Citations

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and HER2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. Neratinib (N), one of the experimental agents evaluated in I-SPY 2, graduated in the HR-HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; T->AC). HER2- patients were randomized to receive N+T- >AC vs. T->AC. For HER2+ patients, neratinib was administered in place of trastuzumab (N+T->AC vs. H+T->AC). Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of neratinib response. Methods: 115 patients in the neratinib arm and 76 concurrently randomized controls had Agilent 44K microarrays and pCR data available for analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the neratinib and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and in receptor subsets. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Our analyses do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: There are 133 MP1 patients (neratinib: 74, Control: 59) and 58 MP2 patients (neratinib: 41, Control: 17), 84% (49) of which are Her2-. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. Neratinib (n=115)Control (n=76)MP1 (n=74)MP2 (n=41)MP1 (n=59)MP2 (n=17)HER2- (n=105)0 / 1715 / 337 / 395 / 16HER2+ (n=86)22 / 574 / 85 / 200 / 1 MP2, one of the 10 eligible signatures, did not meet the graduation threshold; and MP1/MP2 did not show a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (OR in neratinib relative to control arm = 1.25). The MP1/MP2 x treatment interaction remains non-significant after adjustment for HR and HER2 status (p=0.54). In HER2- patients receiving neratinib, 45% (15/33) of MP2 patients achieved a pCR, compared to 0% (0/17) of MP1 patients. In the HER2- controls, there is a 31% pCR rate in MP2 (5/16) vs. 18% in MP1 (7/39) patients (OR=2.14). This difference in performance between treatment arms appears significant (p=0.041). 90% of HER2+ patients are MP1, thus MP1/MP2 status x treatment interaction within the HER2+ subtype cannot be evaluated. Conclusion: Within the I-SPY 2 population as a whole, MP1/MP2 stratification does not appear to be a specific biomarker of response to neratinib relative to the control arm. The number of HER2- patients is small and precludes any definitive conclusion, but these data motivate further investigation of the biological mechanisms distinguishing MP1 from MP2 to better understand chemotherapy and/or neratanib responsiveness. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy Boughey, Doug Yee, Debu Tripathy, Angela DeMichele, Rita Nanda, Steven Chiu, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Hank Kaplan, Stacey Moulder, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Kirsten Edmiston, Anthony Elias, Toncred Styblo, Barbara Haley, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian L Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, W Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-29.

Abstract Background: We hypothesize that response to the pan-ERBB inhibitor, neratinib (N), may be predicted by pre-treatment HER2-EGFR signaling. In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, N graduated in the HR-/HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy. For HER2+ patients, N was administered in place of trastuzumab. We evaluated 18 HER family signaling proteins as biomarkers of N response using reverse phase protein microarray (RPMA) data from pre-treatment LCM purified tumor epithelium. Methods: 168 patients (N: 106, concurrent controls: 62) had RPMA and pCR data. 18 biomarkers relating to HER family signaling were evaluated: AKT S473, AKT T308, EGFR, EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1148, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 total, ERBB3 Y1289, ERK1/2 T202/Y204, Heregulin, mTOR, mTOR S2448, PI3K p85 Y458/p55 Y199, PTEN S380, and SHC Y317. We assessed association between biomarker and response in the N and control arms alone (likelihood ratio test), and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction) using a logistic model. Analysis was also performed adjusting for HR/HER2 status. In an exploratory analysis, we selected the marker with the greatest interaction (phosphorylated EGFR (Y1173)) to dichotomize patients optimally based on the data and assessed it in the context of the graduating signature by adding the EGFR Y1173-High patients to the HR-/HER2+ subtype and evaluating the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data and does not account for multiplicities. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Results: 7 HER pathway markers (EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2 total, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 Y1289, SHC Y317) are associated with response in the N but not the control arm. However, the difference in performance between arms did not reach significance by permutation testing. Adjusting for HR/HER2 status, EGFR Y1173 shows a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p = 0.049). In an exploratory analysis, we dichotomized patients by their EGFR Y1173 levels and evaluated the distribution of pCR rates (Table 1). Neratinib (n=106)Control (n=62)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=31)EGFR Y1173 High (n=75)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=29)EGFR Y1173 High (n=33)HR-/HER2+ (n=28)0 / 412 / 181 / 11 / 5Not HR-/HER2+ (n=140)3 / 2724 / 575 / 285 / 28Table 1 OR between EGFR Y1173 groups in the N relative to control arm is 10.1. When EGFR Y1173 High patients are added to the graduating HR-/HER2+ subset, the OR associated with treatment is 3.2 and is comparable to that in the HR-/HER2+ signature (OR: 2.1), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼50%. Evaluation of EGFR Y1173 under the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model is pending. Conclusion: Our sample size is too small to draw definitive conclusions. Our exploratory analysis reveals that HER family phosphoproteins associate with response to N, but only phosphorylated EGFR Y1173 appears to add value to the graduating signature. Given that this biomarker would expand the patient population that may benefit, it merits evaluation in other ongoing trials of neratinib. Citation Format: Julia D Wulfkuhle, Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Rosa I Gallagher, Ashish Sanil, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators, Meredith Buxton, Angela DeMichele, Nola Hylton, William F Symmans, Laura van't Veer, Douglas Yee, Melissa Paoloni, Laura Esserman, Donald Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Emanuel F Petricoin III. Evaluation of HER family protein signaling network as a predictive biomarker for pCR for breast cancer patients treated with neratinib in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-15.

