Abstract 1904: Somatic copy number alterations and gene expression signatures are associated with aggressive tumor biology in African Americans and European Americans with renal cell carcinoma

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the deadliest of all urologic cancers in the US. RCC survival is highly dependent on histology. Survival rates range between 55-60% for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and 80-90% for papillary RCC (pRCC) patients. African Americans (AAs) have lower survival rates when compared to their European American (EA) counterparts for both histologies (ccRCC 67.1 vs 72.6, pRCC 80.5 vs 87.5). RCC survival disparities may be accredited to population differences in tumor biology, such as somatic copy number alteration (SCNA) profiles of tumor suppressor and oncogenes, and differential gene expression signatures with associated cellular pathway dysregulation. SCNAs are the most common structural change in the human genome and ccRCC and pRCC-specific SCNAs have been associated with clinical outcomes. ClearCode34, a 34 gene expression signature, was developed to classify ccRCC tumors into two distinct ccRCC subtypes (ccA and ccB). The ccB subtype is associated with worse survival and features like increased tumor size, grade, and metastasis rates. We hypothesize there are more aggressive tumor biology phenotypes in AA RCC patients compared to their European counterparts.

Methods: Comparative genome-wide, chromosomal, and gene SCNA analyses were performed in AA and EA ccRCC and pRCC patients in TCGA using Partek Genomics Suite 7 (1-way ANOVA, P<0.05). Prediction analysis of microarray in R was used to classify ccRCC patients into ccA and ccB subtypes by race based on the ClearCode34 gene expression signature (t-test, P<0.05). Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between AA and EA patients were identified using Partek Genomics Suite 7 (1-way ANOVA, P<0.05). Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) was performed using a pre-ranked gene list (Fold changes >2 or <-2, P<0.01) and two Molecular Signatures Database collections (C6 oncogenic signatures, C7 immunologic signatures).

Results: AA-enriched SCNVs were identified on chromosomes 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12 in ccRCC patients, and chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16 and 20 in pRCC patients. Six cytobands and genes experienced a SCNV across both histologies (1p21.1, 1p21.3, 6p12.1, 6p12.3, 6p21.1, 6q12), BMP5 (on 6p12.1), CD2AP (on 6p12.3), ENPP4 (on 6p21.1), and SLC44A3-AS1 (on 1p21.3). AAs and EAs had significantly different frequencies of ccA (AA 33.9% vs EA 52.2%) and ccB subtypes (AA 66.1% vs EA 47.8%). Unique DEGs were found between AA and EA ccA and ccB patients (131 ccA only, 165 ccB only), which corresponded with up- and down-regulation in kidney cancer with oncogenic KRAS (C6) and various immunologic pathways (C7).

Conclusions: Population-specific SCNAs, ccB subtypes, and pathways may help explain differences in RCC tumor biology amongst AA and EA patients. Future Directions: Replicate these findings in the Cooperative Human Tissue Network/Geisinger validation cohort.

Citation Format: Samantha Greenberg, Alex Bart, Destiny Ortiz Fernandez, Heinric Williams, Khadijah A. Mitchell. Somatic copy number alterations and gene expression signatures are associated with aggressive tumor biology in African Americans and European Americans with renal cell carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 1904.

A need to tailor surveillance based on family history: describing a highly penetrant familial paraganglioma kindred with an SDHD pathogenic variant

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in the SDHD gene increase risk for paragangliomas (PGL)/pheochromocytomas, renal cell carcinomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Penetrance in individuals with SDHD PVs varies in reported research from 40-70%, and there is limited evidence of specific genotype risks. This study aims to characterize a multi-generational family with SDHD p.Trp43* PVs and potential genotype-phenotype considerations for surveillance. Individuals with a paternally inherited SDHD p.Trp43*(c.129G > A) PV were identified. Genetic, medical and family histories were abstracted, including clinical characteristics, tumor histories, and treatment approaches. Eleven individuals with the SDHD PV in the same kindred were diagnosed with 41 SDHx-related tumors across all family members. Eight individuals developed 27 head and neck PGL of varying origins, and seven individuals developed tumors outside of the head and neck region. Many individuals had multiple tumors, and age of first tumor diagnosis ranged from age 10 to age 45 years old. Individuals with SDHD p.Trp43* variants may have higher risks for SDHx related tumors than other SDHD variants. Prioritizing identification of at-risk individuals and initiating surveillance tailored to family history is recommended given the rate of multiple tumors found in one familial branch of individuals under 18 years old. Individuals with strong family histories of PGL at young ages with this PV will benefit from tailored surveillance recommendations.

Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology. Appropriate Use Recommendations (AURs) are intended to help guide the introduction of new therapies into real-world clinical practice. Community dwelling patients with AD differ from those participating in clinical trials. Administration of lecanemab at clinical trial sites by individuals experienced with monoclonal antibody therapy also differs from the community clinic-based administration of lecanemab. These AURs use clinical trial data as well as research and care information regarding AD to help clinicians administer lecanemab with optimal safety and opportunity for effectiveness. Safety and efficacy of lecanemab are known only for patients like those participating in the phase 2 and phase 3 lecanemab trials, and these AURs adhere closely to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the trials. Adverse events may occur with lecanemab including amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and infusion reactions. Monitoring guidelines for these events are detailed in this AUR. Most ARIA with lecanemab is asymptomatic, but a few cases are serious or, very rarely, fatal. Microhemorrhages and rare macrohemorrhages may occur in patients receiving lecanemab. Anticoagulation increases the risk of hemorrhage, and the AUR recommends that patients requiring anticoagulants not receive lecanemab until more data regarding this interaction are available. Patients who are apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) gene carriers, especially APOE4 homozygotes, are at higher risk for ARIA, and the AUR recommends APOE genotyping to better inform risk discussions with patients who are lecanemab candidates. Clinician and institutional preparedness are mandatory for use of lecanemab, and protocols for management of serious events should be developed and implemented. Communication between clinicians and therapy candidates or those on therapy is a key element of good clinical practice for the use of lecanemab. Patients and their care partners must understand the potential benefits, the potential harms, and the monitoring requirements for treatment with this agent. Culture-specific communication and building of trust between clinicians and patients are the foundation for successful use of lecanemab.

