Citations

Context.— The process for identifying patients with monoclonal gammopathies is complex. Initial detection of a monoclonal immunoglobulin protein (M protein) in the serum or urine often requires compilation of analytical data from several areas of the laboratory. The detection of M proteins depends on adequacy of the sample provided, available clinical information, and the laboratory tests used. Objective.— To develop an evidence-based guideline for the initial laboratory detection of M proteins. Design.— To develop evidence-based recommendations, the College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts in the diagnosis and treatment of monoclonal gammopathies and the laboratory procedures used for the initial detection of M proteins. The panel conducted a systematic literature review to address key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, strength of that evidence, and key judgements as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework. Results.— Nine guideline statements were established to optimize sample selection and testing for the initial detection and quantitative measurement of M proteins used to diagnose monoclonal gammopathies. Conclusions.— This guideline was constructed to harmonize and strengthen the initial detection of an M protein in patients displaying symptoms or laboratory features of a monoclonal gammopathy. It endorses more comprehensive initial testing when there is suspicion of amyloid light chain amyloidosis or neuropathies, such as POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, M protein, and skin changes) syndrome, associated with an M protein.

AbstractBackgroundRecent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.Methods483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.ResultsPRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.ConclusionsPopulation-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.

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.

Background: Bystander CPR (BCPR) increases survival from OHCA yet is provided in a minority of cases. The AHA has promulgated guidelines on the provision of pre-arrival Telephone CPR (TCPR) instructions and measurement to increase the proportion of BCPR; however, the impact of those guidelines on survival is unknown. Objective: To describe the impact of a comprehensive bundle of 9-1-1 TCPR protocol, training, data collection, and feedback on BCPR and survival from OHCA across the state of Arizona. Methods: 9-1-1 audio recordings of confirmed OHCAs and suspected OHCAs (10/2010-6/2013) in 7 large 9-1-1 centers were reviewed using a standardized time-stamp methodology linked with EMS and hospital process and outcome data. There were 2343 pre-implementation cases (P1) and 2291 cases post-implementation of a bundle of care (P2) that included staff training and guideline-based protocol changes, data collection and feedback to providers. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to assess outcomes between P1 and P2. Results: There were 2532 OHCAs [1232 P1, 1300 P2; 64% male, median age 62 (IQR: 47-74)]. 83% of cases were identified in P1 compared with 89% in P2 (p<0.001). The rate of telephone-assisted BCPR went from 44% in P1 to 62% in P2 (p<0.001). Time to beginning TCPR instructions decreased from a median of 144 sec (P1) to 126 in P2 (p<0.001). Time to first chest compression also decreased (P1: 178; P2: 155; p<0.001). Outcome data are currently available for 64% of confirmed OHCAs (1630 patient outcomes with 1619 neuro outcomes). Survival was significantly higher in P2 (11.2%) compared to P1 (7.9%; p=0.023), as was good neuro outcome (CPC-1 or 2: 7.7% P2 vs. 4.8% P1 p=0.018). After adjusting for witnessed arrest, shockable rhythms, age, and sex, both survival and good neuro outcome were still significantly higher in P2 vs. P1 [adjusted odds ratios: survival = 1.5 (95% 1.1-2.1); good neuro outcome = 1.7 (95% 1.1-2.6)]. Conclusion: The implementation of a comprehensive statewide TCPR bundle was associated with significant improvements in the rates of telephone-assisted BCPR, survival and good neurologic outcome after OHCA.

Background: Higher chest compression release velocity (CCRV) is associated with better outcomes after OHCA. Patient age and gender have been associated with variations in chest wall compliance and compressibility which may impact outcomes. Hypothesis: To evaluate the association between CCRV and OHCA patient age, weight, and gender. Methods: Observational study of prospectively collected OHCA quality improvement data in two suburban EMS agencies in Arizona between 10/1/2008 and 12/31/2016. Patient age and weight were categorized into quartiles for the analysis. CCRV was summarized at each level of the categorical variable by median and inter-quartile range (IQR), and was then compared between different levels by the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: During the study period, 2,661 OHCA cases were treated. After exclusion criteria, 1,140 cases remained for analysis. Median duration of compressions was 8.70 minutes. Mean CCRV was negatively correlated with age and positively correlated with weight (Table). Male patients exhibited a greater mean CCRV compared to female patients [344.4 mm/s (IQR 307.3-384.6) vs. 331.5 (285.3-385.5), p=0.0133]. Conclusion: Patient characteristics including younger age, male gender, and increased weight were associated with a higher CCRV during OHCA resuscitation.

