An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG model identified patients with intermittent atrial fibrillation in a 10-second test with 83% accuracy, based on data from more than 180,000 individuals.

“We have previously shown convolution neural networks can evaluate the resting ECG for detection of antiarrhythmic drug levels, abnormal electrolytes levels, and detection of asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, providing proof of concept that clinically important phenomena can be detected with artificial intelligence (AI) applications to the ECG,” wrote Zachi I. Attia, an electrical engineer and a primary author of the study, is with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

In a study published in the Lancet, the researchers reviewed data from 649,931 normal sinus rhythm ECGs collected from 180,922 adults between December 1993 and July 2017.

The ECGs were divided into three groups: training (454,789 ECGs from 126,526 patients) internal validation (64,340 ECGs from 18,116 patients) and testing (130,802 ECGs from 36,280 patients). The primary outcome was whether the AI-programmed ECG could identify AFib in a total of 3,051 patients in the testing data set who had verified AFib before being tested with the AI device. The AI-enabled ECG was designed to detect subtle changes using neural network technology previously used by the researchers to identify ventricular dysfunction.

Overall, a single ECG scan identified AFib with an accuracy of 79.4%, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87, sensitivity of 79.0%, and specificity of 79.5%. When researchers reviewed multiple ECGs from a 1-month window of either the study start date or 31 days before the first AFib, the accuracy increased to 83.3%, with an AUC of 0.90, sensitivity of 82.3%, and specificity of 83.4%.

The results support the use of subtle changes on normal sinus rhythm ECG to identify patient with potentially undetected AFib, and suggest that AI-enabled ECGs could be used at the point of care to identify patients at risk after unexplained strokes, also known as embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), or heart failure, the researchers noted.

“Although it would require further study, it is possible that this algorithm could identify a high-risk subset of patients with ESUS who could benefit from empirical anticoagulation,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including possible mislabeling of patients with unidentified atrial fibrillation who were classified negative. In addition, the prevalence of AFib in the study population may be higher than in the general population, they said.

However, the results suggest that use a noninvasive, widely available, point of care test to identify AFib “could have important implications for atrial fibrillation screening and for the management of patients with unexplained stroke,” they concluded.

This study was funded by internal resources of the Mayo Clinic. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Attia ZI et al. Lancet. 2019 Aug 1. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31721-0.

An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG model identified patients with intermittent atrial fibrillation in a 10-second test with 83% accuracy, based on data from more than 180,000 individuals.

“We have previously shown convolution neural networks can evaluate the resting ECG for detection of antiarrhythmic drug levels, abnormal electrolytes levels, and detection of asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, providing proof of concept that clinically important phenomena can be detected with artificial intelligence (AI) applications to the ECG,” wrote Zachi I. Attia, an electrical engineer and a primary author of the study, is with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

In a study published in the Lancet, the researchers reviewed data from 649,931 normal sinus rhythm ECGs collected from 180,922 adults between December 1993 and July 2017.

The ECGs were divided into three groups: training (454,789 ECGs from 126,526 patients) internal validation (64,340 ECGs from 18,116 patients) and testing (130,802 ECGs from 36,280 patients). The primary outcome was whether the AI-programmed ECG could identify AFib in a total of 3,051 patients in the testing data set who had verified AFib before being tested with the AI device. The AI-enabled ECG was designed to detect subtle changes using neural network technology previously used by the researchers to identify ventricular dysfunction.

Overall, a single ECG scan identified AFib with an accuracy of 79.4%, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87, sensitivity of 79.0%, and specificity of 79.5%. When researchers reviewed multiple ECGs from a 1-month window of either the study start date or 31 days before the first AFib, the accuracy increased to 83.3%, with an AUC of 0.90, sensitivity of 82.3%, and specificity of 83.4%.

The results support the use of subtle changes on normal sinus rhythm ECG to identify patient with potentially undetected AFib, and suggest that AI-enabled ECGs could be used at the point of care to identify patients at risk after unexplained strokes, also known as embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), or heart failure, the researchers noted.

