Citations

Cognitive change affecting patients after anaesthesia and surgery has been recognised for more than 100 yr. Research into cognitive change after anaesthesia and surgery accelerated in the 1980s when multiple studies utilised detailed neuropsychological testing for assessment of cognitive change after cardiac surgery. This body of work consistently documented decline in cognitive function in elderly patients after anaesthesia and surgery, and cognitive changes have been identified up to 7.5 yr afterwards. Importantly, other studies have identified that the incidence of cognitive change is similar after non-cardiac surgery. Other than the inclusion of non-surgical control groups to calculate postoperative cognitive dysfunction, research into these cognitive changes in the perioperative period has been undertaken in isolation from cognitive studies in the general population. The aim of this work is to develop similar terminology to that used in cognitive classifications of the general population for use in investigations of cognitive changes after anaesthesia and surgery. A multispecialty working group followed a modified Delphi procedure with no prespecified number of rounds comprised of three face-to-face meetings followed by online editing of draft versions. Two major classification guidelines [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) and National Institute for Aging and the Alzheimer Association (NIA-AA)] are used outside of anaesthesia and surgery, and may be useful for inclusion of biomarkers in research. For clinical purposes, it is recommended to use the DSM-5 nomenclature. The working group recommends that ‘perioperative neurocognitive disorders’ be used as an overarching term for cognitive impairment identified in the preoperative or postoperative period. This includes cognitive decline diagnosed before operation (described as neurocognitive disorder ); any form of acute event ( postoperative delirium ) and cognitive decline diagnosed up to 30 days after the procedure ( delayed neurocognitive recovery ) and up to 12 months ( postoperative neurocognitive disorder ).

AbstractCognitive change affecting patients after anaesthesia and surgery has been recognised for more than 100 yr. Research into cognitive change after anaesthesia and surgery accelerated in the 1980s when multiple studies utilised detailed neuropsychological testing for assessment of cognitive change after cardiac surgery. This body of work consistently documented decline in cognitive function in elderly patients after anaesthesia and surgery, and cognitive changes have been identified up to 7.5 yr afterwards. Importantly, other studies have identified that the incidence of cognitive change is similar after non‐cardiac surgery. Other than the inclusion of non‐surgical control groups to calculate postoperative cognitive dysfunction, research into these cognitive changes in the perioperative period has been undertaken in isolation from cognitive studies in the general population. The aim of this work is to develop similar terminology to that used in cognitive classifications of the general population for use in investigations of cognitive changes after anaesthesia and surgery. A multispecialty working group followed a modified Delphi procedure with no prespecified number of rounds comprised of three face‐to‐face meetings followed by online editing of draft versions.Two major classification guidelines [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM‐5) and National Institute for Aging and the Alzheimer Association (NIA‐AA)] are used outside of anaesthesia and surgery, and may be useful for inclusion of biomarkers in research. For clinical purposes, it is recommended to use the DSM‐5 nomenclature. The working group recommends that ‘perioperative neurocognitive disorders’ be used as an overarching term for cognitive impairment identified in the preoperative or postoperative period. This includes cognitive decline diagnosed before operation (described as neurocognitive disorder); any form of acute event (postoperative delirium) and cognitive decline diagnosed up to 30 days after the procedure (delayed neurocognitive recovery) and up to 12 months (postoperative neurocognitive disorder).

Abstract Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is recognized as a distinct entity in the World Health Organization classification. Currently, the diagnosis relies on consensus of histopathology, clinical variables, and presentation, giving rise to diagnostic inaccuracy in routine practice. Previous studies have demonstrated that PMBCL can be distinguished from subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on gene expression signatures. However, requirement of fresh-frozen biopsy material has precluded the transfer of gene expression–based assays to the clinic. Here, we developed a robust and accurate molecular classification assay (Lymph3Cx) for the distinction of PMBCL from DLBCL subtypes based on gene expression measurements in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. A probabilistic model accounting for classification error, comprising 58 gene features, was trained on 68 cases of PMBCL and DLBCL. Performance of the model was subsequently evaluated in an independent validation cohort of 158 cases and showed high agreement of the Lymph3Cx molecular classification with the clinicopathological diagnosis of an expert panel (frank misclassification rate, 3.8%). Furthermore, we demonstrate reproducibility of the assay with 100% concordance of subtype assignments at 2 independent laboratories. Future studies will determine Lymph3Cx’s utility for routine diagnostic purposes and therapeutic decision making.

