Citations

AbstractBackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient‐centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests.MethodsRAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2.ResultsFor 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid‐Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated “usually appropriate” or “rarely appropriate” and 45 of 148 (30%), “appropriateness uncertain.” Limitations: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded.ConclusionsAUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

Abstract Polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young (PLNTY) is a recently described epileptogenic tumor characterized by oligodendroglioma-like components, aberrant CD34 expression, and frequent mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway activation. We molecularly profiled 13 cases with diagnostic histopathological features of PLNTY (10 female; median age, 16 years; range, 5–52). Patients frequently presented with seizures (9 of 12 with available history) and temporal lobe tumors (9 of 13). MAPK pathway activating alterations were identified in all 13 cases. Fusions were present in the 7 youngest patients: FGFR2-CTNNA3 (n = 2), FGFR2-KIAA1598 (FGFR2-SHTN1) (n = 1), FGFR2-INA (n = 1), FGFR2-MPRIP (n = 1), QKI-NTRK2 (n = 1), and KIAA1549-BRAF (n = 1). BRAF V600E mutation was present in 6 patients (17 years or older). Two fusion-positive cases additionally harbored TP53/RB1 abnormalities suggesting biallelic inactivation. Copy number changes predominantly involving whole chromosomes were observed in all 10 evaluated cases, with losses of chromosome 10q occurring with FGFR2-KIAA1598 (SHTN1)/CTNNA3 fusions. The KIAA1549-BRAF and QKI-NTRK2 fusions were associated respectively with a 7q34 deletion and 9q21 duplication. This study shows that despite its name, PLNTY also occurs in older adults, who frequently show BRAF V600E mutation. It also expands the spectrum of the MAPK pathway activating alterations associated with PLNTY and demonstrates recurrent chromosomal copy number changes consistent with chromosomal instability.

To examine the extent of the evaluation required to achieve diagnostic resolution and the test performance characteristics of a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test, ~6200 participants ≥50 years with (cohort A) or without (cohort B) ≥1 of 3 additional specific cancer risk factors will be enrolled in PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), a prospective, longitudinal, interventional, multi-center study. Plasma cfDNA from blood samples will be analyzed to detect abnormally methylated DNA associated with cancer (i.e., cancer “signal”) and a cancer signal origin (i.e., tissue of origin). Participants with a “signal detected” will undergo further diagnostic evaluation per guiding physician discretion; those with a “signal not detected” will be advised to continue guideline-recommended screening. The primary objective will be to assess the number and types of subsequent diagnostic tests needed for diagnostic resolution. Based on microsimulations (using estimates of cancer incidence and dwell times) of the typical risk profiles of anticipated participants, the median (95% CI) number of participants with a “signal detected” result is expected to be 106 (87–128). Subsequent diagnostic evaluation is expected to detect 52 (39–67) cancers. The positive predictive value of the MCED test is expected to be 49% (39–58%). PATHFINDER will evaluate the integration of a cfDNA-based MCED test into existing clinical cancer diagnostic pathways. The study design of PATHFINDER is described here.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi‐institutional context.Study design and methodsNine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi‐institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity.ResultsThe overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis‐naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions.ConclusionThe safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.