“Although it would require further study, it is possible that this algorithm could identify a high-risk subset of patients with ESUS who could benefit from empirical anticoagulation,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including possible mislabeling of patients with unidentified atrial fibrillation who were classified negative. In addition, the prevalence of AFib in the study population may be higher than in the general population, they said.

However, the results suggest that use a noninvasive, widely available, point of care test to identify AFib “could have important implications for atrial fibrillation screening and for the management of patients with unexplained stroke,” they concluded.

This study was funded by internal resources of the Mayo Clinic. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Attia ZI et al. Lancet. 2019 Aug 1. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31721-0.

An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG model identified patients with intermittent atrial fibrillation in a 10-second test with 83% accuracy, based on data from more than 180,000 individuals.

“We have previously shown convolution neural networks can evaluate the resting ECG for detection of antiarrhythmic drug levels, abnormal electrolytes levels, and detection of asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, providing proof of concept that clinically important phenomena can be detected with artificial intelligence (AI) applications to the ECG,” wrote Zachi I. Attia, an electrical engineer and a primary author of the study, is with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

In a study published in the Lancet, the researchers reviewed data from 649,931 normal sinus rhythm ECGs collected from 180,922 adults between December 1993 and July 2017.

The ECGs were divided into three groups: training (454,789 ECGs from 126,526 patients) internal validation (64,340 ECGs from 18,116 patients) and testing (130,802 ECGs from 36,280 patients). The primary outcome was whether the AI-programmed ECG could identify AFib in a total of 3,051 patients in the testing data set who had verified AFib before being tested with the AI device. The AI-enabled ECG was designed to detect subtle changes using neural network technology previously used by the researchers to identify ventricular dysfunction.

Overall, a single ECG scan identified AFib with an accuracy of 79.4%, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87, sensitivity of 79.0%, and specificity of 79.5%. When researchers reviewed multiple ECGs from a 1-month window of either the study start date or 31 days before the first AFib, the accuracy increased to 83.3%, with an AUC of 0.90, sensitivity of 82.3%, and specificity of 83.4%.

The results support the use of subtle changes on normal sinus rhythm ECG to identify patient with potentially undetected AFib, and suggest that AI-enabled ECGs could be used at the point of care to identify patients at risk after unexplained strokes, also known as embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), or heart failure, the researchers noted.

“Although it would require further study, it is possible that this algorithm could identify a high-risk subset of patients with ESUS who could benefit from empirical anticoagulation,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including possible mislabeling of patients with unidentified atrial fibrillation who were classified negative. In addition, the prevalence of AFib in the study population may be higher than in the general population, they said.

However, the results suggest that use a noninvasive, widely available, point of care test to identify AFib “could have important implications for atrial fibrillation screening and for the management of patients with unexplained stroke,” they concluded.

This study was funded by internal resources of the Mayo Clinic. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Attia ZI et al. Lancet. 2019 Aug 1. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31721-0.

Women with preeclampsia were found to be at the highest risk for transfusion reactions when receiving a blood transfusion post partum, according to results from a retrospective study.

SOURCE: Thurn L et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000074.

Women with preeclampsia were found to be at the highest risk for transfusion reactions when receiving a blood transfusion post partum, according to results from a retrospective study.

SOURCE: Thurn L et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000074.

Women with preeclampsia were found to be at the highest risk for transfusion reactions when receiving a blood transfusion post partum, according to results from a retrospective study.

SOURCE: Thurn L et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000074.

SEATTLE – There were no cases of aspiration with enteric feeds of 60 children aged up to 2 years on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for bronchiolitis at the University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City, according to research presented at the 2019 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

HFNC has become common for bronchiolitis management; it often saves infants from intubation. However, many providers opt for total parenteral nutrition during therapy instead of enteral feeding because of concerns about aspiration pneumonia.

Pediatricians at the children’s hospital began to wonder if the concern was really necessary. There have been reports of safe feeding during HFNC, and “clinical care literature has shown that feeding the gut throughout illness improves outcomes,” said lead investigator, Sarah Walter, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident at the hospital.