Abstract Background: Overexpression of COX-2 has been associated with worse outcome in NSCLC. In C30203, we found that administration of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in addition to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC improved outcome (progression free and overall survival, PFS, OS) in pts with moderate to high COX-2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). C30801 was designed to prospectively confirm that finding. Patients and Methods: Pts with NSCLC (stage IIIb with pleural effusion, IV 6th ed) were pre-registered and biopsy specimens analyzed for COX-2 by IHC. Pts with COX-2 expression > or = 2, PS 0-2 and normal organ function were eligible. Chemotherapy was determined by histology: carboplatin (AUC = 6), pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) d 1, q21 days for pts with non-squamous NSCLC; carboplatin(AUC=5.5) d1, gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) d 1,8 for pts with squamous histology. Randomization was to celecoxib (400 mg bid) (Arm A) or placebo (Arm B). The primary endpoint was to demonstrate improvement in PFS in patients with COX-2 index >=4 with hazard ratio of 0.645. Results: The study was halted by the DSMB for futility after 312 of the planned 322 pts were randomized. The current analysis is based upon the first 300 pts. There were no significant differences between the groups (Table). There was a possible harmful effect for COX-2 inhibition in the COX-2 2-3 subset (OS HR = 1.75, p =.0977). Toxicity was similar for both arms. Subset analyses evaluating histology, chemotherapy regimen, incremental COX-2 expression did not demonstrate any advantage for COX-2 inhibition. Conclusions: 1. COX-2 expression by IHC failed to select pts who could benefit from selective COX-2 inhibition. 2. COX-2 inhibition did not significantly increase toxicity associated with chemotherapy or increase cardiovascular morbidity. 3. We will evaluate other possible determinants of toxicity and response to COX-2 inhibition. OutcomeArm AArm BCOX-2 2-3 (n=37)COX-2 > or = 4 (n=111)COX-2 2-3 (n=46)COX-2 > or = 4 (n=106)PFS (months)4.404.934.606.11OS (months)9.0310.5814.8512.68 Citation Format: Martin J. Edelman, Xiaofei Wang, Lydia Hodgson, Richard T. Cheney, Maria Baggstrom, Thomas Sachdev, Ajeet Gajra, Erin Bertino, Karen Reckamp, Julian Molina, Joan Schiller, Kisha Mitchell-Richards, Paula Friedman, Jon Ritter, Everett Vokes, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Phase III randomized, placebo controlled trial of COX-2 inhibition in addition to standard chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC):CALGB 30801 (Alliance). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT238. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT238

