Citations

PURPOSE Diagnosis of Mismatch Repair Deficiency (MMRD) is crucial for tumor management and early detection in patients with the cancer predisposition syndrome constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD). Current diagnostic tools are cumbersome and inconsistent both in childhood cancers and in determining germline MMRD. PATIENTS AND METHODS We developed and analyzed a functional Low-pass Genomic Instability Characterization (LOGIC) assay to detect MMRD. The diagnostic performance of LOGIC was compared with that of current established assays including tumor mutational burden, immunohistochemistry, and the microsatellite instability panel. LOGIC was then applied to various normal tissues of patients with CMMRD with comprehensive clinical data including age of cancer presentation. RESULTS Overall, LOGIC was 100% sensitive and specific in detecting MMRD in childhood cancers (N = 376). It was more sensitive than the microsatellite instability panel (14%, P = 4.3 × 10 −12 ), immunohistochemistry (86%, P = 4.6 × 10 −3 ), or tumor mutational burden (80%, P = 9.1 × 10 −4 ). LOGIC was able to distinguish CMMRD from other cancer predisposition syndromes using blood and saliva DNA ( P < .0001, n = 277). In normal cells, MMRDness scores differed between tissues (GI > blood > brain), increased over time in the same individual, and revealed genotype-phenotype associations within the mismatch repair genes. Importantly, increased MMRDness score was associated with younger age of first cancer presentation in individuals with CMMRD ( P = 2.2 × 10 −5 ). CONCLUSION LOGIC was a robust tool for the diagnosis of MMRD in multiple cancer types and in normal tissues. LOGIC may inform therapeutic cancer decisions, provide rapid diagnosis of germline MMRD, and support tailored surveillance for individuals with CMMRD.

AbstractIntroductionWe sought to determine if a proteomic profile approach developed to detect Alzheimer's disease would distinguish patients with Lewy body disease from normal controls, and if it would distinguish dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) from Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsStored plasma samples were obtained from 145 patients (DLB n = 57, PD without dementia n = 32, normal controls n = 56) enrolled from patients seen in the Behavioral Neurology or Movement Disorders clinics at the Mayo Clinic, Florida. Proteomic assays were conducted and analyzed as per our previously published protocols.ResultsIn the first step, the proteomic profile distinguished the DLB‐PD group from controls with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.97, sensitivity of 0.91, and specificity of 0.86. In the second step, the proteomic profile distinguished the DLB from PD groups with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.92, sensitivity of 0.94, and specificity of 0.88.DiscussionThese data provide evidence of the potential utility of a multitiered blood‐based proteomic screening method for detecting DLB and distinguishing DLB from PD.

Background: There is a significant need for rapid and cost-effective biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) for advancement of clinical practice and therapeutic trials. Objective: The aim of the current study was to cross-validate our previously published serum-based algorithm on an independent assay platform as well as validate across tissues and species. Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine the utility in distinguishing AD from non-AD neurological disease (Parkinson’s disease, PD). Methods: Serum proteins from our previously published algorithm were quantified from 150 AD cases and 150 controls on the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform. Serum samples were analyzed from 49 PD cases and compared to a random sample of 51 AD cases and 62 controls. Support vector machines (SVM) were used to discriminate PD versus AD versus controls. Human and AD mouse model microvessel images were quantified with HAMAMATSU imaging software. Mouse serum biomarkers were assayed via MSD. Results: Analysis of 21 serum proteins from 150 AD cases and 150 controls yielded an algorithm with sensitivity and specificity of 0.90 for correctly classifying AD. This multi-marker approach was then validated across species and tissue. Assay of the top proteins in human and AD mouse model brain microvessels correctly classified 90–100% of the samples. SVM analyses were highly accurate at distinguishing PD versus AD versus controls. Conclusions: This serum-based biomarker panel should be tested in a community-based setting to determine its utility as a first-line screen for AD and non-AD neurological diseases for primary care providers.

AbstractIntroductionThis study combined data across four independent cohorts to examine the positive and negative predictive values of an Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood test if implemented in primary care.MethodsBlood samples from 1329 subjects from multiple independent, multiethnic, community‐based, and clinic‐based cohorts were analyzed. A “locked‐down” referent group of 1128 samples was generated with 201 samples randomly selected for validation purposes. Random forest analyses were used to create the AD blood screen. Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated.ResultsIn detecting AD, PPV was 0.81, and NPV was 0.95 while using the full AD blood test. When detecting mild cognitive impairment, PPV and NPV were 0.74 and 0.93, respectively. Preliminary analyses were conducted to detect any “neurodegenerative disease”. The full 21‐protein AD blood test yielded a PPV of 0.85 and NPV of 0.94.DiscussionThe present study creates the first‐ever multiethnic referent sample that spans community‐based and clinic‐based populations for implementation of an AD blood screen.

AbstractIntroductionThis study investigated the comparability of potential Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across blood fractions and assay platforms.MethodsNonfasting serum and plasma samples from 300 participants (150 AD patients and 150 controls) were analyzed. Proteomic markers were obtained via electrochemiluminescence or Luminex technology. Comparisons were conducted via Pearson correlations. The relative importance of proteins within an AD diagnostic profile was examined using random forest importance plots.ResultsOn the Meso Scale Discovery multiplex platform, 10 of the 21 markers shared >50% of the variance across blood fractions (serum amyloid A R2 = 0.99, interleukin (IL)10 R2 = 0.95, fatty acid‐binding protein (FABP) R2 = 0.94, I309 R2 = 0.94, IL‐5 R2 = 0.94, IL‐6 R2 = 0.94, eotaxin3 R2 = 0.91, IL‐18 R2 = 0.87, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 R2 = 0.85, and pancreatic polypeptide R2 = 0.81). When examining protein concentrations across platforms, only five markers shared >50% of the variance (beta 2 microglobulin R2 = 0.92, IL‐18 R2 = 0.80, factor VII R2 = 0.78, CRP R2 = 0.74, and FABP R2 = 0.70).DiscussionThe current findings highlight the importance of considering blood fractions and assay platforms when searching for AD relevant biomarkers.

Abstract The lack of readily available biomarkers is a significant hindrance toward progressing to effective therapeutic and preventative strategies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Blood‐based biomarkers have potential to overcome access and cost barriers and greatly facilitate advanced neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker approaches. Despite the fact that preanalytical processing is the largest source of variability in laboratory testing, there are no currently available standardized preanalytical guidelines. The current international working group provides the initial starting point for such guidelines for standardized operating procedures (SOPs). It is anticipated that these guidelines will be updated as additional research findings become available. The statement provides (1) a synopsis of selected preanalytical methods utilized in many international AD cohort studies, (2) initial draft guidelines/SOPs for preanalytical methods, and (3) a list of required methodological information and protocols to be made available for publications in the field to foster cross‐validation across cohorts and laboratories.