Discrepancies between tumor genomic profiling and germline genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) often incidentally identifies germline pathogenic variants (PVs) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Methods used by somatic testing laboratories, including germline analysis, differ from designated germline laboratories that have optimized the identification of germline PVs. This study evaluated discrepancies between somatic and germline testing results, and their impact on patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chart reviews were carried out at a single institution for patients who had both somatic and designated germline genetic testing. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PVs were not detected by the somatic laboratory or in which variant classification differed are summarized.

RESULTS

TGP was carried out on 2811 cancer patients, 600 of whom also underwent designated germline genetic testing. Germline PVs were identified for 109 individuals. Discrepancies between germline genetic testing and tumor profiling reports were identified in 20 cases, including 14 PVs identified by designated germline genetic testing laboratories that were not reported by somatic testing laboratories and six variants with discrepant classifications between the designated germline and somatic testing laboratories. Three PVs identified by designated germline laboratories are targets for poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Of the PVs identified by designated germline laboratories, 60% (n = 12) were in genes with established associations to the patients' cancer, and 40% of the PVs were incidental. The majority (90%) of all discrepant findings, both contributory and incidental, changed management recommendations for these patients, highlighting the importance of comprehensive germline assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods used by somatic laboratories, regardless of the inclusion of germline analysis, differ from those of designated germline laboratories for identifying germline PVs. Unrecognized germline PVs may harm patients by missing hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Clinicians should refer patients who meet the criteria for genetic evaluation regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

POS1342 DEPLETION OF KLRG1+ T CELLS IN A FIRST-IN-HUMAN CLINICAL TRIAL OF ABC008 IN INCLUSION BODY MYOSITIS (IBM)

Background

Inclusion body myositis (IBM), a relentlessly progressive autoimmune skeletal muscle disease, has no effective available pharmacological therapy. A prominent feature of IBM on microscopy is highly differentiated effector CD8+ cytotoxic T (Tc) cells invading non-necrotic myofibers [1]. These Tc cells, known to be relatively resistant to apoptosis, express markers including killer cell lectin-like receptor G1 (KLRG1) [2]. ABC008, a first-in-class humanized, afucosylated monoclonal antibody (mAb) specific for KLRG1, selectively depletes these highly differentiated Tc cells while sparing other blood cell populations, e.g., naïve, central memory, and regulatory T cells and B cells. ABC008 has been designed to treat diseases mediated by these Tc cells, including IBM and T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia (T-LGLL). IBM and rheumatoid arthritis overlap clinically with T-LGLL and share similar expansions of large granular lymphocytes (LGLs), which also express KLRG1. We report here our preliminary data from our ongoing trial of ABC008 in IBM (NCT04659031).

Objectives

Evaluate the safety, pharmacodynamics (PD), and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ABC008 administered subcutaneously (SC) in adults with IBM.

Methods

In this first-in-human, open-label, single ascending dose trial with 3 + 3 design evaluating ABC008 SC, eligible participants must have clinicopathologically defined, clinically defined, or probable IBM according to the European Neuromuscular Centre 2011 research diagnostic criteria [3] and an IBM Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS) score ≤38. Four dose cohorts are planned: ABC008 0.1, 0.5, 2.0, and 5.0 mg/kg. PD, PK, safety, and disease severity assessments are performed pre-dose (Day 0) and during the 6-month follow-up period.

Results

Five of the 6 (83.3%) participants were male with baseline mean age = 65.7 years, mean IBM disease duration = 6.8 years, and mean IBMFRS score = 27.5 (Table 1). Each received a single dose of ABC008 SC: Cohorts 1 (C1) and 2 (C2) received 0.1 and 0.5 mg/kg and have completed 168 and 56 days of follow-up, respectively.

Table 1.

Baseline Demographics

Baseline CharacteristicsABC008 SC Treatment GroupsCohort 10.1 mg/kg SC (n=3)Cohort 20.5 mg/kg SC (n=3)ABC008 Overall (N=6)Age (years), mean ± SD64.0 ± 11.3667.3 ± 6.6665.7 ± 8.52Male sex, n (%)3 (100)2 (66.7)5 (83.3)Caucasian3 (100)3 (100)6 (100)Body Mass Index (kg/m2)28.5 ± 3.5828.3 ± 4.2528.4 ± 3.52Disease Duration (years), mean ± SD9.7 ± 5.973.9 ± 4.486.8 ± 5.70IBMFRS score, mean ± SD30.0 ± 4.0825.0 ± 6.1627.5 ± 5.80

Abbreviations: IBMFRS, Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale; n or N, number; SC, subcutaneous; SD, standard deviation.

Maximum depletion of CD8+KLRG1+ cells for C1 and C2 ranged from 46-96% and 98-99%, respectively (Figure 1A), with depletion evident by the next assessment on Day 1. Recovery in C1 began at Day 84 with Day 168 depletion at 29-71%. Other hematologic parameters generally were stable (e.g., T regulatory and B cells). CD8+CD57+ LGLs, mostly KLRG1+, were also depleted (Figure 1B). Preliminary PK showed that ABC008 SC displays a long absorption phase and slow clearance properties typical of mAb therapies. No severe adverse events (AEs) or discontinuations due to AEs have been reported. One unrelated serious AE of fall with muscle tear in a C1 participant with a prior history of falls occurred.

Figure 1.

Key pharmacodynamic parameters in Study ABC008-IBM-101. Baseline and change (A) of KLRG1+CD8+ T cells and (B) CD8+CD57+ large granular lymphocytes (LGLs). C1 and C2 are Cohorts 1 and 2; P1, P2, and P3 are Participants 1, 2, and 3.