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II neoadjuvant trial in women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer using adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents added to standard chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Goal is to identify regimens that meet a high Bayesian predictive probability of statistical significance in a neoadjuvant 300-patient phase III trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Experimental regimens may “graduate” in 1 of 10 signatures, with a maximum of 120 patients. We report efficacy results for neratinib (N). Methods: Tumors ≥2.5cm by clinical exam & ≥2cm by imaging are eligible for screening. MP low risk/HR+/HER2- tumors are ineligible for randomization. Patients receive chemotherapy (paclitaxel qwk x 12, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide q2-3 wk x 4, T->AC). HER2- pts were randomized to N+T->AC vs. T->AC and HER2+ pts to N+T->AC vs. trastuzumab+T->AC. Analysis is intent-to-treat with pts who switch to non-protocol therapy regarded as non-pCRs. We provide estimated pCR rates (95% Bayesian probability intervals), probabilities of superiority of neratinib over control, and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in an equally randomized phase III trial. Results: Neratinib met the predictive probability criterion in HR-/HER2+, “graduated”, and accrual ceased [115 N patients (65 HER2+), 78 concurrently randomized controls (22 HER2+)]. The table shows results for all 10 signatures. Two patients (1 N and 1 control) withdrew consent and are not included. Conclusion: I-SPY 2's standing trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined patient subsets. In a modest number of patients, adaptive randomization successfully identified a biomarker signature (HR-/HER2+) for neratinib's further development. All HER2+ and MP+ tumors may also benefit from this regimen, consistent with preclinical data. Evaluation in I-SPY 3, a phase III registration trial, is planned. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability NeratinibIs Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIINeratinibControlALL32% (28-36%)23% (19%-28%)92%44%HR+23% (18%-28%)17% (11%-22%)81%40%HR-43% (37%-49%)31% (24%-38%)89%53%HER2+39% (33%-45%)23% (15%-30%)95%73%HER2-26% (21%-32%)24% (18%-29%)63%20%MP+*45% (38%-53%)29% (20%-39%)91%66%HR-/HER2-36% (29%-43%)30% (23%-38%)72%34%HR-/HER2+55% (46%-64%)32% (22%-43%)94%78%HR+/HER2+31% (24%-37%)17% (10%-24%)91%65%HR+/HER2-14% (8%-19%)16% (10%-21%)39%12%* MammaPrint 44K Array Low/High score was adjusted to MammaPrint High1 (MP-) or High2 (MP+), using a pre-defined median cut-point of I-SPY 1 participants, who fit the eligibility criteria of I-SPY 2. Citation Format: John W. Park, Minetta C. Liu, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Laura van 't Veer, Nola Hylton, Fraser Symmans, Meredith B. Buxton, A. Jo Chien, Amy Wallace, Michelle Melisko, Richard Schwab, Judy Boughey, Debashish Tripathy, Hank Kaplan, Rita Nanda, Stephen Chui, Kathy S. Albain, Stacy Moulder, Anthony Elias, Julie E. Lang, Kirsten Edminston, Donald Northfelt, David Euhus, Qamar Khan, Julia Lyandres, Sarah E. Davis, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Laura J. Esserman, Donald A. Berry. Neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer: Efficacy results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT227. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT227

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncologists' preferences for methods to increase delivery of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients. Methods: An email list of 6844 physicians at NCI Designated Cancer Centers was generated using publically available online resources. An online survey was conducted in the fall of 2013 to assess tobacco assessment and cessation practices by physicians, barriers to providing cessation support, and methods to improve access to cessation services for cancer patients. Results of this survey are compared to similar survey findings by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Results: Of 6844 electronically delivered survey invitations, we received 887 responses (13%). Consistent with previously published ASCO and IASLC surveys, 90% of physicians agreed that tobacco use by patients affects cancer treatment outcomes (vs. 87-92% in ASCO/IASLC), 90% of respondents reported that they ask patients about their tobacco use (vs. 90% in ASCO/IASLC), and 83% routinely advise tobacco users to quit (vs. 80-82% in ASCO/IASLC). However, only 37% of respondents regularly discussed medications, and 35% actively treated patients (vs. 39-44% in ASCO/IASLC). Most (71%) responding oncologists preferred cessation support be provided at the initial patient consult, and few (11%) were concerned about the use of tobacco cessation medications. Lack of time and lack of available resources were the dominant barriers to the administration of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients by oncologists. Only 10% of oncologists believed they were adequately trained to counsel patients on smoking cessation, but 55% reported that training for someone else in their clinic would increase tobacco cessation support. When asked what provider they prefer to administer cessation support to cancer patients, 16% reported a primary care physician, 18% reported a mid-level (nurse practitioner or physician assistant), 50% reported any other clinical staff, and only 1% preferred to personally provide cessation support. Whereas most (58%) oncologists preferred to have dedicated cessation services within their institution, 38% reported they would use dedicated services either within, or outside their institution. Conclusions: Most oncologists at NCI Designated Cancer Centers recognize the importance of tobacco cessation, but prefer to have tobacco cessation support for cancer patients provided by another trained professional. Citation Format: Alix Pommerenke, Anthony Alberg, Thomas H. Brandon, Ivana Croghan, Michael K. Cummings, Carolyn Dresler, Ellen R. Gritz, Roy Herbst, Scott Leischow, James R. Marshall, Benjamin Toll, Graham Warren. Physician preferences in tobacco cessation support for cancer patients: A survey of physicians at National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Centers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 5049. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-5049

