Citations

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) describes a group of heterogeneous hematologic disorders with characteristic histopathological features. CD can present with unicentric or multicentric (MCD) regions of lymph node enlargement. Some cases of MCD are caused by human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), whereas others are HHV-8–negative/idiopathic (iMCD). Treatment of iMCD is challenging, and outcomes can be poor because no uniform treatment guidelines exist, few systematic studies have been conducted, and no agreed upon response criteria have been described. The purpose of this paper is to establish consensus, evidence-based treatment guidelines based on the severity of iMCD to improve outcomes. An international Working Group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network to establish consensus guidelines for the management of iMCD based on published literature, review of treatment effectiveness for 344 cases, and expert opinion. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab (or tocilizumab, if siltuximab is not available) with or without corticosteroids is the preferred first-line therapy for iMCD. In the most severe cases, adjuvant combination chemotherapy is recommended. Additional agents are recommended, tailored by disease severity, as second- and third-line therapies for treatment failures. Response criteria were formulated to facilitate the evaluation of treatment failure or success. These guidelines should help treating physicians to stratify patients based on disease severity in order to select the best available therapeutic option. An international registry for patients with CD (ACCELERATE, #NCT02817997) was established in October 2016 to collect patient outcomes to increase the evidence base for selection of therapies in the future.

SummaryAttention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common and challenging comorbidity affecting many children with epilepsy. A working group under the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Pediatric Commission identified key questions on the identification and management of ADHD in children with epilepsy. Systematic reviews of the evidence to support approaches to these questions were collated and graded using criteria from the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) requirements were followed, with PROSPERO registration (CRD42018094617). No increased risk of ADHD in boys with epilepsy compared to girls with epilepsy was found (Level A). Valproate use in pregnancy is associated with inattentiveness and hyperactivity in offspring (1 class I study), and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities are at increased risk of ADHD (Level A). Impact of early seizure onset on development of ADHD was unclear (Level U), but more evident with poor seizure control (Level B). ADHD screening should be performed from 6 years of age, or at diagnosis, and repeated annually (Level U) and reevaluated after change of antiepileptic drug (AED) (Level U). Diagnosis should involve health practitioners with expert training in ADHD (Level U). Use of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire screening tool is supported (Level B). Formal cognitive testing is strongly recommended in children with epilepsy who are struggling at school (Level U). Behavioral problems are more likely with polytherapy than monotherapy (Level C). Valproate can exacerbate attentional issues in children with childhood absence epilepsy (Level A). Methylphenidate is tolerated and effective in children with epilepsy (Level B). Limited evidence supports that atomoxetine is tolerated (Level C). Multidisciplinary involvement in transition and adult ADHD clinics is essential (Level U). In conclusion, although recommendations could be proposed for some of the study questions, this systematic review highlighted the need for more comprehensive and targeted large‐population prospective studies.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant brain tumor in the United States. Incidence of GBM increases with age, and younger age‐at‐diagnosis is significantly associated with improved prognosis. While the relationship between candidate GBM risk SNPs and age‐at‐diagnosis has been explored, genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have not previously been stratified by age. Potential age‐specific genetic effects were assessed in autosomal SNPs for GBM patients using data from four previous GWAS. Using age distribution tertiles (18–53, 54–64, 65+) datasets were analyzed using age‐stratified logistic regression to generate p values, odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), and then combined using meta‐analysis. There were 4,512 total GBM cases, and 10,582 controls used for analysis. Significant associations were detected at two previously identified SNPs in 7p11.2 (rs723527 [p54–63 = 1.50x10−9, OR54–63 = 1.28, 95%CI54–63 = 1.18–1.39; p64+ = 2.14x10−11, OR64+ = 1.32, 95%CI64+ = 1.21–1.43] and rs11979158 [p54–63 = 6.13x10−8, OR54–63 = 1.35, 95%CI54–63 = 1.21–1.50; p64+ = 2.18x10−10, OR64+ = 1.42, 95%CI64+ = 1.27–1.58]) but only in persons >54. There was also a significant association at the previously identified lower grade glioma (LGG) risk locus at 8q24.21 (rs55705857) in persons ages 18–53 (p18–53 = 9.30 × 10−11, OR18–53 = 1.76, 95%CI18–53 = 1.49–2.10). Within The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) there was higher prevalence of ‘LGG’‐like tumor characteristics in GBM samples in those 18–53, with IDH1/2 mutation frequency of 15%, as compared to 2.1% [54–63] and 0.8% [64+] (p = 0.0005). Age‐specific differences in cancer susceptibility can provide important clues to etiology. The association of a SNP known to confer risk for IDH1/2 mutant glioma and higher prevalence of IDH1/2 mutation within younger individuals 18–53 suggests that more younger individuals may present initially with ‘secondary glioblastoma.’