7547 Background: E1412 statistical design is based on results of lenalidomide/RCHOP (R2CHOP) vs RCHOP in ABC-DLBCL as determined by NanoString gene expression profiling (GEP). Central pathology review (CPR) was conducted to confirm diagnosis and to ensure adequate tissue for GEP. Initially, CPR occurred after randomization and treatment initiation. Due to high ineligibility rate (IR), the protocol was amended to include real-time CPR to determine patient eligibility prior to study enrollment. We describe the revision and how it affected the IR. Methods: Pre-amendment, CPR was done retrospectively. Post-amendment, CPR was done prior to enrollment, in real time, on a submitted tissue block, H&E, and CD20 slides. Based on CPR, if a diagnosis of DLBCL was confirmed, and sufficient tissue remained for GEP, a patient was deemed eligible and the submitter was notified by fax. Protocol goal was notification within 2 working days (WD) of receipt of materials at the CPR site. Results: Pre-amendment, 219 patients were enrolled. Material was typically received at the CPR site 6-9 months after patient registration. The IR with CPR was 36% for all those enrolled, and 26% for patients with adequate tissue for GEP. Post-amendment, 218 patients were submitted for CPR: 145 (67%) were eligible; 73 (33%) were ineligible. Reasons for ineligibility included insufficient tissue (n=27) or a diagnosis other than de novo DLBCL (n=46). Notification of eligibility occurred in a median of 2 WD (Mean 2 WD; Range 1-5 WD). 90% were notified within the protocol goal of 2 WD. GEP for all enrolled was completed within 6 weeks of CPR. Conclusions: The success of this novel, real-time CPR serves as a model for the future of NCTN DLBCL trials. When CPR is performed rapidly prior to enrollment, study slots may more accurately reflect the target population and eliminate excess costs. In the precision medicine era, rapid collection of relevant pathology and biomarker data is essential to trial success. Study Coordinated by ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs), supported by NCI grant # CA180820, CA180794, CA180790, CA180799, CA180833.

SummaryMantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is still considered incurable and the course of the disease is highly variable. Established risk factors include the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) and the quantification of the proliferation rate of the tumour cells, e.g. by Ki‐67 immunohistochemistry. In this study, we aimed to validate the prognostic value of the gene expression‐based MCL35 proliferation assay in patient cohorts from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. Using this assay, we analysed the gene expression proliferation signature in routine diagnostic lymph node specimens from MCL Younger and MCL Elderly trial patients, and the calculated MCL35 score was used to assign MCL patients to low (61%), standard (27%) or high (12%) risk groups with significantly different outcomes. We confirm here in our prospective clinical trial cohort of MCL patients, that the MCL35 assay is strongly prognostic, providing additional information to the Ki‐67 index and the MIPI. Thus, this robust assay may assist in making treatment decisions or in devising risk‐adapted prospective clinical trials in the future.

SummaryPatients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) generally have a dismal prognosis. Intensified induction treatment with rituximab and high dose cytarabine (R_HDAC), and consolidation with high‐dose therapy with autologous stem cell support has resulted in 10‐year overall survival (OS) higher than 60%. However, the clinical course varies. Diagnostic tools capable of stratifying patients include the MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI), gene expression‐based proliferation signature, Ki‐67 proliferation index or tumour cell morphology. Here, we tested the performance of a newly developed Nanostring‐based RNA expression‐based proliferation assay (MCL35) on formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded tumour tissue from younger patients recruited in or treated according to Nordic MCL protocols compared to the prognosticators listed above. Seventy‐four patients were included and the assay performed well in all cases except four, which had inadequate RNA quality. The patients were evenly distributed in the MCL35 low‐, intermediate‐ and high‐risk categories. MCL35 low‐ and intermediate‐ risk groups had overlapping progression‐free survival (PFS), while patients in the high‐risk category had significantly inferior PFS. Combining MCL35 with MIPI or the MIPI‐C (MIPI with the addition of binary Ki67 score +/−30%) showed a better discrimination than either assessment alone. In conclusion, the MCL35 assay alone or combined with MIPI or MIPI‐C scores can identify patients who still have a dismal outcome despite intensified treatment.