Abstract Recent studies have shown that associations between common genetic variation and gene expression in breast tumors provide insight into the functional mechanisms underlying breast cancer risk loci. However, the relationship between genetic variation, gene expression, and risk of triple negative (TN) breast cancer remains largely unexplored. We performed a genome-wide expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) analysis of TN breast cancer using 668 formalin-fixed paraffin embedded TN tumors from the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Consortium (TNBCC) to identify novel genes relevant to TN breast cancer risk and to further explore the biology underlying known TN risk loci. Cis-eQTLs were defined as correlations between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and expression of genes within 1Mb, and trans-eQTLs were defined as the remainder of all SNP-gene correlations. In a genome-wide analysis, we identified 68,012 cis-eQTLs, representing correlations between 42,193 SNPs and 2,092 genes that were significant at a 10% false discovery rate (FDR). We also identified 70 trans-eQTLs across two unique genes at the same FDR threshold. Five cis-eQTLs involved SNPs previously associated with TN breast cancer risk (p<5.0x10-5) in 3,700 TN cases and 4,700 controls from the TNBCC. Three of these, located on chromosomes 5p (cis-eQTL p=4.8x10-34; risk p=1.1x10-7), 7p (cis-eQTL p=6.1x10-10; risk p=1.3x10-7), and 17q (cis-eQTL p=1.8x10-15; risk p=2.9x10-7), have previously been reported in public databases of normal tissue. The remaining two TN breast cancer cis-eQTLs, located on chromosomes 8q (cis-eQTL p=6.3x10-6, risk p=8.3x10-6) and 14q (cis-eQTL p=3.1x10-6, risk p=1.2x10-5), have not been reported as eQTLs in other tissues. In addition, 12 of 25 known TN breast cancer risk loci (PEX14, MDM4, 2q31.1, ESR1, 11q13.1, 11q24.3, 12p13.1, PTHLH, NTN4, 12q24, 19p13.1, MLK1), contained at least one significant cis-eQTL. In summary, we have identified five cis-eQTLs that may identify novel risk loci for TN breast cancer. Citation Format: Kristen S. Purrington, Drakoulis Yannoukakos, Jane Carpenter, Heli Nevanlinna, Angela Cox, Gianluca Severi, Christine Ambrosone, Amanda Ewart Toland, Andrew K. Godwin, Hiltrud Brauch, Peter A. Fasching, Penelope Miron, Jenny Chang-Claude, Nicholas G. Martin, Grant W. Montgomery, Vessela Kristensen, Hoda Anton-Culver, Paul Goodfellow, Janet E. Olson, Hugues Sicotte, Naresh Prodduturi, Daniel W. Visscher, Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, S. Keith Anderson, Seth Slettedahl, Curtis Olswold, Xianshu Wang, V. Shane Pankratz, Susan Slager, Wei Zheng, Arto Mannermaa, Ute Hamann, Diana M. Eccles, Celine M. Vachon, Fergus J. Couch. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis of triple negative breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 3266. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-3266

