Citations

Clear

11 citation(s) found for "Allen, Brian".

CAMPERR: A multicenter, prospective, observational study to evaluate a cfDNA-based genome-wide methylation enrichment assay for multicancer early detection (MCED), identification of molecular residual disease, and relapse prognostication.
Idos, Gregory, Holmes, Faith L., Boardman, Lisa A., Mazzone, Peter J. , Nabavizadeh, Nima , Lammers, Phil, Ahluwalia, M., Padmanabhan, Arvinda, Burkeen, Christopher Grant, Nash, Charles H., Clyburn-Ipock, Virginia L., Okeke, Ifeoma Roseline, Byrnes, Abigail B., Silvestri, Gerard A., Anderson, Michelle H., Landers, Kaytlin, Provance, Jeremy , Sosa, Eduardo V., Allen, Brian, Rini, Brian I., Idos, Gregory , Boardman, Lisa A., Lammers, Philip E. , Ahluwalia, Manmeet S. , Burkeen, Christopher G. , Silvestri, Gerard A. , Allen, Brian, Rini, Brian I.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 28, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: No page available

10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.tps10628 Get It

TPS10628 Background: Despite advances in cancer treatment, a lack of established population-level cancer screening strategies for early detection across cancer types contributes to cancer-related mortality. Emerging MCED liquid biopsy tests represent a screening approach with potential to enable detection of multiple malignancies at earlier stages in the disease process. We previously showed that an initial classifier based on a genome-wide methylome enrichment platform detected 12 cancer types, including early-stage, low-shedding tumors (Park et al. AACR 2023. Abs 1030). However, clinical performance of the platform has not been evaluated prospectively. Thus, the CAMPERR study (NCT05366881) was designed to train and validate a cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and high throughput sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq)-based test for detection and differentiation of 20 pre-selected cancer types, representing 93% of annual cancer incidence and 88% of annual cancer deaths. Longitudinal follow-up for a subset of participants with lung cancer will enable training and validation for MRD-based recurrence prognostication. Methods: This case-control study is enrolling participants with 20 different pre-specified cancer types (n=2400) and those without known cancer (n=3900). Eligible participants are ≥40 years of age and not receiving treatment for cancer at the time of enrollment or taking any demethylating/hypomethylating agents. Cases include individuals with newly diagnosed (≤120 days), untreated cancer or recurrence of a cancer originally diagnosed >5 years ago. Cancers of interest are stage I-IV bladder, brain, breast, cervical, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, head and neck, hepatobiliary, leukemia, lung, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, renal, sarcoma, and thyroid. Participants with stage I-III lung cancer will have clinical follow-up and blood draws after completion of first-line treatment, every 3 mo for the first year thereafter, and every 6 mo for an additional 2 years. Eligible control participants have not been diagnosed with invasive cancer in the last 5 years and will have clinical follow-up ≥12 mo from enrollment to evaluate cancer status. Liquid biopsy results will not be returned to clinicians or participants. The primary objective is cancer detection. Secondary objectives include detection of specific cancer types, identification of the tissue of origin, and prognostication of clinical outcomes (eg, recurrence-free survival, overall survival). CAMPERR is currently enrolling at 15 sites. As of December 3, 2025, 2108 of 2400 cancer cases have been enrolled, including prostate (n=225), lung (n=216), colorectal (n=211), breast (n=193), and pancreatic (n=192); controls are fully enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT05366881 .
The Role of Imaging for Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Consensus Recommendations From the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology
Sengupta, Neil , Bruining, David H. , Latorre, Melissa, Leighton, Jonathan A. , Wells, Michael , Guglielmo, Flavius F. , Gee, Michael S. , Yoo, Don C. , Ramalingam, Vijay , Huete, Álvaro , Sokhandon, Farnoosh , Grand, David , Tse, Justin R. , Fidler, Jeff L. , Guglielmo, Flavius F , Kastenberg, David , Brook, Olga R. , Naringrekar, Haresh , Gee, Michael Stanley , Soto, Jorge A. , Park, Seong Ho , Khandelwal, Ashish , Gupta, Avneesh , Allen, Brian C. , Anderson, Mark , Dane, Bari , Fidler, Jeff L.