Conclusion

In study participants with IBM, single SC doses of 0.1 and 0.5 mg/kg of ABC008 resulted in the depletion of CD8+KLRG1+ cells and CD8+CD57+ LGLs with clear evidence of a dose response for KLRG1+ T cell depletion and no apparent safety signals. Based on these results, a study evaluating ABC008 for the treatment of T-LGLL is planned.

References

[1]Engel AG, et al. Ann Neurol. 1984;16:209-15.

[2]Greenberg SA, et al. Brain. 2016;139:1348-60.

[3]Rose MR, et al. Neuromuscul Disord. 2013;23:1044-55.

Disclosure of Interests

Niti Goel Shareholder of: UCB, Abcuro, Inc, Employee of: Abcuro, Inc, Merrilee Needham Consultant of: Abcuro, Inc, Grant/research support from: Abcuro, Inc, Dulce Soler-Ferran Shareholder of: Abcuro, Inc, Employee of: Abcuro, Inc, Monette M. Cotreau Consultant of: Abcuro, Inc, Jorge Escobar Shareholder of: Abcuro, Employee of: Abcuro, Steven Greenberg Shareholder of: Abcuro, Inc, Consultant of: Abcuro, Inc

Comparing pretest video genetic education for prostate cancer patients: Do patients need assistance?

5061

Background: Expanded germline genetic testing recommendations for individuals with prostate cancer (PCa) have resulted in increased demand for pre-test genetic education. As a result, alternative service delivery models in genetic counseling (GC) have been suggested. Previous research has shown no difference in genetic testing uptake when video genetic education (VGE) is used rather than face-to-face counseling. However, data is limited when evaluating how VGE is delivered to patients. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pre-test VGE on genetic testing uptake when facilitated by a GC assistant or self-completed by the patient. Methods: PCa patients referred for GC were contacted for pre-test VGE. Patients were randomized to undergo VGE with a GC assistant via Zoom (assistant-led) or perform VGE on their own via email instructions (patient-led). Assistant-led VGE was scheduled via standard of care, and patient-led VGE involved electronic and phone contact. In both arms, pre-test VGE included administrating family history collection via electronic software and viewing of informational genetics video. VGE completion and genetic testing uptake was the primary outcome measured for all participants. Initial pilot data was presented previously. This analysis represents the entire study period outcome. Data analysis used t-test, Fisher’s exact and chi square. Results: From 10/1/2020-12/31/2021, 266 PCa patients were referred. In total, 254 were randomized, with 130 in the assistant-led intervention and 124 randomized to the patient-led arm. Technological limitations, loss to follow up, and procedural withdrawals resulted in 41 (31.5%) patients in the assistant-led arm and 65 (52.4%) in the self-led arm. The primary reason for discontinuing the process was lack of patient response to contact to schedule their genetics visit (n = 109, 35 patient-led, 74 assistant-led). There was significantly more loss to follow up in the assistant-led arm versus the self-led arm (p < 0.001). Of those who completed VGE, the median age was 66 years, with no difference between the two arms (p = 0.66). Participants primary identified as white (n = 96, 91%) and non-Hispanic (n = 100, 94%). There was no difference in uptake of genetic testing (p = 0.09) between patient and assistant led VGE. Conclusions: A randomized intervention suggests no difference in genetic testing uptake when pre-test VGE occurs with an assistant or is patient-led. Analyses of satisfaction, decision conflict, and knowledge are needed to evaluate if patient-led VGE is a suitable alternative to GC. Loss to follow up given standard of care scheduling approaches for assistant-led VGE suggests pre-test VGE may be better delivered during oncology visits. Additional evaluation of the facilitators and barriers, in addition to larger multi-center studies, are required to consider patient-led pre-test VGE as a primary method of pre-testing genetic education.

Impact of COVID-19 on individuals with paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma history and/or hereditary risk

10613

Background: Patients with paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma (PPGL) or hereditary predisposition to PPGL often need screening with biochemical labs, imaging and physical exam. Given the rarity of PPGL and hereditary PPGL, care is often provided through specialty centers. Subsequently, patients may have experienced restrictions on travel and delayed scheduling of non-elective procedures due to COVID-19. This study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on seeking PPGL management. Methods: Patients with a personal history of PPGL or hereditary PPGL risk from the University of Michigan, Brigham Women’s Hospital, and Huntsman Cancer Institute were sent a survey in 2021. The survey included questions regarding tumor history (Y/N), gene status, demographics, and experience with COVID. The survey assessed whether they missed any exams related to PPGL diagnosis or screening. Comparative analyses utilized regression and chi-square tests. Patient factors measured in analyses evaluated COVID surveillance (labs, imaging, doctor visit) as the primary outcome and age, institution, gene status, sex, and PPGL history as predicting variables. Results: In total, 241 respondents across three institutions completed the survey. The cohort was primarily female (n = 158, 65.6%). A majority of the cohort identified as White (n = 222, 92%) and non-Hispanic (n = 226, 93.8%). PPGL history was reported in 158 patients (65.6%), 43 of which were pheochromocytoma and 113 were paraganglioma, primarily in the head and neck (n = 78). At time of survey completion, 209 (87%) respondents answered COVID-related questions. Thirty-nine respondents (19.2%) reported missing doctor visits, while 31 (15.3%) report missing HPPGL imaging and 33 (16.3%) report missing lab tests. There were no differences by institution (p > 0.05) on patient reported missed visits. Logistic regression analysis showed no difference in missing visits based on having a hereditary PPGL predisposition gene or sex of respondent (all p-values > 0.05). There was no difference based on PPGL history, though it is unknown if patients missed PGL follow-up or screening. Individuals who missed imaging (Y/N) were more likely to report missing their lab tests (OR = 1.8, p < 0.01) and doctor visit (OR = 1.25, p < 0.01). Age was a significant predictor for missing doctor visits (p = 0.02) with an odds ratio of 1.002 per 1 year increase in age. Conclusions: Though institutions had different COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines by state, there was no difference on missing surveillance or screening. Over 15% of respondents reported missing at least one aspect of PPGL care, indicating a need to re-engage those with PPGL and hereditary PPGL to return to typical screening and surveillance. Patients who miss one aspect of surveillance are likely to have missed other aspects of surveillance and will require evaluation of all aspects of screening to return up to date on needed visits and procedures.