So her team took a leap of faith. They consulted the HFNC literature, asked their fellow providers what they would be comfortable with, and instituted a pediatric HFNC enteral feeding protocol at the children’s hospital for use on inpatient floors, pediatric ICUs, and elsewhere.

Feedings – formula or breast milk – are triggered by stable respiratory Tal scores over 8 hours, meaning that respiratory rates, breath sounds, and accessory muscle use were stable or improving. Children on a flow of 6 L/min or less, with a respiratory rate below 60 breaths per minute, are started on oral feeds, and those on higher flows on nasogastric (NG) tube feeds.

Feeds are started at 1 mL/kg per hour and advanced by the same amount every 3 hours until volume goals are reached; IV fluids are tapered accordingly. It’s a standing order, so nurses are able to initiate and advance feeding as indicated, any time of day.

Feeding was temporarily suspended in only 17 children: 6 for emesis, 6 for worsening respiratory scores, and the rest for dislodged NG tubes, procedures, or other issues. Enteric feeds were restarted with two stable scores below 7 points, at half the rate at which they were stopped.

NG tubes were used in over half of the 478 nursing shifts during which the 60 children – the majority aged 4-24 months – were fed; oral feeds in more than a third; and gastric tubes and other options in the rest. IV nutrition was used during just 1.8% of the shifts.

Enteric feeds were given up to a flow rate of 3.5 L/kg. There were no aspirations, even when children vomited. “We have seen good results so far that feeding is safe in these children,” Dr. Walters said.

“Our hospitalist team has been very receptive; they have been using the order set pretty continuously.” Parents also feel better when they know their children were “getting food in their belly,” even if by NG tube. “It’s important for family satisfaction,” she said.

The next step is to assess impact on length of stay, and education efforts to encourage broader use of the order set.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

aotto@mdedge.com

SEATTLE – There were no cases of aspiration with enteric feeds of 60 children aged up to 2 years on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for bronchiolitis at the University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City, according to research presented at the 2019 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

HFNC has become common for bronchiolitis management; it often saves infants from intubation. However, many providers opt for total parenteral nutrition during therapy instead of enteral feeding because of concerns about aspiration pneumonia.

Pediatricians at the children’s hospital began to wonder if the concern was really necessary. There have been reports of safe feeding during HFNC, and “clinical care literature has shown that feeding the gut throughout illness improves outcomes,” said lead investigator, Sarah Walter, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident at the hospital.

So her team took a leap of faith. They consulted the HFNC literature, asked their fellow providers what they would be comfortable with, and instituted a pediatric HFNC enteral feeding protocol at the children’s hospital for use on inpatient floors, pediatric ICUs, and elsewhere.

Feedings – formula or breast milk – are triggered by stable respiratory Tal scores over 8 hours, meaning that respiratory rates, breath sounds, and accessory muscle use were stable or improving. Children on a flow of 6 L/min or less, with a respiratory rate below 60 breaths per minute, are started on oral feeds, and those on higher flows on nasogastric (NG) tube feeds.

Feeds are started at 1 mL/kg per hour and advanced by the same amount every 3 hours until volume goals are reached; IV fluids are tapered accordingly. It’s a standing order, so nurses are able to initiate and advance feeding as indicated, any time of day.

Feeding was temporarily suspended in only 17 children: 6 for emesis, 6 for worsening respiratory scores, and the rest for dislodged NG tubes, procedures, or other issues. Enteric feeds were restarted with two stable scores below 7 points, at half the rate at which they were stopped.

NG tubes were used in over half of the 478 nursing shifts during which the 60 children – the majority aged 4-24 months – were fed; oral feeds in more than a third; and gastric tubes and other options in the rest. IV nutrition was used during just 1.8% of the shifts.

Enteric feeds were given up to a flow rate of 3.5 L/kg. There were no aspirations, even when children vomited. “We have seen good results so far that feeding is safe in these children,” Dr. Walters said.