Abstract Introduction: A test that detects cancer signal across multiple cancer types and predicts signal (tissue) origin (SO) could aid in more efficient diagnostic workup and shorten time to cancer diagnosis in individuals with signs and symptoms.Methods: The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) study is a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, case-control study to develop and validate a multi-cancer detection test. The 2nd CCGA substudy utilized a targeted methylation-based cell-free DNA assay and machine learning algorithm and included assessment of test performance (sensitivity and SO prediction accuracy) in a subgroup of participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) that were undiagnosed prior to blood draw. Specificity was assessed in the noncancer group and subgroups with confounding (nonmalignant) conditions (CCs; eg, cirrhosis) and noncancer participants enrolled in hematology clinics (HCs).Results: Specificity was 99.5% (95% confidence interval: 98.2-99.9%; 396/398), 93.8% (71.7-99.7%; 15/16), and 99.3% (96.0-100.0%; 136/137) for the noncancer group, CCs subgroup, and HCs subgroup, respectively. Overall sensitivity among those with CPCs was 66.4% (62.2-70.3%; 344/518). Sensitivity of cancer signal detection increased with increasing clinical stage (Table). SO prediction accuracy was 91.7% (88.3-94.3%; 300/327) among CPC participants with cancers detected, excluding those with multiple or unknown primaries. The test demonstrated prognostic value as detected cancer participants had worse survival probability than those not detected. Conclusions: This multi-cancer detection test detected cancer signals and predicted SO in individuals with CPCs with high specificity. These findings support further clinical development of this multi-cancer detection test that could accelerate the diagnostic resolution of symptomatic cancers. Table. Sensitivity by Clinical Stage Across Cancer Type in Clinically Presenting CancersClinical StagePositive Test/Total Cancer; Sensitivity (95% CI)All*344/518; 66.4% (62.2-70.3%)I33/122; 27.0% (20.0-35.5%)II60/102; 58.8% (49.1-67.9%)III103/121; 85.1% (77.7-90.4%)IV136/147; 92.5% (87.1-95.8%)Not expected to be staged9/21; 42.9% (24.5-63.5%)Non-informative2/4; 50.0% (15.0-85.0%)CI, confidence interval.*One participant who had a positive test result had multiple primaries with clinical stage I and not-expected-to-be-staged. Citation Format: Alan H. Bryce, Minetta C. Liu, Michael V. Seiden, David D. Thiel, Donald Richards, Carlos Becerra, Kathryn N. Kurtzman, Xiaoji Chen, Tony Wu, Quan Zhang, Jingjing Gao, Nan Zhang, Earl Hubbell, Arash Jamshidi, Eric T. Fung, Eric A. Klein. Performance of a cell-free DNA-based multi-cancer detection test as a tool for diagnostic resolution of symptomatic cancers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr LB058.

Abstract Purpose: We recently reported the development of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) targeted methylation (TM)-based sequencing approach for a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that includes cancer signal origin prediction. Here, we evaluated the prognostic significance of cancer detection by the MCED test using longitudinal follow-up data. Experimental Design: As part of a Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA) substudy, plasma cfDNA samples were sequenced using a TM approach, and machine learning classifiers predicted cancer status and cancer signal origin. Overall survival (OS) of cancer participants in the first 3 years of follow-up was evaluated in relation to cancer detection by the MCED test and clinical characteristics. Results: Cancers not detected by the MCED test had significantly better OS (P < 0.0001) than cancers detected, even after accounting for other covariates, including clinical stage and method of clinical diagnosis (i.e., standard-of-care screening or clinical presentation with signs/symptoms). Additionally, cancers not detected by the MCED test had better OS than was expected when data were adjusted for age, stage, and cancer type from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. In cancers with current screening options, the MCED test also differentiated more aggressive cancers from less aggressive cancers (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Cancer detection by the MCED test was prognostic beyond clinical stage and method of diagnosis. Cancers not detected by the MCED test had better prognosis than cancers detected and SEER-based expected survival. Cancer detection and prognosis may be linked by the underlying biological factor of tumor fraction in cfDNA.