Inherited TP53 Variants and Risk of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Inherited germline TP53 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (gTP53) cause autosomal dominant multicancer predisposition including Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). However, there is no known association of prostate cancer with gTP53.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether gTP53 predisposes to prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multi-institutional retrospective study characterizes prostate cancer incidence in a cohort of LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in a prostate cancer cohort.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We evaluated the spectrum of gTP53 variants and clinical features associated with prostate cancer.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We identified 31 prostate cancer cases among 163 adult LFS males, including 26 of 54 aged ≥50 yr. Among 117 LFS males without prostate cancer at the time of genetic testing, six were diagnosed with prostate cancer over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 3.0 (1.3-7.2) yr of follow-up, a 25-fold increased risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2-55; p < 0.0001). We identified gTP53 in 38 of 6850 males (0.6%) in the prostate cancer cohort, a relative risk 9.1-fold higher than that of population controls (95% CI 6.2-14; p < 0.0001; gnomAD). We observed hotspots at the sites of attenuated variants not associated with classic LFS. Two-thirds of available gTP53 prostate tumors had somatic inactivation of the second TP53 allele. Among gTP53 prostate cancer cases in this study, the median age at diagnosis was 56 (IQR: 51-62) yr, 44% had Gleason ≥8 tumors, and 29% had advanced disease at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Complementary analyses of prostate cancer incidence in LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in prostate cancer cohorts suggest that gTP53 predisposes to aggressive prostate cancer. Prostate cancer should be considered as part of LFS screening protocols and TP53 considered in germline prostate cancer susceptibility testing.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Inherited pathogenic variants in the TP53 gene are likely to predispose men to aggressive prostate cancer.

Impact of provider education on prostate cancer genetic counseling referrals

59

Background: Guidelines recommend germline genetic not only for men with advanced and metastatic prostate cancer but also those with NCCN-high risk disease. Many men harboring germline DNA repair defects would not have met criteria for testing under previous guidelines (Nicolosi et al, JAMA Oncol 2019). Knowledge of germline mutations is pertinent due to recent regulatory approval of PARP inhibitors olaparib and rucaparib and guides screening for first-degree relatives who are at increased risk for other cancers (Pritchard et al, NEJM 2016). Knowledge gaps for germline genetic testing have been previously described (Loeb et al, Cancer Treat Res Commun 2020). Through a series of educational sessions, we sought to increase utilization of appropriate genetic services for men with prostate cancer. Methods: Starting March 2021, virtual educational presentations were held for nurse navigators, urologists, and medical oncologists throughout our large community-based healthcare system. Surveys were distributed following each presentation to measure clinicians’ perception of their knowledge regarding prostate cancer genetics referrals on a five-step scale. Prostate cancer patient referral data was measured from September 2020 to August 2021, six months prior to and after the presentations. Results: Self-reported understanding of prostate cancer genetics referral practices following the educational presentations increased by an average of 1.7/5 steps (2.5 to 4.2/5) for physicians and 1.4/5 steps (2.9 to 4.1/5) for nurse navigators. From March to August 2021, there were 107 genetic referrals for prostate cancer (average 17.8 referrals/month) compared to 49 referrals from September 2020 to February 2021 (8.2 referrals/month). Conclusions: Prostate cancer genetics referrals increased 118% following educational presentations to urologists, medical oncologists, and nurse navigators. This correlates with an improvement in self-reported knowledge gaps. Provider education interventions may improve access to genetic services for men with prostate cancer. The increase in referrals likely does not account for all patients meeting criteria for germline testing. Work is ongoing to calculate the number of referrals as a proportion of the eligible population.[Table: see text]

Impact of pretest video genetic education in prostate cancer patients: Do patients need us?

68

Background: Germline genetic testing criteria for individuals with prostate cancer (PCa) are expanding. Alternative genetic service models are needed to meet increased need for genetic testing. Studies have shown no difference in genetic testing uptake, satisfaction, or knowledge when patients undergo face-to-face genetic counseling compared to pre-test video genetic education (VGE). Data is limited comparing options for how video genetic education is delivered. This study evaluated the impact of pre-test VGE when facilitated by a genetic counseling assistant (assistant-led) or self-completed by the patient (patient-led). Methods: Individuals with PCa referred for genetic counseling received pre-test VGE. Patients were randomized so that this process involved meeting with a genetic counseling assistant or completed at the patient’s convenience via email instructions. Pre-test VGE included family history completion via electronic software and viewing of informational video. VGE completion and genetic testing uptake were measured for all participants. Questionnaires regarding satisfaction, and knowledge were optional for participants after VGE completion. Data was analyzed using t-test and Fisher’s exact. Results: Eighty-one individuals referred for genetic counseling from October 2020-March 2021, and 78 individuals were randomized (1:1) to assistant-led or patient-led VGE, with 39 individuals in each arm. After removing patients for technological limitations, loss to follow up, and procedural withdrawals, there were 18 patients in the assistant-led arm, and 16 patients in the patient-led arm. The primary reason for discontinuing the process was lack of response to phone and electronic contacts to schedule their genetics visit (n = 22). The median age was 64.5 years, with no difference between the two arms (p = 0.698). Participants identified primarily as white/Caucasian (n = 32, 94%). In the assistant-led group, all participants elected to undergo germline genetic testing and 13 (81%) opted for genetic testing in the patient-led group. There was no difference in genetic testing uptake between the two arms (p = 0.094). Nine patients in the patient-led group and eight patients in the assistant-led group completed the questionnaires. There was no difference in satisfaction with their VGE experience (p = 0.815) or knowledge using the KnowGene scale (p = 0.120). Conclusions: Preliminary data suggests there is no difference in genetic testing uptake when pre-test VGE is facilitated by a genetic counseling assistant or self-led by the patient. Given no preliminary differences in satisfaction and knowledge, patient-led pre-test VGE may serve as a viable option prior to germline testing in PCa patients. Additional research is needed with larger sample size. Furthermore, evaluation of the facilitators and barriers of VGE is needed as there was significant drop off in completion of video pre-test VGE.

