivotal JULIET trial for tisa-cel (Schuster et al. NEJM 2019) had a median time from enrollment to infusion of 54 days and 92% of patients received bridging therapy. Whether bridging therapy affects lymphoma CAR T outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate patients receiving bridging therapy for axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data from lymphoma patients treated with standard of care (SOC) CAR T-cell therapy independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture SOC axi-cel for LBCL. Of the 23 patients that underwent apheresis for axi-cel and did not receive it, 20 had lymphoma progression or death that precluded CAR T infusion, of which 16 received bridging therapy. In this study, we analyze the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 276 patients receiving CAR T infusion with a median follow up of 9 months. In this group, 146 (53%) patients received bridging therapy while 130 (47%) patients received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of steroids alone (n = 35, 24%), chemotherapy (n = 73, 50%), radiation (n = 24, 16%), or targeted therapies (n = 14, 10%). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the bridging therapy group had an ECOG score of 2 - 4 vs. 0 - 1 (bridging 24.8%, no bridging 6.1%, p <0.001), IPI score of 3 -5 vs. 0 - 2 (bridging 67.6%, no bridging 34.3%, p <0.001), bulky disease greater than 10 cm (28.2% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.002), immunohistochemical double expression of MYC and BCL2 (42.5% vs. 24.6%, p =0.004) and would not have met all the eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 for reasons other than bridging therapy (48.6% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.002). After axi-cel infusion, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of severe (grade 3 or higher) cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (8.2% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.34) and ICANS (35.2% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.25). However, the rate of ICU admission was higher in the bridging group (41.4% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.001) as was median length of hospital stay (15 vs. 14 days, p = 0.02). While data on cytopenias was not collected, use of G-CSF after CAR T therapy was higher in the bridging group (48.2% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.006). In terms of outcomes, in multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, there was no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (p = 0.2), complete response rate (p = 0.19), and progression free survival (p = 0.3) between bridging and no bridging groups; but bridging therapy was associated with significantly poorer overall survival (p = 0.001) and lymphoma specific survival (p = 0.019) (figure 1.). Both death due to lymphoma (33.1% vs. 13.0%) and death due to treatment-related mortality (TRM) (6.9% vs. 1.5%) were higher in the bridging group (p <0.001). Conclusions Lymphoma patients receiving bridging therapy had poorer prognostic factors at baseline and after axi-cel infusion experienced decreased lymphoma-specific and overall survival compared with patients with no bridging. This inferior outcome raises the possibility that bridging therapy may identify a sub-group of lymphoma patients with a different biology, or alternatively, bridging therapy may have an effect on the host or the tumor microenvironment that may impact CAR-T efficacy. With or without bridging, 7% of patients in our series did not receive axi-cel due to lymphoma progression and/or death. In addition, there may have been patients where bridging prevented progression or death prior to axi-cel infusion. Prospective evaluation of different bridging strategies is warranted to determine if any can improve outcomes after axi-cel, and/or if they should be utilized only for patients requiring emergent disease control during the manufacture period. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lin:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BlueBird Bio: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sorrento: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Curis: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; VANIUM: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Goy:University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Munoz:Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Cellectis: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Karus: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy. Bennani:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Andreadis:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy.

AbstractHyaline molds, widely distributed in nature, are an important and increasing cause of invasive fungal infections in humans, likely due to an expanding population of immunosuppressed hosts, increases in antifungal resistance, and improvements in laboratory diagnostics. Sinopulmonary disease and disseminated infection are common manifestations in neutropenic patients and transplant recipients, whereas, catheter-related and localized soft tissue infections predominate in immunocompetent hosts. These organisms are not reliably differentiated based on their morphology in tissue; rather, efforts should be made to establish a microbiologic diagnosis via culture or molecular-based methods to guide antifungal management and inform prognosis. Herein, we review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of these opportunistic pathogens known to cause hyalohyphomycoses: Scedosporium spp., Lomentospora prolificans, Fusarium spp., Scopulariopsis spp., Arthrographis kalrae, Trichoderma spp., Acremonium spp., Paecilomyces variotii, Purpureocillium lilacinum, and Penicillium species.