Mayo Clinic

American Journal of Gastroenterology | March 5, 2024 | Volume: 119 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 438-449

10.14309/ajg.0000000000002631 | PMID 38857483 Get It

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided.
Multiorganizational consensus to define guiding principles for perioperative pain management in patients with chronic pain, preoperative opioid tolerance, or substance use disorder
Dickerson, David , Mariano, Edward R. , Szokol, Joseph W., Harned, Michael , Clark, Randall M, Mueller, Jeffrey T. , Shilling, Ashley , Udoji, Mercy A. , Mukkamala, S Bobby, Doan, Lisa , Wyatt, Karla , Elkassabany, Nabil , Beck, Stacy , Wiechmann, Lisa, Chiao, Franklin, Halle, Steven G, Krishnan, Deepak G. , Cramer, John D. , Esa, Wael Ali Sakr, Muse, Iyabo O. , Baratta, Jaime L., Rosenquist, Richard W. , Gulur, Padma, Shah, Shalini , Kohan, Lynn , Robles, Jennifer, Yang, Stephen C. , Hadeed, Josef G., Schwartz, Gary , Sprintz, Michael, Urish, Kenneth L. , Walton, Ashley , Keith, Lauren, Buvanendran, Asokumar , Dickerson, David M , Muse, Iyabo O , Rosenquist, Richard , Schwenk, Eric S , Schwartz, Gary , Mariano, Edward R , Clark, Randall M., Schwalb, Jason M. , Eloy, Jean Daniel , Schwenk, Eric S. , Allen, Brian F.S. , Englesbe, Michael J. , Walton, Ashley, Keith, Lauren

Mayo Clinic

Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine | April 25, 2023 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 716-724

10.1136/rapm-2023-104435 | PMID 37185214 Get It

Significant knowledge gaps exist in the perioperative pain management of patients with a history of chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or opioid tolerance as highlighted in the US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force 2019 report. The report emphasized the challenges of caring for these populations and the need for multidisciplinary care and a comprehensive approach. Such care requires stakeholder alignment across multiple specialties and care settings. With the intention of codifying this alignment into a reliable and efficient processes, a consortium of 15 professional healthcare societies was convened in a year-long modified Delphi consensus process and summit. This process produced seven guiding principles for the perioperative care of patients with chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or preoperative opioid tolerance. These principles provide a framework and direction for future improvement in the optimization and care of ‘complex’ patients as they undergo surgical procedures.
Multi-cancer early detection test sensitivity for cancers with and without current population-level screening options
Shao, Spencer H. , Clement, Jessica, Chung, Gina G., Gao, Jingjing , Hubbell, Earl , Liu, Minetta C. , Yimer, Habte, Tummala, Mohan K., Hubbell, Earl , Allen, Brian, Swanton, Charles , Tang, W.H. Wilson

Mayo Clinic

Tumori Journal | November 1, 2022 | Volume: 109 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 335-341

10.1177/03008916221133136 | PMID 36316952 Get It

There are four solid tumors with common screening options in the average-risk population aged 21 to 75 years (breast, cervical, colorectal, and, based on personalized risk assessment, prostate), but many cancers lack recommended population screening and are often detected at advanced stages when mortality is high. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests have the potential to improve cancer mortality through additional population screening. Reported here is a post-hoc analysis from the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas substudy to examine multi-cancer early detection test performance in solid tumors with and without population screening recommendations and in hematologic malignancies. Participants with cancer in the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas substudy analysis were split into three subgroups: solid screened tumors (breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate), solid unscreened tumors, and hematologic malignancies. In this post hoc analysis, sensitivity is reported for each subgroup across all ages and those aged ⩾50 years overall, by cancer, and by clinical cancer stage. Aggregate sensitivity in the solid screened, solid unscreened, and hematologic malignancy subgroups was 34%, 66%, and 55% across all cancer stages, respectively; restricting to participants aged ⩾50 years showed similar aggregate sensitivity. Aggregate sensitivity was 27%, 53%, and 60% across stages I to III, respectively. Within the solid unscreened subgroup, aggregate sensitivity was >75% in 8/18 cancers (44%) and >50% in 13/18 (72%). This multi-cancer early detection test detected cancer signals at high (>75%) sensitivity for multiple cancers without existing population screening recommendations, suggesting its potential to complement recommended screening programs. Clinical trial identifier: NCT02889978.
Development of entrustable professional activities for regional anesthesia and pain medicine fellowship training
Prendiville, Elaine, Booth, Gregory J , Boublik, Jan , Burnett, Garrett W. , Elkassabany, Nabil , Hausman, Jonathan, Klesius, Lisa L. , Le-Wendling, Linda , Machi, Anthony , Maniker, Robert B. , Parra, Michelle C. , Rosenquist, Richard W. , Spofford, Christina M., Tedore, Tiffany , Wilson, Elizabeth H., Zhou, Jon , Woodworth, Glenn E. , Porter, Steven B , Boublik, Jan , Burnett, Garrett W , Le-Wendling, Linda , Machi, Anthony T , Parra, Michelle , Tedore, Tiffany , Zhou, Jon Yan , Woodworth, Glenn , Porter, Steven B. , Allen, Brian F.S. , Suresh, Santhanam

