Citations

Abstract To evaluate the racial and ethnic differences in prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and the effect of race and ethnicity on breast cancer (BC) risk among carriers, results of multigene testing of 77 900 women with BC (non-Hispanic White [NHW] = 57 003; Ashkenazi-Jewish = 4798; Black = 6722; Hispanic = 5194; and Asian = 4183) were analyzed, and the frequency of PVs in each gene were compared between BC patients (cases) and race- and ethnicity-matched gnomAD reference controls. Compared with NHWs, BRCA1 PVs were enriched in Ashkenazi-Jews and Hispanics, whereas CHEK2 PVs were statistically significantly lower in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (all 2-sided P < .05). In case-control studies, BARD1 PVs were associated with high risks (odds ratio > 4.00) of BC in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; ATM PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among all races and ethnicities except Asians, whereas CHEK2 and BRIP1 PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among NHWs and Hispanics only. These findings suggest a need for personalized management of BC risk in PV carriers based on race and ethnicity.

BackgroundThe association of community factors and outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been comprehensively described. Using the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps (CHRR) and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), this study evaluated the impact of community health status on allogeneic HCT outcomes.MethodsThis study included 18,544 adult allogeneic HCT recipients reported to the CIBMTR by 170 US centers in 2014‐2016. Sociodemographic, environmental, and community indicators were derived from the CHRR, an aggregate community risk score was created, and scores were assigned to each patient (patient community risk score [PCS]) and transplant center (center community risk score [CCS]). Higher scores indicated less healthy communities. The impact of PCS and CCS on patient outcomes after allogeneic HCT was studied.ResultsThe median age was 55 years (range, 18‐83 years). The median PCS was –0.21 (range, –1.37 to 2.10; standard deviation [SD], 0.42), and the median CCS was –0.13 (range, –1.04 to 0.96; SD, 0.40). In multivariable analyses, a higher PCS was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD increase, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0089). Among hematologic malignancies, a tendency toward inferior survival was observed with a higher PCS (HR, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0102); a higher PCS was associated with higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM; HR, 1.08; 99% CI, 1.02‐1.15; P = .0004). CCS was not significantly associated with survival, relapse, or NRM.ConclusionsPatients residing in counties with a worse community health status have inferior survival as a result of an increased risk of NRM after allogeneic HCT. There was no association between the community health status of the transplant center location and allogeneic HCT outcomes.

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is often diagnosed too late for effective therapy. The classic strategy for early detection biomarker advancement consists of initial retrospective phases of discovery and validation with tissue samples taken from individuals diagnosed with disease, compared with controls. Using this approach, we previously reported the discovery of a blood biomarker panel consisting of thrombospondin-2 (THBS2) and CA19-9 that together could discriminate resectable stage I and IIa PDAC as well as stages III and IV PDAC, with c-statistic values in the range of 0.96 to 0.97 in two phase II studies. We now report that in two studies of blood samples prospectively collected from 1 to 15 years prior to a PDAC diagnosis (Mayo Clinic and PLCO cohorts), THBS2 and/or CA19-9 failed to discriminate cases from healthy controls at the AUC = 0.8 needed. We conclude that PDAC progression may be heterogeneous and for some individuals can be more rapid than generally appreciated. It is important that PDAC early-detection studies incorporate high-risk, prospective prediagnostic cohorts into discovery and validation studies. Prevention Relevance: A blood biomarker panel of THBS2 and CA19-9 detects early stages of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at diagnosis, but not when tested across a population up to 1 year earlier. Our findings suggest serial sampling over time, using prospectively collected samples for biomarker discovery, and more frequent screening of high-risk individuals.

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a molecularly heterogeneous group of malignancies with frequent genetic abnormalities. G-quadruplex (G4) DNA structures may facilitate this genomic instability through association with activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), an antibody diversification enzyme implicated in mutation of oncogenes in B-cell lymphomas. Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing analyses in this study revealed that AID hotspots in both activated B cells and lymphoma cells in vitro were highly enriched for G4 elements. A representative set of these targeted sequences was validated for characteristic, stable G4 structure formation including previously unknown G4s in lymphoma-associated genes, CBFA2T3, SPIB, BCL6, HLA-DRB5 and MEF2C, along with the established BCL2 and MYC structures. Frequent genome-wide G4 formation was also detected for the first time in DLBCL patient-derived tissues using BG4, a structure-specific G4 antibody. Tumors with greater staining were more likely to have concurrent BCL2 and MYC oncogene amplification and BCL2 mutations. Ninety-seven percent of the BCL2 mutations occurred within G4 sites that overlapped with AID binding. G4 localization at sites of mutation, and within aggressive DLBCL tumors harboring amplified BCL2 and MYC, supports a role for G4 structures in events that lead to a loss of genomic integrity, a critical step in B-cell lymphomagenesis.

48 Background: Improving new patient access to medical oncology clinics is a priority. Unlike external referrals which undergo a review process, internal referrals (from any Mayo department or community-based, affiliated health system) are scheduled directly. At times, these internal referrals lack necessary clinical information, or may be more appropriate for electronic consultation (e-consult). This impacts the patient experience, provider satisfaction, and access to new patient visits. A pilot program was implemented in the Medical Oncology breast clinic to review new internal referrals prior to scheduling. Methods: In 2018, all internally referred patients to Medical Oncology breast clinic were reviewed by an advanced practice provider in breast oncology. Electronic medical records were reviewed to collect diagnosis, pathology, radiology information and treatment to date. Internal referrals were either accepted directly to medical oncology breast clinic, triaged to an internal medicine clinic for workup of a new breast mass, converted to an e-consult, or declined as no medical oncology need was identified. Results: 52 patients were referred internally to Medical Oncology breast clinic. Of these, 29 (55.8%) were accepted directly as new consultations, 8 (15.4%) were triaged to the Internal Medicine clinic, 6 (11.5%) were converted to e-consults, and 6 (11.5%) were declined as not requiring breast medical oncology input. Of the 8 patients that started in the IM clinic, 6 eventually required Medical Oncology breast clinic consults for invasive breast cancers. The most common e-consult was for extending adjuvant endocrine therapy (3/6). 1/6 e-consults required a follow up consultation. The most common reason for declining a consult was no diagnosis of an invasive breast cancer (4/6). A total of 16/52 referrals (30.2%) did not require a breast oncology new consultation. Conclusions: Review of internal referrals improved the efficiency of new breast cancer medical oncology consultations. This review process has been implemented across the entire Medical Oncology practice.

On 24 August 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its website to highlight that asymptomatic individuals, even those with exposure to a COVID-19-positive contact, do not necessarily need to be tested unless they have medical conditions associated with increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The CDC subsequently updated its guidance on 19 September 2020 to support testing of asymptomatic persons, including close contacts of persons with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Interest continues to grow regarding the role of serologic assays for the detection of prior infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) status to many SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays. In this document, expert recommendations from clinical microbiologist members of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) concerning detailed verification strategies for SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays with FDA EUA are provided, as are insights into assay limitations and reporting considerations for laboratories.