Abstract Anaplastic meningiomas can have a sarcomatous appearance on histology but true sarcomatous (metaplastic) differentiation is rare. These tumors follow an aggressive clinical course with recurrence and poor clinical outcomes. Due to significant overlap in morphology and immunohistochemical profiles, distinguishing between sarcomatous transformation of a meningioma and a true sarcoma can be challenging. Here, we outline potential diagnostic pitfalls and the utility of ancillary molecular testing in 3 patients diagnosed with sarcomatous meningiomas. We report loss of typical meningothelial markers in sarcomatous meningiomas. Ancillary molecular testing can support the diagnosis of sarcomatous meningioma when a molecular signature consistent with meningioma is seen, such as inactivation of the NF2 gene. Recognition of this rare transformation in meningioma can prevent a misdiagnosis of a primary sarcoma, whether sporadic or radiation-induced from prior treatment of a more classic meningioma.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patients with ROC have limited treatment options in later lines of therapy, as many become platinum-resistant or -ineligible. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment is one option, however these agents are currently not approved for BRCAwt patients in the treatment setting. Niraparib, a PARPi, has demonstrated increased progression-free survival vs placebo as maintenance therapy for platinum-responsive ROC. Niraparib was effective regardless of BRCAmut or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, although an increased treatment effect was observed in the HRDpos population. QUADRA (NCT02354586) evaluated niraparib treatment in heavily pretreated ROC patients, regardless of BRCAmut or HRD status, platinum sensitivity, or prior PARPi use. METHODS: Eligible patients had grade 2-3 serous ROC, ≥3 prior chemotherapy lines, and measurable disease. Patients were evaluated for BRCAmut and HRD status (MyChoice HRD Test). Patients received niraparib 300 mg once daily until progression; dose could be lowered to 200 mg or 100 mg due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 in patients treated in 4th or 5th line who were HRDpos, platinum sensitive, and PARPi naïve. RESULTS: 463 patients were treated. Of these, 161 were platinum refractory, 151 platinum resistant, and 120 platinum sensitive to their last line of platinum therapy. Of note, 83 patients were primary platinum resistant or refractory (42 and 41, respectively). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 2-16), and 27% of patients were treated in 6th or later line. 100% of patients received prior platinum, 99.6% received prior taxane, 81% received prior doxorubicin, 63% received prior bevacizumab, and 59% received prior gemcitabine. In the primary efficacy population (N=45), ORR was 29% (95% CI: 16-44, P=0.0003), disease control rate (DCR) was 71% (95% CI: 56-84), and duration of response (DOR) was 9.2 months (95% CI: 5.9-NE); overall survival (OS) was not reached (95% CI: 18.5-NE). The efficacy outcomes in all 456 patients with measurable disease at baseline treated in 4th or later line demonstrated a DCR of 49% with 2 complete responses (CR), 36 partial responses (PR), and 187 patients with stable disease (SD). The responses were durable with a median DOR of 9.4 months, a clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+SD) at 16 weeks of 29%, and median OS of 17.2 months (95% CI: 14.9-19.8) among all patients treated in 4th or later line. 266 (57.5%) patients had grade ≥3 treatment-related TEAEs. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia event (thrombocytopenia or decreased platelet count) by dose at onset of the event was 27.5% at 300 mg, 4.7% at 200 mg, and 2.7% at 100 mg. The other most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were anemia (26.3%) and neutropenia (8.2%). Hematologic TEAEs were most frequent in the first month and decreased in frequency and severity after dose reduction during months 2-3. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib demonstrated durable anticancer activity in this heavily treated (≥3 lines) ROC population, including platinum-resistant or BRCAwt patients. Toxicities were consistent with previous niraparib studies. DISCLOSURE Funded by TESARO, Inc. Citation Format: Kathleen Moore, Angeles Secord, Melissa Geller, David Miller, Noelle Cloven, Gini Fleming, Andrea E. Wahner Hendrickson, Masoud Azodi, Paul Disilvestro, Amit Oza, Mihaela Cristea, Jonathan S. Berek, John Chan, Yong Li, Kaiming Sun, Katarina Luptakova, Ursula A. Matulonis, Bradley J. Monk. QUADRA: A PHASE 2, OPEN-LABEL, SINGLE-ARM STUDY TO EVALUATE SINGLE-AGENT NIRAPARIB TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED OVARIAN CANCER (ROC) WHO HAVE RECEIVED ≥3 PRIOR CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Ovarian Cancer Research Symposium; Sep 13-15, 2018; Seattle, WA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2019;25(22 Suppl):Abstract nr NT-101.

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.