Citations

Abstract INTRODUCTION Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease, yet our comprehension predominantly relies on studies within non‐Hispanic White (NHW) populations. Here we provide an extensive survey of the proteomic landscape of AD across diverse racial/ethnic groups. METHODS Two cortical regions, from multiple centers, were harmonized by uniform neuropathological diagnosis. Among 998 unique donors, 273 donors self‐identified as African American, 229 as Latino American, and 434 as NHW. RESULTS While amyloid precursor protein and the microtubule‐associated protein tau demonstrated higher abundance in AD brains, no significant race‐related differences were observed. Further proteome‐wide and focused analyses (specific amyloid beta [Aβ] species and the tau domains) supported the absence of racial differences in these AD pathologies within the brain proteome. DISCUSSION Our findings indicate that the racial differences in AD risk and clinical presentation are not underpinned by dramatically divergent patterns in the brain proteome, suggesting that other determinants account for these clinical disparities. Highlights We present a large‐scale proteome (∼10,000 proteins) of DLPFC (998) and STG (244) across AD cases. About 50% of samples were from racially and ethnically diverse brain donors. Key AD proteins (amyloid and tau) correlated with CERAD and Braak stages. No significant race‐related differences in amyloid and tau protein levels were observed in AD brains. AD‐associated protein changes showed a strong correlation between the brain proteomes of African American and White individuals. This dataset advances understanding of ethnoracial‐specific AD pathways and potential therapies.

Abstract Most TERT promoter (TERTp) clinically relevant sequence variants in CNS tumors are the canonical C228T and C250T mutations. Non-canonical TERTp mutations have been reported mainly in non-CNS tumors. We describe 12 CNS tumors with non-canonical TERTp variants interpreted as clinically relevant. Using clinical targeted NGS panels (2020-2024), we detected c.-100_-79dup (n=2), c.-92_-91insGGCGGCCCCGCCCCTTCCTTTC (n=1), c.-118_-117insTCCCCGGCCCAGCCCCTTCCGGG (n=1), c.-123_-76dup (n=1), c.-110_-89dup (n=2), and c.-57A>C (n=5). Most cases had chromosomal microarray (n=11) and/or methylation array data analyzed using the NCI/Bethesda v.2 classifier (n=9). All non-canonical TERTp variants occurred at a variant allele frequency suggestive of somatic clonal origin (mean, 34%; range, 18-46), and in adults (mean age, 60 years; range, 36-88). Except for the c.-57A>C variant, all non-canonical TERTp variants occurred in tumors with histological and/or molecular diagnostic features of glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype (GBM), often epigenetically aligning to this tumor type. All five tested cases matched to superfamily glioblastoma (score ≥ 0.9), with three to class GBM_RTK_I (>0.9 in 2, 0.86 in 1) and two to GBM_RTK_II (>0.9). The size and sequence of such variants suggest that these may be functionally equivalent to canonical mutations or generate favorable TERTp activation motif conformations like previously reported activating duplications. The c.-57A>C variant is a well-established oncogenic mutation observed in other cancer types but has not been reported in CNS tumors. We describe five cases with the c.-57A>C variant: one GBM matching to methylation class GBM_MES_TYP (0.99); two oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted, one of which had methylation data matching to class O_IDH (0.99); one diffuse glioma, IDH-mutant, which was partially 1p/19q-codeleted and matched to class O_IDH (0.99); and one anaplastic meningioma, aligning to superfamily meningioma (0.99)/MNG_MAL (0.79). Our findings show that non-canonical TERTp variants typically occur in tumor types that often harbor TERTp canonical mutations, expanding the spectrum of TERTp clinically relevant variants that are molecular biomarkers in CNS tumors.

