Citations

AbstractBackgroundPrevious studies have reported that age modifies the distribution and burden of tau (and, to a lesser extent, amyloid) pathology in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Here we present preliminary baseline amyloid and tau PET results from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (LEADS), a multi‐site longitudinal study of sporadic early‐onset AD.Method135 patients meeting clinical criteria for MCI or probable AD and 50 cognitively normal controls (all age<65 at enrollment) were enrolled at 12 US centers between August 2018 and December 2019 (Table 1). 18F‐Florbetaben amyloid‐PET (FBB) was used to assign patients to EOAD (amyloid‐positive) or EOnonAD (amyloid‐negative) subgroups based on visual rating and semi‐quantification. 130 patients and all controls had 18F‐Flortaucipir tau‐PET (FTP). Regional Standardized Uptake Value Ratios (SUVR) for FBB (whole cerebellum reference) and FTP (inferior cerebellar gray reference) were extracted using co‐registered 3T‐MRI.Result98 patients (72.6%) were amyloid PET‐positive (EOAD) and 37 (27.4%) were amyloid PET‐negative (EOnonAD). Compared to EOAD, EOnonAD patients had higher MMSE, MOCA and CDR sum‐of‐boxes (CDR‐SB) and were more frequently male (Table 1). Patients with EOAD showed elevated FBB and FTP SUVR in temporoparietal and frontal cortex compared to CN and EOnonAD (Figures 1‐2). In EOAD, MMSE, MOCA and CDR‐SB were significantly correlated with FTP SUVR (Figure 3), while no significant correlations were found with FBB SUVR. EOnonAD patients showed variable FTP binding ranging from negative to mildly elevated binding in anterior temporal and frontal cortex and underlying white matter. Two EOnonAD cases showed intense FTP binding comparable to typical EOAD cases, despite visually and quantitatively negative FBB scans.ConclusionPatients with clinically mild, sporadic EOAD typically show an extensive distribution and burden of tau pathology in the setting of positive amyloid PET. Global clinical measures correlate with tau but not amyloid PET. Over 25% of patients meeting clinical criteria for early‐onset MCI/probable AD have negative amyloid PET, suggesting alternative etiologies for cognitive decline. These findings will inform future design of drug trials in this important and under‐studied population.

4034 Background: Colorectal cancer screening must be repeated on a regular basis. Understanding patient perceptions and willingness to be rescreened will help to determine future compliance rates. The purpose of this study was to compare National CT Colonography Trial (NCTCT) screening participant experiences with CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC), willingness to return for each procedure, and procedure preference. Methods: NCTCT participants underwent a single bowel preparation (BP). Participants were scheduled to receive CTC, followed by sedation and OC. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire two weeks post-exam on physical discomfort and embarrassment during BP, CTC and OC and willingness to repeat CTC and OC (with or without BP) at different time intervals. McNemar's Test and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results: 2310 of 2600 patients (89%) responded (1224 women, 1086 men). Mean age was 58.39 years (range 50–86). The participant population was 85% Caucasian, 11% African American and 4% other. Severe discomfort was reported by 7.1% participants with BP, 6.3% with CTC, and 2.2% with OC. Severe embarrassment was reported by 1.6% participants with BP, 1.3% with CTC, and 0.7% with OC. Forty-six percent of participants preferred CTC, 27.4% reported no preference, and 24.9% preferred OC (p<0.001). Repeat screening with CTC is currently recommended every 5 years and with OC every 10 years. 80.5% of the participants were willing to be screened again with CTC in 5 years and 97.5 % were willing to be screened again with OC in 10 years (p<0.001). If the screening interval for CTC were extended to ten years, 93.7% of participants were willing to return for screening (p<0.001). If BP were unnecessary, 91.0% were willing to be rescreened with CTC in 5 years and 97.5% were willing to be rescreened with OC in 10 years (p<0.001). Conclusions: NCTCT participants preferred CTC to OC, but their willingness to undergo repeat CTC was limited by the shorter interval between screenings currently recommended for CTC as opposed to OC. Improvements in technology that would eliminate the need for bowel preparation or extend the recommended screening interval would likely improve adherence to recommended repeat screening. [Table: see text]