Abstract Background Electrophoretic methods to detect, characterize and quantify M-proteins play an important role in the management of patients with monoclonal gammopathies (MGs). Significant uncertainty in the quantification and limit of detection (LOD) is documented when M-proteins are <10 g/L. Using spiked sera, we aimed to assess the variability in intact M-protein quantification and LOD across 16 laboratories. Methods Sera with normal, hypo- or hyper-gammaglobulinemia were spiked with daratumumab or elotuzumab, with concentrations from 0.125 to 10 g/L (n = 62) along with a beta-migrating sample (n = 9). Laboratories blindly analyzed samples according to their serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP)/isotyping standard operating procedures. LOD and intra-laboratory percent coefficient of variation (%CV) were calculated and further specified with regard to the method (gel/capillary electrophoresis [CZE]), gating strategy (perpendicular drop [PD]/tangent skimming [TS]), isotyping (immunofixation/immunosubtraction [ISUB]) and manufacturer (Helena/Sebia). Results All M-proteins ≥1 g/L were detected by SPEP. With isotyping the LOD was moderately more sensitive than with SPEP. The intensity of polyclonal background had the biggest negative impact on LOD. Independent of the method used, the intra-laboratory imprecision of M-protein quantification was small (mean CV = 5.0%). Low M-protein concentration and high polyclonal background had the strongest negative impact on intra-laboratory precision. All laboratories were able to follow trend of M-protein concentrations down to 1 g/L. Conclusions In this study, we describe a large variation in the reported LOD for both SPEP and isotyping; overall LOD is most affected by the polyclonal immunoglobulin background. Satisfactory intra-laboratory precision was demonstrated. This indicates that the quantification of small M-proteins to monitor patients over time is appropriate, when subsequent testing is performed within the same laboratory.

Abstract Background Serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) is used to quantify the serum monoclonal component or M-protein, for diagnosis and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies. Significant imprecision and inaccuracy pose challenges in reporting small M-proteins. Using therapeutic monoclonal antibody-spiked sera and a pooled beta-migrating M-protein, we aimed to assess SPEP limitations and variability across 16 laboratories in three continents. Methods Sera with normal, hypo- or hypergammaglobulinemia were spiked with daratumumab, Dara (cathodal migrating), or elotuzumab, Elo (central-gamma migrating), with concentrations from 0.125 to 10 g/L (n = 62) along with a beta-migrating sample (n = 9). Provided with total protein (reverse biuret, Siemens), laboratories blindly analyzed samples according to their SPEP and immunofixation (IFE) or immunosubtraction (ISUB) standard operating procedures. Sixteen laboratories reported the perpendicular drop (PD) method of gating the M-protein, while 10 used tangent skimming (TS). A mean percent recovery range of 80%–120% was set as acceptable. The inter-laboratory %CV was calculated. Results Gamma globulin background, migration pattern and concentration all affect the precision and accuracy of quantifying M-proteins by SPEP. As the background increases, imprecision increases and accuracy decreases leading to overestimation of M-protein quantitation especially evident in hypergamma samples, and more prominent with PD. Cathodal migrating M-proteins were associated with less imprecision and higher accuracy compared to central-gamma migrating M-proteins, which is attributed to the increased gamma background contribution in M-proteins migrating in the middle of the gamma fraction. There is greater imprecision and loss of accuracy at lower M-protein concentrations. Conclusions This study suggests that quantifying exceedingly low concentrations of M-proteins, although possible, may not yield adequate accuracy and precision between laboratories.

Abstract Background Although 20 pancreatic cancer susceptibility loci have been identified through genome-wide association studies in individuals of European ancestry, much of its heritability remains unexplained and the genes responsible largely unknown. Methods To discover novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and possible causal genes, we performed a pancreatic cancer transcriptome-wide association study in Europeans using three approaches: FUSION, MetaXcan, and Summary-MulTiXcan. We integrated genome-wide association studies summary statistics from 9040 pancreatic cancer cases and 12 496 controls, with gene expression prediction models built using transcriptome data from histologically normal pancreatic tissue samples (NCI Laboratory of Translational Genomics [n = 95] and Genotype-Tissue Expression v7 [n = 174] datasets) and data from 48 different tissues (Genotype-Tissue Expression v7, n = 74–421 samples). Results We identified 25 genes whose genetically predicted expression was statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer risk (false discovery rate &lt; .05), including 14 candidate genes at 11 novel loci (1p36.12: CELA3B; 9q31.1: SMC2, SMC2-AS1; 10q23.31: RP11-80H5.9; 12q13.13: SMUG1; 14q32.33: BTBD6; 15q23: HEXA; 15q26.1: RCCD1; 17q12: PNMT, CDK12, PGAP3; 17q22: SUPT4H1; 18q11.22: RP11-888D10.3; and 19p13.11: PGPEP1) and 11 at six known risk loci (5p15.33: TERT, CLPTM1L, ZDHHC11B; 7p14.1: INHBA; 9q34.2: ABO; 13q12.2: PDX1; 13q22.1: KLF5; and 16q23.1: WDR59, CFDP1, BCAR1, TMEM170A). The association for 12 of these genes (CELA3B, SMC2, and PNMT at novel risk loci and TERT, CLPTM1L, INHBA, ABO, PDX1, KLF5, WDR59, CFDP1, and BCAR1 at known loci) remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Conclusions By integrating gene expression and genotype data, we identified novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and candidate functional genes that warrant further investigation.