Description of a SDHD c.129G&gt;A (p.W43X) Mutation With Variable Presentation in Multiple Family Members

Approximately 40% of paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas are attributed to hereditary mutations. SDHD mutations account for 7% of inherited mutations (PGL1 syndrome), is maternally imprinted and has variable penetrance. SDHD pathogenic variants (PV) have been previously described extensively in Dutch pedigrees, with a varying lifetime risk for tumor development. Here we report a large family (Fig 1) displaying a SDHD c.129G&gt;A (p.W43X) variation in 12 family members, 10 of whom had screening or tumor history available. The presentation and age of diagnosis in family members showed variable penetrance. Age at first diagnosis of a pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma ranged from 10 - 45 years. Family members displayed bilateral pheochromocytomas, bilateral carotid body tumors, and paragangliomas of the head, neck and trunk with variable recurrence rates (none to multiple). No malignant lesions were detected to date. Pheochromocytomas were norepinephrine producing. Paragangliomas ranged from non-functional to dopamine and norepinephrine producing. Compared to previous reports of other SDHD mutations, the SDHD c.129G&gt;A (p.W43X) variation displayed an earlier age at first diagnosis with a highly variable phenotype ranging from one benign, non-secreting paraganglioma to bilateral pheochromocytomas and recurrent parganagliomas along the parasympathetic chain from head to abdomen. This report contributes to the evolving understanding of the phenotypic presentations of various genetic mutations. We propose that expert guidelines that suggest screening family members with the SDHD c.129G&gt;A (p.W43X) variation at the age of 8 for early detection of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas is beneficial.

Implementing innovative service delivery models in genetic counseling: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers

Given the increasing demand for genetic counseling, implementation of innovative service delivery models (SDMs) has been proposed to improve access and increase the efficiency of genetic counseling services. This study investigated the key considerations in genetic counseling practices that impact the decision to implement innovative SDMs, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. A cross-sectional, qualitative research design was employed, using focus groups. Genetic counselors (GCs) were recruited from respondents to an online survey about SDMs and by posting an invitation to the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) listserv. A total of 30 participants participated in either in-person (n = 3) or online (n = 5) focus groups, facilitated by members of the Service Delivery Model subcommittee of the NSGC Access and Service Delivery Committee. Transcribed audio and written notes from the focus groups were coded, utilizing an inductive thematic analysis method. Five overarching themes that impact decisions to implement and use innovative SDMs were identified: (a) Patient volume and efficiency are key motivators in trying innovative SDMs; (b) the decision to change is facilitated by available resources; (c) the implementation of innovative SDMs is multidimensional and complex process; (d) there is concern about the impact on patient-provider relationships with the utilization of innovative SDMs; and (e) measuring outcomes of innovative SDM facilitates acquisition of additional resources and support. Approaches to innovative SDM selection and implementation vary by institution needs, resources, and population as demonstrated by the variety of approaches to similar barriers. Outcomes related to the implementation of innovative SDMs in genetic counseling practice should be measured to demonstrate the value of innovative genetic counseling SDMs, improvement of access to care, and to justify need for additional resources to support implementation of these models.

Genetic counseling service delivery models: A study of genetic counselors' interests, needs, and barriers to implementation

As demand for genetic services grows, innovative genetic counseling service delivery models (SDMs) are needed. However, there is limited research on the barriers and needs of genetic counselors (GCs) interested in implementing new SDMs into their practice. In fall 2017, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Access and Service Delivery Committee's SDM Subcommittee sent an online survey to the NSGC membership regarding the use of SDMs, which aimed to update the understanding of current SDM use and how this has changed over time. The survey included several questions with open-response components assessing the need for new SDMs and barriers to implementation. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. Among 517 usable responses (16% response rate), more than half (54.4%) of respondents indicated their current SDM was inadequate to address the patient need in their area. Nearly two-thirds (64.8%) indicated they were in the process of or planning to make changes to their SDM, although 40.6% did not have a specific timeline. Three major themes related to expanding access, reimbursement for services, and lack of support were identified from responses to questions about implementation of additional SDMs. Access included subthemes of geographic and physical location limitations, addressing long wait times, and the need to expand services. Reimbursement for services included issues with billing, genetic counselor licensure, and limitations due to the need for physician involvement in billing. The lack of support was evident with issues related to understaffing; difficulty gaining support at the administrative, institutional, or physician level; time constraints; and funding concerns. This study shows that GCs need education, tools, and resources to overcome barriers in implementing new or adapting current SDMs, and there is a need for policy change, including new billing and coverage models.

Characterization of Malignant Head and Neck Paragangliomas at a Single Institution Across Multiple Decades

Importance

Malignant head and neck paragangliomas (HNPGLs) are rare entities, and there are limited data regarding optimal treatment recommendations to improve clinical outcomes.

Objective

To classify succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) germline mutations associated with malignant HNPGLs, evaluate time from diagnosis to identification of malignant tumor, describe locations of metastases and the functional status of malignant HNPGLs, and determine the role of selective neck dissection at the time of initial surgical resection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study was completed of patients diagnosed with paragangliomas on various sites on the body at an academic tertiary cancer hospital between the years 1963 and 2018. A subanalysis of HNPGLs was also completed. Data regarding diagnosis, gene and mutation, tumor characteristics and location, and treatments used were reviewed between February 2017 and March 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mutations of SDH genes associated with benign and malignant HNPGLs, treatments used, time to the discovery of malignancy, and location of metastasis.