Objective To identify primary care structures and processes that have the highest and lowest impact on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes as well as to assess the feasibility of implementing these structures and processes into practice. Design A two-round Delphi study was conducted to establish consensus on the impact and feasibility of 258 primary care structures and processes. Participants 29 primary care providers, health system leaders and health services researchers in the USA. Outcomes Primary outcomes were (1) consensus on the impact of each structure and process on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes, separately and (2) consensus on feasibility of implementation by primary care practices. Results Consensus on high impact and feasibility of implementation was reached on four items for chronic disease management: ‘Providers use motivational interviewing to help patients set goals’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice has onsite providers or staff that speak the most dominant, non-English language spoken by patients’ and ‘Practice includes mental health providers and/or behavioural health specialists in care team’ and seven items for screening and prevention: ‘Practice utilizes standing protocols and orders’, ‘Practice generates reports to alert clinicians to missed targets and to identify gaps in care, such as overdue visits, needed vaccinations, screenings or other preventive services’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice sets performance goals and uses benchmarking to track quality of care’, ‘Practice uses performance feedback to identify practice-specific areas of improvement’, ‘Practice builds quality improvement activities into practice operations’ and ‘Pre-visit planning data are reviewed during daily huddles’. Only ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’ appeared on both lists. Conclusion Findings suggest that practices need to focus on implementing mostly distinct, rather than common, structures and processes to optimise chronic disease and preventive care.

PURPOSE The nodal burden of patients with residual isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (ypN0i+) is unknown, and axillary management is not standardized. We investigated rates of additional positive lymph nodes (LNs) at axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and oncologic outcomes in patients with ypN0i+ treated with and without ALND. METHODS The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium-05/ICARO cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06464341 ) retrospectively analyzed data from patients with stage I to III breast cancer with ITCs in SLNs after NAC from 62 centers in 18 countries. The primary end point was the 3-year rate of any axillary recurrence. The rate of any invasive recurrence was the secondary end point. RESULTS In total, 583 patients were included, of whom 182 (31%) had completion ALND and 401 (69%) did not. The median age was 48 years. Most patients (74%) were clinically node-positive at diagnosis and 41% had hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative tumors. The mean number of SLNs with ITCs was 1.2. Patients treated with ALND were more likely to present with cN2/3 disease (17% v 7%, P < .001), have ITCs detected on frozen section (62% v 8%, P < .001), have lymphovascular invasion (38% v 24%, P < .001), and receive adjuvant chest wall (89% v 78%, P = .024) and nodal radiation (82% v 75%, P = .038). Additional positive nodes were found at ALND in 30% of patients, but only 5% had macrometastases. The 3-year rates of any axillary and any invasive recurrence were 2% (95% CI, 0.95 to 3.6) and 11% (95% CI, 8 to 14), respectively, with no statistical difference by type of axillary surgery. CONCLUSION The nodal burden in patients with ypN0(i+) was low, and axillary recurrence after ALND omission was rare in patients selected for this approach. These results do not support routine ALND in all patients with ypN0(i+).

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

Objective Epilepsy surgery is vital in managing of children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Noninvasive and invasive testing modalities allow for evaluation and treatment of children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Evidence-based algorithms for this process do not exist. This study examines expert response to a vignette of pediatric nonlesional epilepsy to assess associations in evaluation and treatment choices. Methods We analyzed annual report data and an epilepsy practice survey reported in 2020 from 135 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Characteristics of centers along with noninvasive and invasive testing and surgical treatment strategies were collected. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed. Results The response rate was 100% with 135 responses included in the analyses. Most used noninvasive testing modalities included Neuropsychology evaluation (90%), interictal brain fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (85%), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (72%) with nearly half obtaining genetic testing. Choosing functional MRI was associated with stereo electroencephalography (EEG) ( P = .025) and selecting Wada with subdural grid/strips ( P = .038). Directors from pediatric-only centers were more likely to choose stereo EEG as opposed to combined centers ( P = .042). Laser interstitial thermal therapy was almost 7 times as likely to be chosen as a treatment modality compared with open resection in dedicated pediatric centers (OR 6.96, P = .002). Significance In a vignette of nonlesional childhood drug-resistant epilepsy, epilepsy center directors’ patterns of noninvasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment were examined. Management choices were associated with pediatric versus combined pediatric/adult center characteristics. Expert opinions demonstrated equipoise in evaluation and management of children with drug-resistant epilepsy and the need for evidence-based management strategies.