Search

Quantitative assessment of nucleophosmin 1 ( NPM1 ) mutation status is integral to evaluating measurable residual disease (MRD) in NPM1 -mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. In a retrospective study, leftover peripheral blood (PB) specimens (n = 40) which were collected for routine clinical diagnostic evaluations of AML disease burden were tested by both a novel automated RT-qPCR quantitative NPM1 assay (Xpert NPM1 mutation assay) and the NPM1 mutA, mutB&D MutaQuant kit. Based on a Deming regression analysis, there was a high correlation (slope = 0.92; intercept = 0.12; Pearson's r = 0.982) between the quantitative results of the Xpert NPM1 mutation assay and the NPM1 mutA, mutB&D MutaQuant kit. The Xpert test quantitative results are thus highly correlated with the comparator method and the former has potential as a useful alternative for the monitoring of AML patients with a known NPM1 mutation.

Background: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC after prior antiangiogenic therapy., Methods: In this exploratory analysis, plasma biomarkers from baseline and week 4 from 621 of 658 randomized patients were analyzed for CA9, HGF, MET, GAS6, AXL, VEGF, VEGFR2, and IL-8. PFS and OS were analyzed by baseline biomarker levels as both dichotomized and continuous variables using univariate and multivariable methods. For on-treatment changes, PFS and OS were analyzed using fold change in biomarker levels at week 4. Biomarkers were considered prognostic if p < 0.05 and predictive if p interaction  < 0.05 for the interaction between treatment and biomarker., Results: Hazard ratios for PFS and OS favored cabozantinib versus everolimus for both low and high baseline levels of all biomarkers (hazard ratios ≤0.78). In univariate analyses, low baseline HGF, AXL, and VEGF were prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with cabozantinib, and low HGF was prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with everolimus. Low AXL was predictive of relative improvement in PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus. Results were generally consistent when baseline biomarkers were expressed as continuous variables, although none were predictive of benefit with treatment. In multivariable analysis, low baseline HGF was independently prognostic for improved PFS for both cabozantinib and everolimus; low HGF, GAS6, and VEGF were independently prognostic for improved OS with cabozantinib. No biomarkers were independently prognostic for OS with everolimus. On-treatment increases in some biomarkers appeared prognostic for PFS or OS with cabozantinib in univariate analyses; however, none were independently prognostic in multivariable analysis., Conclusions: PFS and OS were improved with cabozantinib versus everolimus at high and low baseline levels of all biomarkers. Low baseline HGF was consistently identified as a prognostic biomarker for improved PFS or OS with cabozantinib or everolimus, supporting further prospective evaluation of the prognostic significance of HGF in advanced RCC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01865747 (registered on 05/31/2013)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The phase III CELESTIAL study demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with previously treated, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We analyzed outcomes by baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and on-treatment AFP changes., Patients and Methods: Serum AFP was measured every 8 weeks by blinded, centralized testing. Outcomes were analyzed by baseline AFP bifurcated at 400 ng/mL and by on-treatment AFP response (≥20% decrease from baseline at Week 8). The optimal cutoff for change in AFP at Week 8 was evaluated using maximally selected rank statistics., Results: Median OS for cabozantinib versus placebo was 13.9 versus 10.3 months [HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.04] for patients with baseline AFP <400 ng/mL, and 8.5 versus 5.2 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.94) for patients with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL. Week 8 AFP response rate was 50% for cabozantinib versus 13% for placebo. In the cabozantinib arm, median OS for patients with and without AFP response was 16.1 versus 9.1 months (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84). AFP response was independently associated with longer OS. The optimal cutoff for association with OS in the cabozantinib arm was ≤0% change in AFP at Week 8 [AFP control; HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.71)]. HRs for PFS were consistent with those for OS., Conclusions: Cabozantinib improved outcomes versus placebo across a range of baseline AFP levels. On-treatment AFP response and control rates were higher with cabozantinib than placebo, and were associated with longer OS and PFS with cabozantinib., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The diagnoses of serious psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder, rely on the subjective recall and interpretation of often overlapping symptoms, and are not based on the objective pathophysiology of the illnesses. The subjectivity of symptom reporting and interpretation contributes to the delay of accurate diagnoses and limits effective treatment of these illnesses. Proteomics, the study of the types and quantities of proteins an organism produces, may offer an objective biological approach to psychiatric diagnosis. For this pilot study, we used the Myriad RBM Discovery Map 250+ platform to quantify 205 serum proteins in subjects with schizophrenia (n=26), schizoaffective disorder (n=20), bipolar disorder (n=16), and healthy controls with no psychiatric illness (n=23). Fifty-seven analytes that differed significantly between groups were used for multivariate modeling with linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Diagnoses generated from these models were compared to SCID-generated clinical diagnoses to determine whether the proteomic markers: 1) distinguished the three disorders from controls, and 2) distinguished between the three disorders. We found that a series of binary classification models including 8-12 analytes produced separation between all subjects and controls, and between each diagnostic group and controls. There was a high degree of accuracy in the separations, with training areas-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.94-1.0, and cross-validation AUC of 0.94-0.95. Models with 7-14 analytes produced separation between the diagnostic groups, though less robustly, with training AUC of 0.72-1.0 and validation AUC of 0.69-0.89. While based on a small sample size, not adjusted for medication state, these preliminary results support the potential of proteomics as a diagnostic aid in psychiatry. The separation of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder suggests that further work in this area is warranted.