AbstractWe aimed to validate the prognostic association of p16 expression in ovarian high‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) and to explore it in other ovarian carcinoma histotypes. p16 protein expression was assessed by clinical‐grade immunohistochemistry in 6525 ovarian carcinomas including 4334 HGSC using tissue microarrays from 24 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. p16 expression patterns were interpreted as abnormal (either overexpression referred to as block expression or absence) or normal (heterogeneous). CDKN2A (which encodes p16) mRNA expression was also analyzed in a subset (n = 2280) mostly representing HGSC (n = 2010). Association of p16 expression with overall survival (OS) was determined within histotypes as was CDKN2A expression for HGSC only. p16 block expression was most frequent in HGSC (56%) but neither protein nor mRNA expression was associated with OS. However, relative to heterogeneous expression, block expression was associated with shorter OS in endometriosis‐associated carcinomas, clear cell [hazard ratio (HR): 2.02, 95% confidence (CI) 1.47–2.77, p < 0.001] and endometrioid (HR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.30–2.75, p = 0.004), while absence was associated with shorter OS in low‐grade serous carcinomas (HR: 2.95, 95% CI 1.61–5.38, p = 0.001). Absence was most frequent in mucinous carcinoma (50%), and was not associated with OS in this histotype. The prognostic value of p16 expression is histotype‐specific and pattern dependent. We provide definitive evidence against an association of p16 expression with survival in ovarian HGSC as previously suggested. Block expression of p16 in clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma should be further validated as a prognostic marker, and absence in low‐grade serous carcinoma justifies CDK4 inhibition.

Purpose The relevance of inherited pathogenic mutations in cancer predisposition genes in pancreatic cancer is not well understood. We aimed to assess the characteristics of patients with pancreatic cancer referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and to estimate the risk of pancreatic cancer associated with mutations in panel-based cancer predisposition genes in this high-risk population. Methods Patients with pancreatic cancer (N = 1,652) were identified from a 140,000-patient cohort undergoing multigene panel testing of predisposition genes between March 2012 and June 2016. Gene-level mutation frequencies relative to Exome Aggregation Consortium and Genome Aggregation Database reference controls were assessed. Results The frequency of germline cancer predisposition gene mutations among patients with pancreatic cancer was 20.73%. Mutations in ATM, BRCA2, CDKN2A, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, and TP53 were associated with high pancreatic cancer risk (odds ratio, > 5), and mutations in BRCA1 were associated with moderate risk (odds ratio, > 2). In a logistic regression model adjusted for age at diagnosis and family history of cancer, ATM and BRCA2 mutations were associated with personal history of breast or pancreatic cancer, whereas PALB2 mutations were associated with family history of breast or pancreatic cancer. Conclusion These findings provide insight into the spectrum of mutations expected in patients with pancreatic cancer referred for cancer predisposition testing. Mutations in eight genes confer high or moderate risk of pancreatic cancer and may prove useful for risk assessment for pancreatic and other cancers. Family and personal histories of breast cancer are strong predictors of germline mutations.