M.T.J. and M.D.J. contributed equally; A.G. and F.L.L. contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy that is approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, 93% of patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). CRS is a non-antigen-specific toxicity that occurs as a result of CAR T and bystander immune cell activation. Whether lack of development of CRS after treatment with axi-cel is associated with inferior lymphoma outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate the outcomes of patients that did not develop CRS after receiving axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture standard of care axi-cel for LBCL. In this study, we analyzed the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 276 patients receiving CAR T infusion with a median follow up of 9 months. In this group, 25 patients (9%) did not develop CRS and 251 patients (91%) developed CRS following axi-cel infusion. CRS was graded according to Lee criteria (Lee et al. Blood 2014) or CARTOX (Neelapu SS et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the no CRS group had ECOG score of 0-1 (no CRS group 100% vs. CRS group 82%, p= 0.019) and IPI score of 0-2 (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 46%, p = 0.019) After CAR T cell infusion, patients who did not develop CRS had a lower chance of developing grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity (no CRS group 4% vs. CRS group 35%, p=0.001), lower rates of ICU admission (no CRS group 8% vs. CRS group 35%, p = 0.006), and shorter length of hospital stay (median 10 days for no CRS group vs 14 days for CRS group, p &lt; 0.001). Of the 25 patients who had grade 0 CRS, 23 (92%%) also had grade 0 neurotoxicity. In univariate analysis, no CRS was associated with lower complete response (CR) rate (no CRS group 40% vs. CRS group 66%, p=0.015) but no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (ORR) (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 84%, p= 0.158). In relation to CRS there was no difference in treatment related mortality among the two groups (CRS group 4% vs. no CRS group 4.4%, p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, no CRS was associated with statistically significant lower complete response rate (p = 0.002), but there was no significant difference in ORR (p = 0.13), overall survival (P=0.15), progression free survival (P=0.16), and time to progression (P= 0.14) between the two groups (figure 1.). Conclusions In this large cohort of LBCL patients receiving axi-cel with median follow up of 9 months, patients that did not develop CRS, compared with those that developed CRS, achieved lower rates of complete response but there was no difference in overall response rate, progression free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and treatment related mortality between the two groups. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lunning:Spectrum: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; VANIUM: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Deol:Agios: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Andreadis:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Wugen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite Pharma a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is a common deadly malignant brain cancer of the central nervous system (CNS), with a median survival of 12–15 months. Scientific advancements are lacking in developing effective therapies for both primary GBM, as well as secondary GBMs, that typically originate as malignant transformation of lower-grade isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1-mutant tumors. The unique metabolomic profile of IDH1-mutant tumors may present opportunities to develop biomarker signatures of therapeutic efficacy. Microdialysis is an extracellular fluid sampling collection technique utilizing a perfused semipermeable catheter to permit diffusion of molecules between brain interstitium and the perfusate. We hypothesized that microdialysis may identify a metabolomics-based biomarker response to therapy in IDH1-mutant tumors. To test this hypothesis, orthotopic xenografts were generated from two patient-derived GBM lines harboring mutations in IDH1. Perfusates were collected from intra-cranial tumors in aythmic nude mice sampled at baseline and 72h post treatment with temozolomide, an oral alkylating agent used to treat IDH1-mutant gliomas, compared with vehicle treatment, and TMZ-treated non-tumor bearing animals. Perfusates were analyzed via unsupervised metabolomic profiling using both gas and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/LC-MS). Tumor specific metabolites such as carnitine and pyruvic acid were detected in microdialysate from tumor bearing mice compared to non-tumor bearing mice. Microdialysis is a feasible technology to identify metabolomics-based biomarker in IDH1-mutant PDX. This work is complemented by parallel analysis of non-IDH1-mutant and TMZ resistant xenografts to yield predictive in vivo tissue biomarkers of drug responsiveness translatable to clinical practice.

Testing asymptomatic individuals for unsuspected conditions is not new to the medical and public health communities and protocols to develop screening tests are well-established. However, the application of screening principles to inherited diseases presents unique challenges. Unlike most screening tests, the natural history and disease prevalence of most rare inherited diseases in an unselected population are unknown. It is difficult or impossible to obtain a “truth set” cohort for clinical validation studies. As a result, it is not possible to accurately calculate clinical positive and negative predictive values for “likely pathogenic” genetic variants, which are commonly returned in genetic screening assays. In addition, many of the genetic conditions included in screening panels do not have clinical confirmatory tests. All of these elements are typically required to justify the development of a screening test, according to the World Health Organization screening principles. Nevertheless, as the cost of DNA sequencing continues to fall, more individuals are opting to undergo genomic testing in the absence of a clinical indication. Despite the challenges, reasonable estimates can be deduced and used to inform test design strategies. Here, we review test design principles and apply them to genetic screening.