Mayo Clinic

Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine | July 25, 2022 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 672-677

10.1136/rapm-2022-103854 | PMID 35878963 Get It

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) offers descriptions of competencies and milestones but does not provide standardized assessments to track trainee competency. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and special assessments (SAs) are emerging methods to assess the level of competency obtained by regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) fellows. Methods A panel of RAAPM physicians with experience in education and competency assessment and one medical student were recruited to participate in a modified Delphi method with iterative rounds to reach consensus on: a list of EPAs, SAs, and procedural skills; detailed definitions for each EPA and SA; a mapping of the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones; and a target level of entrustment for graduating US RAAPM fellows for each EPA and procedural skill. A gap analysis was performed and a heat map was created to cross-check the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones. Results Participants in EPA and SA development included 19 physicians and 1 medical student from 18 different programs. The Delphi rounds yielded a final list of 23 EPAs, a defined entrustment scale, mapping of the EPAs to ACGME milestones, and graduation targets. A list of 73 procedural skills and 7 SAs were similarly developed. Discussion A list of 23 RAAPM EPAs, 73 procedural skills, and 7 SAs were created using a rigorous methodology to reach consensus. This framework can be utilized to help assess RAAPM fellows in the USA for competency and allow for meaningful performance feedback.
Abstract IA02: Multicancer detection of early-stage cancers with simultaneous tissue localization using a plasma cfDNA-based targeted methylation assay
Hartman, Anne‐Renee , Oxnard, Geoffrey R. , Seiden, Michael V., Venn, Oliver, Jamshidi, Arash , Zhang, Nan , Beausang, John F., Gross, Samuel, Fung, Eric T. , Allen, Brian, Fields, Alexander P. , Liu, Hai , Richards, Donald , Aravanis, Alexander M. , Liu, Minetta C. , Klein, Eric A. , Hubbell, Earl , Gross, Samuel, Kurtzman, Kathryn N. , Sekeres, Mikkael A. , Yu, Peter Paul

Mayo Clinic

Clinical Cancer Research | June 16, 2020 | Volume: 26 | Issue: 11_Supplement | Pages: IA02-IA02

