Search

Among several methods of active and passive sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea), pan traps, also known as bee bowls, are commonly utilized for their efficiency and as a means of avoiding collector bias. When comparing pan‐trap samples using traditional statistical methods, the assumption of independence among samples needs to be met. To determine the necessary distance between pan traps to obtain independent samples, we investigated spatial dependence in bee catches using pan traps at four sites. At each site, a regular grid of pan traps was laid out, with each sample having two colors of fluorescent trap (i.e. blue and yellow). These trap pairs were separated by 10 m, with 100–109 points in the grid. In addition, five points within the grid were chosen randomly, and an additional 40 traps were placed at 2 m and 4 m from the five sample points to sample bees at a minimum 2 m trap distance. Traps collected bees for five consecutive days and bees were counted for each point and each trap color. Bee count data were analyzed using geostatistics to determine the spatial dependency in trap catches for yellow traps, blue traps, and both colors combined. The highest value of the range parameter of the semivariogram found across the four sites and pan trap colors was 17 m for blue traps. From this, we recommend a conservative minimum distance of 17 m between adjacent pan traps to obtain spatially independent samples for optimizing sampling plans when independent samples are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Targeting tumor-specific molecular alterations has shown significant clinical benefit. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) connect cancer patients with personalized treatments and clinical trials. However, rural cancer centers often have limited access to MTB expertise. We established an academic–community partnership expanding our academic MTB to affiliated rural community cancer centers. We developed a centralized molecular registry of tumors (MRT) to aggregate the comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results and facilitate multidisciplinary MTB review. Of the 151 patients included, 87 (58%) had actionable genomic biomarkers, 42 (28%) were eligible for a targeted off-label therapy, and 27 (18%) were matched to a clinical trial. Of those with a clinical trial match, only 1 of 27 (3%) was enrolled in the identified trial. One year into implementation, community oncology providers were anonymously surveyed on persistent barriers to precision treatment utilization. The primary barriers to clinical trial enrollment were the distance to the trial center (70%), lack of transportation (55%), and lack of local trials (50%). This study offers a framework to improve access to molecular expertise, but significant barriers to the equitable use of CGP and trial enrollment persist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It has long been established that high-dose methotrexate is an essential part of therapy for primary central nervous system lymphoma. When regimens utilizing high-dose methotrexate were first studied, a dose of 8 g/m2 was used. More recently, reduced dosing strategies have been studied and adopted in attempts to reduce rates of adverse events. Studies utilizing 3.5 g/m2 of methotrexate have shown promising outcomes and improved rates of adverse events but there have never been any randomized head-to-head studies of differing dose levels of high-dose methotrexate. The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of different dosing strategies of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). Methods: This single center retrospective review was conducted between 07/01/2013 to 6/3/2020. The patient population was separated into two arms based upon dose of methotrexate. The high intensity (HiHD) arm was defined as patients who received doses > 3.5 g/m2, while the low intensity (LiHD) arm received ≤ 3.5 g/m2. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints include efficacy via 2-year overall survival (OS), progression to transplant, and utilization of consolidation or salvage therapy. Safety was assessed through monitoring of relevant laboratory studies. Results: A total of 92 patients were included in this analysis. Baseline demographics were similar between groups, with the LiHD group trending toward older age. There were 78 patients eligible for assessment for ORR; there was no significant difference between the two groups (42.0% LiHD vs. 44.4% HiHD; p = 1.0). Rates of OS, progression to transplant and progression to consolidation chemotherapy were not different between groups. There were statistically significantly higher rates of renal and/or hepatic dysfunction with the first dose in the HiHD group compared with the LiHD group (11.5% LiHD vs. 64.3% HiHD; p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: In this PCNSL patient cohort, there is no difference in terms of efficacy between HiHD LiHD methotrexate, but patients in the HiHD group had higher rates of renal and hepatic dysfunction. Limitations include small sample size and disparity between group sizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is frequently adopted to direct the clinical care of myeloid neoplasms and solid tumors, but its utility in the care of lymphoid and histiocytic cancers is less well defined., Methods: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the frequency at which mutations identified by CGP altered management in non-myeloid hematologic malignancies. We retrospectively examined the CGP results of 105 samples from 101 patients with non-myeloid hematologic malignancies treated at an academic medical center who had CGP testing between 2014 and 2021., Results: CGP revealed one or more pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 92 (88%) of samples and 73 (72%) of tested patients had one or more mutations with diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic significance. The identification of a resistance variant resulted in the suspension of the active treatment or affected subsequent treatment choice in 9 (69%) out of 13 patients. However, the presence of a therapy sensitizing variant only led to consideration of a biomarker-directed therapy in 6 (10%) out of 61 patients., Conclusions: Overall, CGP of non-myeloid hematologic malignancies identified clinically significant variants in 72% of patients and resulted in a change in management in 22% of patients., Competing Interests: The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. C.L. has performed consulting for Rigel and ad board for Autolus and ADC Therapeutics. B.A.C. has received honoraria from Foundation Medicine and served on an ad board for Guardant. M.F.G is employed by Labcorp. J.S. performs consulting for Abbvie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GE Healthcare, GSK, Ipsen, Johnson and Johnson, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Natera, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Regeneron, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Xilio Therapeutics, owns stock options in Triumvira Immunologics, and receives research funding from Abbvie, Amgen, Apollo Therapeutics, AStar D3, Bayer, Beigene, Curegenix, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Erasca, GSK, Leap Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Quanta Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, and Roche/ Genentech. The remaining authors have no relevant disclosures.