Abstract Background: Nulliparity is an established endometrial cancer risk factor, but whether this association is related to infertility is unclear. Although there are many underlying causes of infertility, few studies have assessed risk relationships according to specific causes. Despite concerns that most treatments induce ovulation and that the endometrium is highly hormonally-responsive, previous studies have provided conflicting results on treatment associations. Methods: To address these issues, we conducted a pooled analysis of 8,151 cases and12,471 controls from 2 cohort and 12 case-control studies conducted in 1982 to 2009 (N. America, Europe, Australia, Asia). All studies provided self-reported infertility, causes and treatments, except for 1 study that relied on data from national registries. Study-specific exposures and covariate data were harmonized across studies. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for study, age, interview year, race, parity, oral contraceptive and menopausal hormone use, and body mass index. If data were not reported for a particular variable, that study was excluded from the variable-specific analysis. Results: Nulliparous women had an elevated endometrial cancer risk compared with parous women (adjusted OR=1.73; 95% CI: 1.58-1.90).Women with self-reported infertility also had an increased risk (adjusted OR=1.22; 95% CI: 1.13-1.32) compared with those without infertility issues, even after adjusting for parity; the strongest associations was seen among studies that defined infertility as unsuccessfully trying to conceive for 2+ years (adjusted OR=1.31; 95% CI: 1.07-1.60). Infertility was associated with similar risks among nulliparous (1.22; 1.10-1.48) and parous (1.22; 1.12-1.34) women, although there was no increased risk associated with infertility among those who had given birth to 3+ children. Two infertility causes associated with risk elevation were endometriosis (adjusted OR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.46-2.95 compared with women no infertility problems) and anovulation (adjusted OR=1.40; 95% CI: 1.16-1.70). Based on relatively small numbers, none of the individual treatments (in vitro fertilization, selective estrogen response modulators, gonatropins, progestins, estrogens) were substantially related to risk. Conclusion: Based on mainly self-reported infertility data, we found that parity and infertility independently contribute to endometrial cancer risk, with parity seemingly being the predominant risk predictor. Understanding residual endometrial cancer relationships related to causes of infertility and infertility treatment may benefit from documented medical information on causes of infertility and treatment parameters. Citation Format: Hannah P. Yang, Linda S. Cook, Elisabete Weiderpass, Hans-Olov Adami, Kristin E. Anderson, Hui Cai, James R. Cerhan, Tess Clendenen, Ashley S. Felix, Christine Friedenreich, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Marc T. Goodman, Xiaolin Liang, Jolanta Lissowska, Lingeng Lu, Anthony M. Magliocco, Susan E. McCann, Kristen B. Moysich, Sara H. Olson, Malcolm C. Pike, Silvia Polidoro, Fulvio Ricceri, Harvey Risch, Carlotta Sacerdote, V. Wendy Setiawan, Xiao Ou Shu, Amanda B. Spurdle, Britton Trabert, Penelope M. Webb, Nicolas Wentzensen, Yong-Bing Xiang, Youming Xu, Herbert Yu, Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, Louise A. Brinton. Infertility and risk of incident endometrial carcinoma: a pooled analysis from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2167. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2167

The Case Study Interpretation (CSI) cases presented at the 2014 International Clinical Cytometry Society (ICCS) meeting in Seattle illustrate the utility of state‐of‐the art multiparameter flow cytometry in the diagnosis of hematolymphoid neoplasms. Download the listmode files (Supporting Information) and test your analysis skills before reading the case reports, keeping in mind the following questions. How many separate abnormal mature B‐cell populations can you identify, and how many of these represent different subtypes of B‐cell neoplasm? How many separate abnormal mature T‐cell populations can you identify, and do these represent different subtypes of T‐cell neoplasm or phenotypic heterogeneity in one neoplasm? How many separate immature/blastic cell populations can you identify, and do they meet criteria for mixed phenotype leukemia? Is there a population of blasts that lacks T‐cell, B‐cell, and myeloid lineage defining antigens and if so, what entities should you consider and what additional antigens should you assess for? © 2015 International Clinical Cytometry Society

SummaryPatient‐specific primers from 10 children/adolescents with Burkitt leukaemia (BL) ± central nervous system disease who were treated with French‐British‐American/Lymphome Malins de Burkitt 96 C1 plus rituximab were developed from diagnostic blood/bone marrow. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by real‐time polymerase chain reaction at the end of induction (EOI) and consolidation (EOC). Seventy per cent (7/10) and 71% (5/7) were MRD‐positive at EOI and EOC, respectively, with no disease recurrences. MRD after induction and consolidation did not predict relapse and subsequent therapy appeared to eliminate MRD. Thus, assessing MRD at a later time point is warranted in future trials to determine its clinical significance.