Abstract Oncology has undergone major changes in systemic treatment options, from chemotherapy to antiangiogenic agents to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to immunotherapy. Historically, a therapeutic agent is tested in separate trials as monotherapy or combined with investigational or approved agents/modalities, to determine antitumor activity in each histology based on the premise that each histology responds differently to the same treatment. This paradigm is time consuming and may or may not make use of molecular characterization to test each agent in each histology. However, with the expansion of biologic understanding and development of various biomarkers, e.g., estrogen receptor and Her 2 amplification, we move beyond the basic paradigm of general histology to one in which treatment is based upon molecular characteristics of the tumor. Examples of recent discoveries from this more modern paradigm are (1) multiple histologies sharing a common molecular profile and (2) a subset within a single histology having a given molecular characteristic. Various agents have been tested singularly in terms of molecular aberrations and histology, e.g., ALK inhibitors and NSCLC. However, with the rapid increase in the number of targeted agents in development, more facile and efficient clinical trial designs are needed. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN) collaborated in designing the Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice trial (NCI-MATCH or EAY131), the first large-scale signal-finding precision medicine oncology trial in the United States to incorporate centralized NGS testing to direct patients to parallel (nonrandomized) phase II treatment arms under a master protocol. The trial is being conducted by the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), with ECOG-ACRIN leading the trial. More than 100 investigators from across the NCTN adult cancer-oriented member groups (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN, NRG Oncology, and SWOG) have worked collaboratively to design and lead what is currently 30 treatment arms (subprotocols), with more arms in development. Wide-scale NCTN investigator involvement ensures use of the latest knowledge to define the actionable mutations required for eligibility and to make evidence-based selections of experimental agents. In NCI-MATCH, patients are assigned treatment based on the genomic alterations found in their tumors through genomic sequencing and other tests at the time of initial enrollment for screening. Unlike other phase II trials, each arm is open to advanced solid tumors, lymphomas, or myeloma that share a set of molecular aberrations, not restricted to a single histology. This strategy accommodates and encourages enrollment of rare tumors for which there are often no standard treatments and limited clinical trial options. NCI-MATCH has 10-30 concurrent treatment arms available to patients at any given time, testing both investigational agents and FDA-approved drugs for new indications. Most treatment arms have an enrollment goal of 35 patients, with some arms that address tumor gene variants of higher prevalence expanded to 70 patients. Together, the NCTN and NCI Community Oncology Research Program provide infrastructure for many clinical sites (&gt;1100) to participate, providing ready access to physicians and patients; screening enrollment has occurred in all 50 states in the U.S, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. A specific assay was developed for the trial (the MATCH assay), and a laboratory network was organized to rapidly process the tissue and efficiently interrogate for mutations. NCI and ECOG-ACRIN statisticians developed the analysis plan and are currently maintaining data that are closely monitored by safety experts for any adverse event signals. Lastly, a bioinformatics system (MATCHbox) was developed to coordinate molecular data collection and support rule-based decision-making based on those data. Because genomics in oncology is rapidly expanding and evolving, NCI-MATCH required flexibility to accommodate brisker screening accrual than anticipated, and adaptation to constantly emerging information about new drugs and new molecular alterations. The goal to sequence the tumors of 6,000 patients with NCI funding was achieved two years ahead of schedule, but that cohort was not sufficient to fill all the arms—in particular, those aimed at the most rarely occurring tumor gene aberrations. Currently, the goal for the trial is to complete the open treatment arms by allowing for designated commercial and academic laboratories to notify ordering physicians when genomic tests they ordered to guide clinical care indicate a potential eligibility to a NCI-MATCH arm with a rare variant and allow for enrollment to the relevant treatment subprotocol if the patient meets all subprotocol eligibility criteria. The tissue confirmation of the molecular abnormality on the MATCH assay by the central laboratories will be accomplished after subprotocol enrollment so that patient treatment will not be delayed for confirmation. A demonstration project is now under way to test the applicability of this approach and potentially develop common standards for future use. With tumor sequencing becoming a more and more common practice in oncology, this may allow patients with mutations of low prevalence to have investigational treatment options. NCI-MATCH is expanding its panel and definition of actionable mutations to allow greater flexibility to incorporate in real time new mutations supported with adequate levels of evidence. The valuable genomic and clinical outcome data collected in the trial will permit evaluation of efficacy of targeting certain actionable mutations with a specific agent. In addition, biospecimens are being collected to build a rich resource for conducting auxiliary biology studies that may answer questions about prevalence of mutations in the metastatic setting, prevalence of mutations in rare histologies, and resistance mechanisms of various targeted therapy. At this meeting, two abstracts will provide an overall trial update and present information about the prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in the centrally screened population. Citation Format: Alice P. Chen, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Lyndsay Harris, Barbara A. Conley, Stanley R. Hamilton, Mickey Williams, Robert J. Gray, Shuli Li, Lisa M. McShane, Lawrence V. Rubinstein, Susanna I. Lee, Shaji Kumar, Edith P. Mitchell, James A. Zwiebel, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Lalitha K. Shankar, Paolo F. Caimi, Carlos L. Arteaga, A John Iafrate, Jeffrey Sklar, Richard F. Little, Keith T. Flaherty. NCI-MATCH: A new paradigm in the era of genomic oncology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PL03-01.