Results

Of the 70 patients included in the study, 40 (57%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 47 (21.1) years. Of patients with tumors isolated to the head and neck, 38 (54%) had benign HNPGLs, which were associated with mutations in the genes SDH subunit B (SDHB) (n = 18; 47%), SDH subunit C (n = 2; 5%), and SDH subunit D (n = 18; 47%). Among those with malignant HNPGLs, all but 1 patient had mutations in SDHB (n = 5; 83%); 1 patient had no mutation associated with their disease. The average age at diagnosis for malignant HNPGLs was 35 years, while benign tumors were diagnosed at an average age at 36 years. All patients with malignant disease underwent surgery. Four patients were found to have metastasis at the time of selective neck dissection. Among patients with malignant HNPGLs, 5 (83%) were treated with adjuvant radiation, and 1 (17%) was treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Malignant HNPGLs are rare entities that are difficult to diagnose and are typically identified by the presence of regional or distant metastasis. The results of this study found the prevalence of malignant HNPGLs to be 9%. These data suggest that it is beneficial to perform a selective neck dissection at the time of tumor excision. All patients with malignant HNPGLs but 1 had SDHB mutations.

Tumor detection rates in screening carriers with SDHx-related hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome based on prior tumor history

1545

Background: Patients with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in the SDHx genes have increased risk for paragangliomas/pheochromocytomas (PGL/PCC), renal cell carcinomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Expert recommendation suggests individuals with SDHx PVs undergo biennial whole-body imaging and annual biochemical testing. This study aimed to evaluate tumor detection rate using standard biochemical and imaging protocols for individuals with SDHx PVs, particularly in those with and without SDHx-related tumor history, and in those with biochemical testing data. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal observational study at the Universities of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute was conducted from the start of each center’s screening program through March 1, 2018. Individuals with SDHx PVs had clinical imaging with whole body MRI/CT and biochemical testing per expert recommendation. SDHx-related tumors identified during clinical screening were measured. Results: A total of 263 individuals with SDHx PVs completed 491 screens. Individuals with SDHB PVs were the most prevalent (n = 188, 71.5%). The average number of screens per subject was 1.87 (range 1-7). A majority (n = 194, 73.7%) of individuals did not have a prior history of PGL/PCC. Overall, SDHx-related tumors were detected in 17.1% (n = 45) of the cohort. Of the 46 scans that identified an SDHx-related tumor, 85% of them (n = 39) were baseline scans. SDHx-related tumors were identified in 18.6% (n = 36/194) of individuals that did not have a prior history of PGL/PCC, whereas they were identified in 13.0% (n = 9/69) of individuals that did have a prior history of PGL/PCC (p = 0.39). Biochemical testing was available for 70% (n = 343) of imaging screens, of which 18% (n = 61) had positive biochemistry. Of those with positive biochemistry, 19 tumors were identified on imaging (6%). Sixteen tumors were identified on imaging with negative biochemistry (5%) with a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 94%. Utilizing a cut-off of two times the upper limit of normal, 9.91% (n = 34) biochemical tests were positive, and 15 (44.12%) had an SDHx-related tumor on corresponding imaging. Conclusions: Current SDHx screening protocols are effective at identifying SDHx-related tumors. Tumors were detected in subjects with a prior history of PGL/PCC and those with no prior history. This suggests life-long screening is important for all SDHx carriers. Imaging is a crucial piece of SDHx screening given biochemical testing’s sensitivity and specificity.

What men want: Qualitative analysis of what men with prostate cancer (PCa) want to learn regarding genetic referral, counseling, and testing

BACKGROUND

Guidelines have changed recently to include genetic counseling (GC) and/or genetic testing (GT) for all men with aggressive prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to identify what information men with PCa desire before and from GC.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with men who have PCa. Audio recordings were analyzed for themes related to GT, the information they desired from health care providers, and implications for family members.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven men with PCa participated in seven focus groups. Nearly all men felt GT was beneficial and impactful for their family and themselves. Most men were unaware of the risks to female relatives associated with hereditary cancer. Participants discussed that genetics should be incorporated at an appropriate time of their diagnostic journey.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that men valued GC and GT for personal and familial implications, and often did not associate PCa genetics with risk for female relatives to develop cancer. Consideration should be given to the GC timing in regard to where men are in their treatment process. Providers referring patients can leverage patient motivations and utilize their relationship with the patient to determine the appropriate timing and personalize discussion with the patient regarding GC and GT.

Factors associated with positive germline testing results in men with prostate cancer following NCCN guideline expansion

230

Background: Pathogenic variants (PV) in genes associated with hereditary cancer risk account for over 10% of cases in men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). NCCN guidelines encouraging germline testing (GT) in metastatic PCa were recently expanded to include all men with high risk, very high risk, or regional PCa. Previously, we showed that the rate of PV findings did not significantly decrease after expansion of these criteria. In this study, we sought to identify factors associated with a PV finding. Methods: Men with PCa underwent multi-gene GT for PVs from April 2016 – December 2018 according to NCCN guidelines pre- (2016-17) and post-expansion (2018). The association of patient-level factors of interest with a positive GT result, where at least one PV was identified, was modeled with univariate logistic regression while overall model significance was validated with ANOVA. Results: Of 410 men undergoing GT, 44 (10.7%) positive and 366 (89.3%) negative tests resulted. Mean age at diagnosis was 62.2 years. Positive testing remained stable from 9.4% to 11.2% following guideline expansion (p=0.62). None of the patient-level factors of interest were significantly associated with increased odds of a positive GT result in any model generated. These factors included age at diagnosis, race, pretreatment PSA, Gleason grade group, NCCN risk group, and family history of cancer (breast and ovarian, prostate, any cancer). Model p-values ranged from 0.84 for Gleason grade group to 0.12 for family history of any cancer. Conclusions: Future work will need to further elucidate the role of patient-level factors in identifying men with PCa at increased risk for harboring a germline PV. Nonetheless, the lack of identification of other factors associated with positive GT results and a stable PV detection rate of roughly 10% support the recent expansion of NCCN testing guidelines. Given these findings, consideration of even broader NCCN criteria for GT may be justified.