“Our hospitalist team has been very receptive; they have been using the order set pretty continuously.” Parents also feel better when they know their children were “getting food in their belly,” even if by NG tube. “It’s important for family satisfaction,” she said.

The next step is to assess impact on length of stay, and education efforts to encourage broader use of the order set.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

aotto@mdedge.com

SEATTLE – There were no cases of aspiration with enteric feeds of 60 children aged up to 2 years on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for bronchiolitis at the University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City, according to research presented at the 2019 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

HFNC has become common for bronchiolitis management; it often saves infants from intubation. However, many providers opt for total parenteral nutrition during therapy instead of enteral feeding because of concerns about aspiration pneumonia.

Pediatricians at the children’s hospital began to wonder if the concern was really necessary. There have been reports of safe feeding during HFNC, and “clinical care literature has shown that feeding the gut throughout illness improves outcomes,” said lead investigator, Sarah Walter, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident at the hospital.

So her team took a leap of faith. They consulted the HFNC literature, asked their fellow providers what they would be comfortable with, and instituted a pediatric HFNC enteral feeding protocol at the children’s hospital for use on inpatient floors, pediatric ICUs, and elsewhere.

Feedings – formula or breast milk – are triggered by stable respiratory Tal scores over 8 hours, meaning that respiratory rates, breath sounds, and accessory muscle use were stable or improving. Children on a flow of 6 L/min or less, with a respiratory rate below 60 breaths per minute, are started on oral feeds, and those on higher flows on nasogastric (NG) tube feeds.

Feeds are started at 1 mL/kg per hour and advanced by the same amount every 3 hours until volume goals are reached; IV fluids are tapered accordingly. It’s a standing order, so nurses are able to initiate and advance feeding as indicated, any time of day.

Feeding was temporarily suspended in only 17 children: 6 for emesis, 6 for worsening respiratory scores, and the rest for dislodged NG tubes, procedures, or other issues. Enteric feeds were restarted with two stable scores below 7 points, at half the rate at which they were stopped.

NG tubes were used in over half of the 478 nursing shifts during which the 60 children – the majority aged 4-24 months – were fed; oral feeds in more than a third; and gastric tubes and other options in the rest. IV nutrition was used during just 1.8% of the shifts.

Enteric feeds were given up to a flow rate of 3.5 L/kg. There were no aspirations, even when children vomited. “We have seen good results so far that feeding is safe in these children,” Dr. Walters said.

“Our hospitalist team has been very receptive; they have been using the order set pretty continuously.” Parents also feel better when they know their children were “getting food in their belly,” even if by NG tube. “It’s important for family satisfaction,” she said.

The next step is to assess impact on length of stay, and education efforts to encourage broader use of the order set.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

aotto@mdedge.com

Aside from a possible increased risk of enteric infections, long-term use of the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pantoprazole appears safe in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, according to a prospective trial involving more than 17,000 participants.

In contrast with published observational studies, the present trial found no associations between long-term PPI use and previously reported risks such as pneumonia, fracture, or cerebrovascular events, according to lead author Paul Moayyedi, MB ChB, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest PPI trial for any indication and the first prospective randomized trial to evaluate the many long-term safety concerns related to PPI therapy,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “It is reassuring that there was no evidence for harm for most of these events other than an excess of enteric infections.”

“Given how commonly acid suppressive medications are used, it is important to ensure that this class of drugs is safe,” the investigators wrote. They noted that patients are often alarmed by “sensational headlines” about PPI safety. “There are balancing articles that more carefully discuss the risks and benefits of taking PPI therapy but these receive less media attention,” the investigators added.

The present, prospective trial, COMPASS, involved 17,598 participants from 33 countries with stable peripheral artery disease and cardiovascular disease. “We use the term participants, rather than patients, as not all of those taking part in this research would have been patients throughout the trial but all participated in the randomized controlled trial,” the investigators wrote.