Abstract Background Surgical planning and local-regional treatment of breast cancer relies on accurate assessment of disease extent including the primary tumor size and the presence/absence of multiple tumor foci. As a staging modality for breast cancer, MRI has shown high sensitivity for detection of additional foci of diseases within the index breast. However, the impact of preoperative breast MRI on reducing re-excision rates and improving local control is less clear. Data from the COMICE trial in the UK suggested that routine use of pre-operative breast MRI did not alter rates of re-excision; however issues have been raised about the lack of quality standards for the MR imaging that may have resulted in the negative results of this trial. Retrospective data suggest that local recurrence is not impacted by use of breast MRI. In concert with data showing no improvement in clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients, concerns have been raised that routine use of preoperative breast MRI is associated with increased rates of mastectomy and delays to surgery. Therefore, the application of MRI for preoperative surgical staging remains controversial. In order to address this ongoing controversy, a joint effort has been launched by ACOSOG and ACRIN for a prospective clinical trial focused on evaluating the impact of preoperative breast MRI on clinically relevant patient outcomes. An important part of this collaboration is implementation of standards of how MRI findings should be clinically managed and used to direct localization methods and surgical planning, thereby creating guidelines for subsequent patient intervention. Trial design/eligibility criteria: A prospective multicenter trial will include women eligible for BCT by standard criteria and randomized between current standard of care, clinical examination and mammography (+/− ultrasound) and the same plus preoperative breast MRI. The study will focus on women at the highest risk of local recurrence: ER/PR/HER-2 negative (triple negative) and HER-2 amplified breast cancers. Specific aims: To compare the rates of local recurrence following breast conserving therapy in a cohort randomized to preoperative staging with mammography or mammography plus breast MRI. Additionally, a comparison of rates of re-operation, time to local recurrence, survival outcomes, contralateral breast cancer rates, rates of multicentric disease and other secondary aims will be performed. Costs and quality of life measures will also be investigated. Statistical methods: A stratified logrank test and Cox partial likelihood score test will be used to assess whether the distribution of LR times differs with respect to diagnostic work-up approach having adjusted for tumor stage. Cox modeling with the Cox partial likelihood score test will be used to examine the strength of association between these time to event distributions and such additional potential prognostic factors as menopausal status, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, ER, PR, number of positive lymph nodes, HER-2/neu expression, Nottingham grade, and Ki-67 expression. Target Accrual: 556 patients Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-05-06.

Purpose To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) with each other and to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical staging in the pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer, using surgicopathologic findings as the reference standard. Patients and Methods This prospective multicenter clinical study was conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network and the Gynecologic Oncology Group from March 2000 to November 2002; 25 United States health centers enrolled 208 consecutive patients with biopsy-confirmed cervical cancer of FIGO stage ≥ IB who were scheduled for surgery based on clinical assessment. Patients underwent FIGO clinical staging, helical CT, and MRI. Surgicopathologic findings constituted the reference standard for statistical analysis. Results Complete data were available for 172 patients; surgicopathologic findings were consistent with FIGO stages IA to IIA in 76% and stage ≥ IIB in 21%. For the detection of advanced stage (≥ IIB), sensitivity was poor for FIGO clinical staging (29%), CT (42%), and MRI (53%); specificity was 99% for FIGO clinical staging, 82% for CT, and 74% for MRI; and negative predictive value was 84% for FIGO clinical staging, 84% for CT, and 85% for MRI. MRI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.88) was significantly better than CT (AUC, 0.73) for detecting cervical tumors (P = .014). For 85% of patients, FIGO clinical staging forms were submitted after MRI and/or CT was performed. Conclusion CT and MRI performed similarly; both had lower staging accuracy than in prior single-institution studies. Accuracy of FIGO clinical staging was higher than previously reported. The temporal data suggest that FIGO clinical staging was influenced by CT and MRI findings.

Purpose To review the current utilization of diagnostic tests prescribed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical staging guidelines in the pretreatment work-up of invasive cervical cancer, and to compare the data with those of previous patterns of care studies. Patients and Methods This interdisciplinary American College of Radiology Imaging Network/Gynecologic Oncology Group prospective clinical trial was conducted between March 1, 2000, and November 11, 2002. Twenty-five participating institutions, all from the United States, enrolled a total of 208 patients. Only patients scheduled for surgery with biopsy-confirmed cervical cancer of clinical FIGO stage IB or higher were eligible. The patterns of care data analysis was based on 197 patients who met all inclusion criteria. The conventional FIGO-recommended tests used for pre-enrollment FIGO clinical stage classification were at the discretion of the treating physician; overall frequency of use was tabulated for each test. Results Use of cystoscopy (8.1%) and sigmoidoscopy or proctoscopy (8.6%) was significantly lower than in 1988 to 1989 (P < .0001 in each instance). Intravenous urography was used in only 1% of patients as compared with 42% in 1988 to 1989 and 91% in 1983. No patient included in the data analysis had barium enema or lymphangiography. Only 26.9% of patients had examination under anesthesia for FIGO clinical staging. Conclusion There is a large discrepancy between the diagnostic tests recommended by FIGO and the actual tests used for cervical cancer staging, suggesting a need to reassess the relevance of the FIGO guidelines to current clinical practice in the United States.