10.1158/1557-3265.liqbiop20-ia02 Get It

Abstract Background: Earlier cancer detection could identify tumors when they are more treatable and thus may improve clinical outcomes. A blood-based multicancer early detection test using circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers the potential to address this unmet need. Our previous discovery work identified whole-genome bisulfite sequencing as outperforming whole-genome and targeted sequencing approaches for multicancer detection across stages. We thus developed a targeted methylation (TM) assay for multicancer detection and tissue-of-origin (TOO) localization. Methods: Participants were from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) and STRIVE (NCT03085888) studies, both prospective, multicenter, observational studies with longitudinal follow-up. cfDNA samples spanning >20 cancer types of all stages were divided into a cross-validated training set and an independent validation set; there were 3,583 evaluable samples in training (1,530 cancer; 2,053 noncancer) and 1,803 in validation (678 cancer; 1,125 noncancer). Performance in a prespecified set of 12 high-signal cancers was also reported (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile-duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach). This multicancer early detection test evaluated cfDNA for the presence of cancer and localization of TOO; the TM classifier was trained to target >99% specificity. Precision was defined as the fraction of correct calls. Results: Participants with and without cancer were similar in age. Specificity across all cancer types in the training and validation sets was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.2-99.9%) and 99.3% (98.3-99.8%), respectively, which reflects a consistent (P=0.292) false positive rate of <1%. Across all cancer types, aggregate sensitivity was also consistent between the training and validation sets (55% [53-58%] and 55% [51-59], respectively; P=0.897). In the validation set, aggregate sensitivity in the prespecified group was 76% (73-78%); detection was 39% (27–52%) in stage I (n=62), 69% (56–80%) in stage II (n=62), 83% (75–90%) in stage III (n=102), and 92% (86–96%) in stage IV (n=130). Overall, the classifier assigned a TOO across >20 cancer types in 96% of samples (344/359); of these, the TOO was correct in 93% (321/344) of cases, which was consistent with training set analyses. Conclusions: This multicancer early detection test detected cancer signal across >20 cancer types with a single, fixed, low false positive rate and highly accurate TOO localization. Importantly, results in the independent validation set were consistent with the training set, demonstrating the robustness of machine learning classifier training, and confirms that data were not overfitted. These data support the feasibility of a single blood-based test that can detect multiple cancers, supporting further clinical development in preparation for the return of results. Citation Format: Anne-Renee Hartman, Geoffrey Oxnard, Eric Klein, Michael Seiden, Earl Hubbell, Oliver Venn, Arash Jamshidi, Nan Zhang, John Beausang, Samuel Gross, Kathryn Kurtzman, Eric Fung, Brian Allen, Alexander Fields, Hai Liu, Mikkael Sekeres, Donald Richards, Peter Yu, Alexander Aravanis, Minetta Liu. Multicancer detection of early-stage cancers with simultaneous tissue localization using a plasma cfDNA-based targeted methylation assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Liquid Biopsies; Jan 13-16, 2020; Miami, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(11_Suppl):Abstract nr IA02.
Prospective registry of multiplex testing (PROMPT): A web-based platform to assess cancer risk of genetic variants.
Walsh, Michael F. , Gaddam, Pragna, DiGiovanni, Laura , Dolinsky, Jill S. , Klein, Rachel , Lincoln, Stephen E. , Allen, Brian, Leighton, Justin, Strom, Charles M. , Ranger-Miller, Vanessa, Offit, Kenneth , Balmañà, Judith , Sittler, Taylor , Brown, Kyle, Garber, Judy E. , Couch, Fergus J. , Domchek, Susan M. , Robson, Mark E.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 6, 2018 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 1518-1518

10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.1518 Get It

Genetic heterogeneity and survival among pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with positive family history.
Petersen, Gloria M. , Chaffee, Kari G. , Majithia, Neil , Allen, Brian, Singh, Nanda, Hartman, Anne‐Renee , Oberg, Ann L. , McWilliams, Robert R. , Kidd, John

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 6, 2018 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 4108-4108

10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.4108 Get It

Comparative effectiveness of tumor response assessment methods: Standard-of-care versus computer-assisted response evaluation.
Florez, Edward , Sirous, Reza , Lirette, Seth T. , Griswold, Michael , Wang, Zhen J. , Bieszczad, Jacob, Cox, Kelly , Goenka, Ajit H. , Howard-Claudio, Candace M, Sanyal, Rupan , Henagen, J. Clark, Storrs, Judd , Allen, Brian C. , Remer, Erick M. , Howard, Candace M. , Kang, HyunSeon Christine , Nandwana, Sadhna B. , Shinagare, Atul Bhanudas , Davenport, Matthew S. , Rini, Brian I. , Smith, Andrew D. , Storrs, Judd M , Lirette, Seth

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 29, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 6_suppl | Pages: 432-432

10.1200/jco.2017.35.6_suppl.432 Get It

432 Background: In clinical trials and clinical practice, tumor response assessment with computed tomography (CT) defines critical end points in patients with metastatic disease treated with systemic agents. Methods to reduce errors and improve efficiency in tumor response assessment could improve patient care. Methods: Eleven readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria using paired baseline and initial post-therapy CT studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multi-institutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard-of-care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error-identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data/image archival. A cross-over design, patient randomization, and two-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time. Results: The standard-of-care method was on average associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1/20) of patients while CARE had a 0.0% (0.0/20) error rate (p<0.001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range 1-3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 vs. 13.1 minutes, p<0.001). Conclusions: Computer-assisted tumor response evaluation reduced errors and time of evaluation, indicating better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard-of-care.