In addition to evaluating the safety of pantoprazole, the study was initially designed to measure the efficacy of pantoprazole for preventing upper gastrointestinal events in participants taking rivaroxaban and/or aspirin, which, in combination, were recently shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable cardiovascular conditions. As such, participants in the trial were randomized to one of three groups: 100-mg aspirin once daily, 5-mg rivaroxaban twice daily, or 2.5-mg rivaroxaban twice daily combined with 100-mg aspirin once daily. The primary efficacy outcomes for these three groups were stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. This portion of the trial was discontinued early because of evidence that showed the superiority of combination therapy over aspirin alone; however, the pantoprazole component of the trial continued, as planned, for 3 years.

At baseline, about two-thirds of participants (64%) were not taking a PPI, requiring randomization to either 40-mg pantoprazole once daily or matching placebo. Pantoprazole safety outcomes centered on those previously reported by observational studies, including dementia, chronic kidney disease, gastric atrophy, fracture, cancer, pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive lung disease, Clostrididoides difficile infection, and other enteric infections. Hospitalization rates for noncardiovascular and cardiovascular events were also reported. Data were gathered via questionnaires, which were conducted every 6 months.

SOURCE: Moayyedi P et al. Gastro. 2019 May 29. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056.

AGA patient education on GERD can help your patients better understand and manage the disorder. Post this education or your practice website or share you’re your patients at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

Aside from a possible increased risk of enteric infections, long-term use of the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pantoprazole appears safe in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, according to a prospective trial involving more than 17,000 participants.

In contrast with published observational studies, the present trial found no associations between long-term PPI use and previously reported risks such as pneumonia, fracture, or cerebrovascular events, according to lead author Paul Moayyedi, MB ChB, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest PPI trial for any indication and the first prospective randomized trial to evaluate the many long-term safety concerns related to PPI therapy,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “It is reassuring that there was no evidence for harm for most of these events other than an excess of enteric infections.”

“Given how commonly acid suppressive medications are used, it is important to ensure that this class of drugs is safe,” the investigators wrote. They noted that patients are often alarmed by “sensational headlines” about PPI safety. “There are balancing articles that more carefully discuss the risks and benefits of taking PPI therapy but these receive less media attention,” the investigators added.

The present, prospective trial, COMPASS, involved 17,598 participants from 33 countries with stable peripheral artery disease and cardiovascular disease. “We use the term participants, rather than patients, as not all of those taking part in this research would have been patients throughout the trial but all participated in the randomized controlled trial,” the investigators wrote.

In addition to evaluating the safety of pantoprazole, the study was initially designed to measure the efficacy of pantoprazole for preventing upper gastrointestinal events in participants taking rivaroxaban and/or aspirin, which, in combination, were recently shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable cardiovascular conditions. As such, participants in the trial were randomized to one of three groups: 100-mg aspirin once daily, 5-mg rivaroxaban twice daily, or 2.5-mg rivaroxaban twice daily combined with 100-mg aspirin once daily. The primary efficacy outcomes for these three groups were stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. This portion of the trial was discontinued early because of evidence that showed the superiority of combination therapy over aspirin alone; however, the pantoprazole component of the trial continued, as planned, for 3 years.

At baseline, about two-thirds of participants (64%) were not taking a PPI, requiring randomization to either 40-mg pantoprazole once daily or matching placebo. Pantoprazole safety outcomes centered on those previously reported by observational studies, including dementia, chronic kidney disease, gastric atrophy, fracture, cancer, pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive lung disease, Clostrididoides difficile infection, and other enteric infections. Hospitalization rates for noncardiovascular and cardiovascular events were also reported. Data were gathered via questionnaires, which were conducted every 6 months.

SOURCE: Moayyedi P et al. Gastro. 2019 May 29. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056.

AGA patient education on GERD can help your patients better understand and manage the disorder. Post this education or your practice website or share you’re your patients at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

Aside from a possible increased risk of enteric infections, long-term use of the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pantoprazole appears safe in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, according to a prospective trial involving more than 17,000 participants.