Case series examining somatic test results for patients with hereditary cancer syndromes associated with gastrointestinal cancer risk

680

Background: Somatic tumor testing may identify germline pathogenic variants (PV) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Labs differ whether they offer somatic only or paired germline analysis. Methods used by somatic testing labs, even those that include germline analysis, differ from designated germline labs that have optimized the identification of germline PV. Methods: Chart reviews were performed for patients who had testing through both somatic and designated germline laboratories. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PV were not detected by the somatic laboratory are summarized. Results: Nine cases with discrepant results. Five had paired germline testing and 4 somatic testing only. All 9 patients met the criteria to undergo designated germline testing, either for Lynch syndrome (3) or BRCA1/2 testing (6), based on personal and/or family history. Designated germline testing identified 4 MLH1, 1 BRCA1, 2 ATM, 1 MUTYH and 1 RAD50 PV not reported by the somatic labs’ tumor or germline analysis; 2 MLH1 PV were called variants of uncertain significance by somatic testing but classified as PV by ClinVar and designated germline labs. Three PV identified by designated germline labs are targets for PARP inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Three of the MLH1 PV were identified in patients meeting Lynch Syndrome test criteria while 1 was identified in a patient meeting BRCA1/2 criteria. Among the 5 other patients meeting BRCA1/2 test criteria, 3 had PV in breast cancer genes (2 ATM, 1 BRCA1) and 2 had PV in other cancer genes ( MUTYH and RAD50) not reported by the somatic labs, highlighting the importance of panel testing. Conclusions: Methods used by somatic labs, regardless of inclusion of germline analysis, are not equivalent to those of designated germline labs. Overlooked germline PV may miss identification of hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. Anti-PD1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Patients meeting criteria for genetic evaluation should be referred for designated germline testing regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

Population prevalence of individuals meeting criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing

Background

Personal cancer diagnosis and family cancer history factor into which individuals should undergo genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Family history is often determined in the research setting through kindreds with disease clusters, or clinically from self‐report. The population prevalence of individuals with diagnostic characteristics and/or family cancer history meeting criteria for HBOC testing is unknown.

Methods

Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data and a research resource linking registry records to genealogies, the Utah Population Database, the population‐based prevalence of diagnostic and family history characteristics meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for HBOC testing was objectively assessed.

Results

Among Utah residents with an incident breast cancer diagnosis 2010‐2015 and evaluable for family history, 21.6% met criteria for testing based on diagnostic characteristics, but the proportion increased to 62.9% when family history was evaluated. The proportion of cases meeting testing criteria at diagnosis was 94% for ovarian cancer, 23% for prostate cancer, and 51.1% for pancreatic cancer. Among an unaffected Utah population of approximately 1.7 million evaluable for family history, 197,601 or 11.6% met testing criteria based on family history.

Conclusions

This study quantifies the population‐based prevalence of HBOC criteria using objectively determined genealogy and cancer incidence data. Sporadic breast cancer likely represents a portion of the high prevalence of family cancer history seen in this study. These results underline the importance of establishing presence of a deleterious mutation in an affected family member, per NCCN guidelines, before testing unaffected relatives.

Familial Cancer Clustering in Urothelial Cancer: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

Background

Family history of bladder cancer confers an increased risk for concordant and discordant cancers in relatives. However, previous studies investigating this relationship lack any correction for smoking status of family members. We conducted a population-based study of cancer risks in relatives of bladder cancer patients and matched controls with exclusion of variant subtypes to improve the understanding of familial cancer clustering.

Methods

Case subjects with urothelial carcinoma were identified using the Utah Cancer Registry and matched 1:5 to cancer-free controls from the Utah Population Database. Cox regression was used to determine the risk of cancer in first-degree relatives, second-degree relatives, first cousins, and spouses. A total of 229 251 relatives of case subjects and 1 197 552 relatives of matched control subjects were analyzed. To correct for smoking status, we performed a secondary analysis excluding families with elevated rates of smoking-related cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

First- and second-degree relatives of case subjects had an increased risk for any cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.09, P < .001; HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.07, P = .001) and urothelial cancer (HR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.50 to 1.99, P < .001; HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P < .001). Site-specific analysis found increased risk for bladder (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.47 to 1.95, P < .001), kidney (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.57, P = .006), cervical (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.49, P = .01), and lung cancer (HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.51, P < .001) in first-degree relatives. Second-degree relatives had increased risk for bladder (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.5, P < .001) and thyroid cancer (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.35, P = .02). Spouses showed an increased risk for laryngeal (HR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.02 to 7.05, P = .04) and cervical cancer (HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.17, P = .007). These results did not substantively change after correction for suspected smoking behaviors.

Conclusion

Our results suggest familial urothelial cancer clustering independent of smoking, with increased risk in relatives for both concordant and discordant cancers, suggesting shared genetic or environmental roots. Identifying families with statistically significant risks for non-smoking-related urothelial cancer would be extremely informative for genetic linkage studies.

Clinical characteristics of men with prostate cancer and evaluation of NCCN prostate cancer guidelines on germline genetic testing outcomes

252

Background: Growing evidence suggests up to 12% of men with metastatic prostate cancer (PC) harbor a pathogenic variant (PV) in genes associated with hereditary cancer risk. Updated NCCN PC guidelines include consideration for germline testing (GT) in men with high risk, very high risk, regional, or metastatic PC. As a result, we expanded our criteria for GT in men with PC to include these groups and men with a strong family history for PC beginning in January 2018. This study reports the clinical characteristics and germline findings before and after this expansion. Methods: Men with PC underwent multi-gene genetic testing (GT) for PVs from June 2016-June 2018 with genetic counselors. Clinical information and germline GT results were analyzed. Results: Of 285 eligible men who met with a genetic counselor, there were 201 evaluable GT results. One PV was excluded for suspicion of clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Twenty-seven PVs were identified in 24 men (12.4%). Three men had two PVs identified (1.5%), at least one PV of which was in ATM or BRCA2. The most common PVs were ATM (n = 6, 3.0%), BRCA2 (n = 7, 3.5%), MYH (n = 4, 2.0%), and HOXB13 (n = 4, 2.0%). Rate of PVs were not statistically different across the two timeframes of GT, (2016-17, 14%; 2018, 11.2%; p = 0.60). PVs were not statistically associated with a higher ISUP group (1-3: 10.1%, 4-5: 13.6%; p = 0.49) and were distributed across multiple NCCN risk groups. Almost all men tested reported a family history of cancer, with the most frequent cancers reported including PC (n = 79, 39.3%), breast (n = 55, 27.4%), and colon cancer (n = 23, 11.4%). Family history of PC was not statistically associated with genetic test results (PV: 54%, no PV: 37%; p = 0.11). Conclusions: Expanding germline GT criteria will substantially increase patient volume without significant changes to the PV rate. Higher PC risk defined by ISUP or NCCN was not associated with the rate of PVs. Given this finding, further broadening the criteria for GT in PC may be warranted.