3070 Background: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA technology to detect cancer and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) has potential to efficiently identify malignancies for which effective screening modalities do not exist. A previous version of a blood-based MCED test demonstrated favorable classification and test characteristics. Samples from the ongoing PATHFINDER study were reanalyzed in a prespecified interim analysis to evaluate performance of a more recent version of the test with an updated classifier (eg, updated CSO localization, hematological signal threshold) that is planned for clinical implementation as a general multi-cancer screening tool. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study in which results (cancer signal detected/not detected and predicted CSO) using a previous version of the MCED test are returned to investigators, and those with a signal detected undergo further diagnostic testing. In this prespecified interim analysis, samples from those enrolled as of October 6, 2020 were reanalyzed with the more recent version of the MCED test (these results were not returned to investigators). The positive predictive value (PPV) for cancer detection, overall CSO accuracy, and concordance between the two test versions were assessed. Results: A total of 4011/4047 (99%) participants (pts) were analyzable (mean [SD] age 63.9 [8.7] years, 62% female, 92% white, 24% with prior cancer history, 39% ever smoker [4% current], 6% with genetic cancer predisposition). Cancer signal was detected in 0.95% (38/4011). A total of 27/38 also had signal detected by the previous version of the MCED test, including 19 who reached diagnostic resolution (13 with cancer diagnosis and 6 without); 11/38 were discordant positives. Nine different cancer types were detected in the 13 pts (2 stage I, 3 stage II, 2 stage III, and 3 stage IV); 1 had no AJCC stage expected, 1 metastatic recurrence and 1 stage evaluation underway. A conservative minimal PPV assuming all discordant positives are false positives, was 43.3% (13/30, 95% CI 27.4-60.8%) based on 19 pts with diagnostic resolution and 11 discordant positives. High negative percent agreement (PA) 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) between the two test versions was observed. Positive PA of 43.5% (95% CI, 31.9-55.9%) was consistent with the more stringent threshold for hematologic signal in the recent MCED version, as most discrepant cases had hematologic CSO with the previous MCED test. Among 13 detected cancers, accuracy of the top CSO prediction was 92.3% (12/13, 95% CI 66.7-99.6%). Conclusions: In this prespecified interim analysis, the more recent version of the MCED test detected cancers with high PPV and high accuracy of CSO prediction, supporting readiness for use in clinical practice. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

3010 Background: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study evaluating implementation of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA analysis to detect multiple cancer types and simultaneously predict cancer signal origin (CSO). We present a prespecified interim analysis of PATHFINDER evaluating an MCED test in a clinical setting. Methods: Participants (pts; ≥50y) were enrolled into 2 risk cohorts: non-elevated and elevated (smoking history, prior cancer [ > 3y post treatment], or genetic predisposition). MCED test results (cancer signal detected/not detected) were returned to investigators; pts with a signal detected also received a CSO prediction and underwent further diagnostic testing by their medical team. The primary objective was to assess the extent of diagnostic testing needed to achieve diagnostic resolution (eg, time to resolution, number/type of tests). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive value (PPV) and a measure of test satisfaction (following diagnostic resolution [signal detected] and post test [signal not detected]). Results: PATHFINDER consented 6796 pts before closing accrual on 12/4/20; as of October 6, 2020, 4086 consented, 4047 enrolled, and 4033 analyzable pts were included in the interim analysis (62.4% female, 92.1% white). Two study-related adverse events (anxiety of mild severity) were reported. Cancer signal was detected in 1.5% (62/4033) of pts; 40/62 reached diagnostic resolution to date. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to resolution was 78 (95% CI, 54-151) days. Among 40 pts that reached diagnostic resolution, ≥1 imaging test was performed in 93% (37/40); ≥1 invasive procedure was performed in 72% (13/18) versus 18% (4/22) of pts with diagnostic resolution of cancer versus no cancer, respectively. Based on results to date, PPV was 45% (95% CI, 30.7-60.2%; 18/40). Of 18 cancer diagnoses, 11 were solid tumors (3 stage IV, 6 stages I-III, 1 metastatic recurrence, 1 missing stage), and 7 were hematologic malignancies (1 stage IV, 4 stages I-III, 2 without AJCC stage). Accuracy of the top CSO prediction in true positives was 82.4% (95% CI, 59.0-93.8%; 14/17). Most pts were satisfied with the test (43.7% extremely satisfied, 30.7% very satisfied, 14.6% satisfied). Signal detection rate and test satisfaction were similar in the 2 risk cohorts; PPV tended to be higher in the elevated risk cohort, as expected. Conclusions: An interim analysis of this return of results study demonstrated promising MCED test results. Of 40 pts achieving diagnostic resolution, nearly half had a diagnostic workup confirming cancer; CSO was predicted with high accuracy for detected cancers. Taken together with the rarity of adverse events and high test satisfaction, these results support the feasibility of clinical implementation. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.