In contrast with published observational studies, the present trial found no associations between long-term PPI use and previously reported risks such as pneumonia, fracture, or cerebrovascular events, according to lead author Paul Moayyedi, MB ChB, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest PPI trial for any indication and the first prospective randomized trial to evaluate the many long-term safety concerns related to PPI therapy,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “It is reassuring that there was no evidence for harm for most of these events other than an excess of enteric infections.”

“Given how commonly acid suppressive medications are used, it is important to ensure that this class of drugs is safe,” the investigators wrote. They noted that patients are often alarmed by “sensational headlines” about PPI safety. “There are balancing articles that more carefully discuss the risks and benefits of taking PPI therapy but these receive less media attention,” the investigators added.

The present, prospective trial, COMPASS, involved 17,598 participants from 33 countries with stable peripheral artery disease and cardiovascular disease. “We use the term participants, rather than patients, as not all of those taking part in this research would have been patients throughout the trial but all participated in the randomized controlled trial,” the investigators wrote.

In addition to evaluating the safety of pantoprazole, the study was initially designed to measure the efficacy of pantoprazole for preventing upper gastrointestinal events in participants taking rivaroxaban and/or aspirin, which, in combination, were recently shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable cardiovascular conditions. As such, participants in the trial were randomized to one of three groups: 100-mg aspirin once daily, 5-mg rivaroxaban twice daily, or 2.5-mg rivaroxaban twice daily combined with 100-mg aspirin once daily. The primary efficacy outcomes for these three groups were stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. This portion of the trial was discontinued early because of evidence that showed the superiority of combination therapy over aspirin alone; however, the pantoprazole component of the trial continued, as planned, for 3 years.

At baseline, about two-thirds of participants (64%) were not taking a PPI, requiring randomization to either 40-mg pantoprazole once daily or matching placebo. Pantoprazole safety outcomes centered on those previously reported by observational studies, including dementia, chronic kidney disease, gastric atrophy, fracture, cancer, pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive lung disease, Clostrididoides difficile infection, and other enteric infections. Hospitalization rates for noncardiovascular and cardiovascular events were also reported. Data were gathered via questionnaires, which were conducted every 6 months.

SOURCE: Moayyedi P et al. Gastro. 2019 May 29. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056.

AGA patient education on GERD can help your patients better understand and manage the disorder. Post this education or your practice website or share you’re your patients at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

Treatment costs are a significant factor in women’s decision making around breast cancer surgery, investigators reported.

With the health care costs of breast cancer estimated to reach $20 billion by 2020 in the United States, many of those costs are being shifted onto patients themselves, wrote Rachel A. Greenup, MD, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., and coauthors in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“This financial hardship is now recognized as a major adverse effect of cancer care and has been associated with reduced quality of life, nonadherence, and an increased risk of early mortality,” they wrote.

Researchers surveyed 607 women with a history of breast cancer to examine the impact that cost had on their decisions about surgery and what financial harm they had experienced after breast cancer surgery.

Overall, 43% of women said they considered costs when making decisions about breast cancer treatment, 28% said cost influenced their decision making around breast cancer surgery, and 14% said costs were extremely important in that decision.

Women in the lowest income bracket – earning at or below $45,000 per year – identified cost as the most influential factor in their decision about breast cancer surgery, above loss of sensation, breast preservation or appearance, the need for long-term surveillance, or avoiding radiation.

However, more than three-quarters of women said they never discussed costs with their medical team.

Bilateral mastectomy, with and without reconstruction, was associated with higher patient-reported out-of-pocket costs, higher debt, higher rates of cancer-induced financial hardship, and higher rates of altered or reduced employment, compared with breast-conserving surgery.

More than one-third of participants reported significant to catastrophic financial burden because of their breast cancer care.

Even in the highest income brackets, two-thirds of women were financially unprepared for the cost of treatment, and 26% said their treatment costs were higher than expected.