An “Invaluable Skill”: Reflections on Abortion Training and Postresidency Practice

Background and Objectives: The goal of this study was to explore family medicine residents’ experiences with abortion training and identify positive and negative influences, and facilitators and barriers to providing abortion care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of recent graduates of an urban family medicine residency in the Northeast United States with an opt-out abortion curriculum. Individual recorded interviews were conducted with two classes of graduated residents until data saturation was reached. Data were coded and interpreted by both authors using the template analysis method. Results: Twenty residents completed interviews. Most trainees had limited or no abortion exposure prior to residency but were open to learning abortion care. By graduation, residents reported confidence in providing options counseling for unintended pregnancy. Overall, residents felt more comfortable providing medication abortion than aspiration abortion. Many reported feeling less emotional reaction to medication abortion and noted more technical and logistical barriers to learning aspiration abortion. Logistical barriers impede integration of medication abortion into practice for many, but were perceived to be less difficult to overcome than barriers to aspiration abortion integration. All participants agreed abortion care fits into the scope of primary care. Due to a variety of barriers, few of those who had not previously planned to become abortion providers after graduation incorporated it in their practice. Conclusions: Abortion training prepared residents to counsel women with unintended pregnancy, but numerous barriers inhibit integration of abortion care into practice. Given limited abortion training resources and fewer perceived barriers to medication abortion provision, family medicine residencies may consider focusing training on medication abortion.

DNA Damage Repair (DDR) Mutations and the Utility of High-Risk Genetics Clinics in Metastatic Castration-Refractory Prostate Cancer (mCRPC)

Germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in DNA-repair genes have garnered increasing attention in metastatic prostate cancer, and more patients are having somatic and germline DNA testing performed. Interpretation of germline DNA testing is a novel challenge for many clinicians, and the results of germline DNA-repair gene testing have significant implications for men with advanced prostate cancer and their children and siblings. Here, we report the case of a man with metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer and a pathogenic, germline BRCA2 variant. We discuss the significance of his referral to a high-risk genetics clinic and the unique targeted therapy that he responded to.

Evaluating and improving the implementation of a community-based hereditary cancer screening program

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings.

Response to omalizumab using patient enrichment criteria from trials of novel biologics in asthma

Background

Recent efficacy studies of asthma biologics have included highly enriched patient populations. Using a similar approach, we examined factors that predict response to omalizumab to facilitate selection of patients most likely to derive the greatest clinical benefit from therapy.

Methods

Data from two phase III clinical trials of omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma were examined. Differences in rates of asthma exacerbations between omalizumab and placebo groups during the 16‐week inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose‐stable phase were evaluated with respect to baseline blood eosinophil counts (eosinophils <300/μL [low] vs ≥300/μL [high]) and baseline markers of asthma severity (emergency asthma treatment in prior year, asthma hospitalization in prior year, forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁; FEV₁ <65% vs ≥65% predicted], inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate dose [<600 vs ≥600 μg/day], and long‐acting beta‐agonist [LABA] use [yes/no]).

Results

Adults/adolescents (N = 1071) were randomized to receive either omalizumab (n = 542) or placebo (n = 529). In the 16‐week ICS dose‐stable phase, rates of exacerbations requiring ≥3 days of systemic corticosteroid treatment were 0.066 and 0.147 with omalizumab and placebo, respectively, representing a relative rate reduction in omalizumab‐treated patients of 55% (95% CI, 32%‐70%; P = .002). For patients with eosinophils ≥300/μL or with more severe asthma, this rate reduction was significantly more pronounced.

Conclusion

In patients with allergic asthma, baseline blood eosinophil levels and/or clinical markers of asthma severity predict response to omalizumab.

Intracranial nonjugular venous pathways: a possible compensatory drainage mechanism

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The IJVs are considered to be the main pathway draining the intracranial venous system. There is increasing evidence for the existence of alternative venous pathways. Studies using extracranial sonography techniques have demonstrated a nonjugular venous system. In the current study, we used MR images to investigate the NJV drainage system and its components (vertebral plexus, pterygopalatine plexus). The exact visualization and measurement of the intracranial NJVs could be of diagnostic importance and may have clinical importance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 64 participants with no history of neurologic disease were included in the study. All participants underwent scanning with a 2D time-of-flight, multisection sequence in the supine position. Image processing software was developed to identify and quantify the size of the IJVs and NJVs in the plane of the internal JF. For evaluation of software accuracy, all images were reviewed by a neuroradiologist experienced in neurovascular imaging preprocessing and postprocessing.

RESULTS

The CSA of the NJVs correlated inversely with the CSA of the IJVs (r(2) = 0.25; P < .0001). An inverse correlation was also significant when comparing IJV with NJV components (vertebral plexus: r(2) = 0.19; P = .0004; pterygopalatine plexus: r(2) = 0.11; P = .0069). Furthermore, only NJV cumulative CSA correlated inversely with participant age (r(2) = 0.2; P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that the NJVs might serve as a compensatory drainage mechanism in the intracranial compartment. This mechanism appears less significant as the age of the patient progresses.