Purpose: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer., Materials and Methods: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment)., Results: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002)., Conclusions: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A prognostic test was developed to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) decisions in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) adenocarcinomas. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-utility of the prognostic test to the current standard of care (SoC) in patients with early-stage NSCLC., Materials and Methods: Lifetime costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of ACT treatment decisions were examined using a Markov microsimulation model from a U.S. third-party payer perspective. Cancer stage distribution and probability of receiving ACT with the SoC were based on data from an academic cancer center. The probability of receiving ACT with the prognostic test was estimated from a physician survey. Risk classification was based on the 5-year predicted NSCLC-related mortality. Treatment benefit with ACT was based on the prognostic score. Discounting at a 3% annual rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined parameter uncertainty., Results: Lifetime costs and effectiveness were $137,403 and 5.45 QALYs with the prognostic test and $127,359 and 5.17 QALYs with the SoC. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the prognostic test versus the SoC was $35,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the model was most sensitive to the utility of patients without recurrence after ACT and the ACT treatment benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated the prognostic test was cost-effective in 65.5% of simulations at a willingness to pay of $50,000/QALY., Conclusion: The study suggests using a prognostic test to guide ACT decisions in early-stage NSCLC is potentially cost-effective compared with using the SoC based on globally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds., Implications for Practice: Providing prognostic information to decision makers may help some patients with high-risk early stage non-small cell lung cancer receive appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy while avoiding the associated toxicities and costs in patients with low-risk disease. This study used an economic model to assess the effectiveness and costs associated with using a prognostic test to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions compared with the current standard of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. When compared with current standard care, the prognostic test was potentially cost effective at commonly accepted thresholds in the U.S. This study can be used to help inform decision makers who are considering using prognostic tests., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for simultaneous sequencing of multiple cancer susceptibility genes and, for an individual, may be more efficient and less expensive than sequential testing. The authors assessed the frequency of deleterious germline mutations among individuals with breast cancer who were referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) gene testing using a panel of 25 genes associated with inherited cancer predisposition., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using NGS in 2158 individuals, including 1781 who were referred for commercial BRCA1/2 gene testing (cohort 1) and 377 who had detailed personal and family history and had previously tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (cohort 2)., Results: Mutations were identified in 16 genes, most frequently in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2. Among the participants in cohort 1, 9.3% carried a BRCA1/2 mutation, 3.9% carried a mutation in another breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility gene, and 0.3% carried an incidental mutation in another cancer susceptibility gene unrelated to breast or ovarian cancer. In cohort 2, the frequency of mutations in breast/ovarian-associated genes other than BRCA1/2 was 2.9%, and an additional 0.8% had an incidental mutation. In cohort 1, Lynch syndrome-related mutations were identified in 7 individuals. In contrast to BRCA1/2 mutations, neither age at breast cancer diagnosis nor family history of ovarian or young breast cancer predicted for other mutations. The frequency of mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 was lower in Ashkenazi Jews compared with non-Ashkenazi individuals (P=.026)., Conclusions: Using an NGS 25-gene panel, the frequency of mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 was 4.3%, and most mutations (3.9%) were identified in genes associated with breast/ovarian cancer., (© 2014 American Cancer Society.)

Background: This study sought to determine the prevalence of PALB2 mutations in a cohort referred for diagnostic testing for hereditary breast cancer., Methods: Sanger sequencing was used to analyze the entire coding region and flanking introns of PALB2 in anonymized DNA samples from 1479 patients. Samples were stratified into a "high-risk" group, 955 samples from individuals predicted to have a high probability of carrying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 based on their personal and family history, and a "lower-risk" group consisting of 524 samples from patients with breast cancer, but fewer risk factors for being a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier. All patients were known to be negative for deleterious sequence mutations and large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2., Results: We identified 12 disease-associated PALB2 mutations among the 1479 patients (0.8%). The PALB2 mutations included 8 nonsense, 3 frameshift mutations and a splice-site mutation. The mutation prevalence for the high-risk population was 1.05% (95% CI = 0.5-1.92), whereas that for the lower-risk population was 0.38% (95% CI = 0.05-1.37). We identified 59 PALB2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among 57 of the 1479 patients (3.9%)., Conclusions: These results suggest that PALB2 mutations occur at a frequency of ~1% in patients with hereditary breast cancer., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)