The authors commented that “cost transparency” was uncommon between oncologically equivalent surgical treatments, “thus, patients with breast cancer may unknowingly be guiding therapeutic decisions that increase the risk of financial harm.”

“To date, patient out-of-pocket costs and subsequent risk of financial harm have not been routinely incorporated into shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, a process that has otherwise highly revered patient values,” they wrote.

The investigators suggested that revealing the greater risk for financial burden associated with treatments like bilateral mastectomy could help inform surgical treatment decisions.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Duke Cancer Institute. Six authors reported honoraria, research funding, prior employment, and other support from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCE: Greenup RA et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00796.

Treatment costs are a significant factor in women’s decision making around breast cancer surgery, investigators reported.

With the health care costs of breast cancer estimated to reach $20 billion by 2020 in the United States, many of those costs are being shifted onto patients themselves, wrote Rachel A. Greenup, MD, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., and coauthors in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“This financial hardship is now recognized as a major adverse effect of cancer care and has been associated with reduced quality of life, nonadherence, and an increased risk of early mortality,” they wrote.

Researchers surveyed 607 women with a history of breast cancer to examine the impact that cost had on their decisions about surgery and what financial harm they had experienced after breast cancer surgery.

Overall, 43% of women said they considered costs when making decisions about breast cancer treatment, 28% said cost influenced their decision making around breast cancer surgery, and 14% said costs were extremely important in that decision.

Women in the lowest income bracket – earning at or below $45,000 per year – identified cost as the most influential factor in their decision about breast cancer surgery, above loss of sensation, breast preservation or appearance, the need for long-term surveillance, or avoiding radiation.

However, more than three-quarters of women said they never discussed costs with their medical team.

Bilateral mastectomy, with and without reconstruction, was associated with higher patient-reported out-of-pocket costs, higher debt, higher rates of cancer-induced financial hardship, and higher rates of altered or reduced employment, compared with breast-conserving surgery.

More than one-third of participants reported significant to catastrophic financial burden because of their breast cancer care.

Even in the highest income brackets, two-thirds of women were financially unprepared for the cost of treatment, and 26% said their treatment costs were higher than expected.

The authors commented that “cost transparency” was uncommon between oncologically equivalent surgical treatments, “thus, patients with breast cancer may unknowingly be guiding therapeutic decisions that increase the risk of financial harm.”

“To date, patient out-of-pocket costs and subsequent risk of financial harm have not been routinely incorporated into shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, a process that has otherwise highly revered patient values,” they wrote.

The investigators suggested that revealing the greater risk for financial burden associated with treatments like bilateral mastectomy could help inform surgical treatment decisions.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Duke Cancer Institute. Six authors reported honoraria, research funding, prior employment, and other support from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCE: Greenup RA et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00796.

Treatment costs are a significant factor in women’s decision making around breast cancer surgery, investigators reported.

With the health care costs of breast cancer estimated to reach $20 billion by 2020 in the United States, many of those costs are being shifted onto patients themselves, wrote Rachel A. Greenup, MD, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., and coauthors in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“This financial hardship is now recognized as a major adverse effect of cancer care and has been associated with reduced quality of life, nonadherence, and an increased risk of early mortality,” they wrote.

Researchers surveyed 607 women with a history of breast cancer to examine the impact that cost had on their decisions about surgery and what financial harm they had experienced after breast cancer surgery.

Overall, 43% of women said they considered costs when making decisions about breast cancer treatment, 28% said cost influenced their decision making around breast cancer surgery, and 14% said costs were extremely important in that decision.

Women in the lowest income bracket – earning at or below $45,000 per year – identified cost as the most influential factor in their decision about breast cancer surgery, above loss of sensation, breast preservation or appearance, the need for long-term surveillance, or avoiding radiation.

However, more than three-quarters of women said they never discussed costs with their medical team.

Bilateral mastectomy, with and without reconstruction, was associated with higher patient-reported out-of-pocket costs, higher debt, higher rates of cancer-induced financial hardship, and higher rates of altered or reduced employment, compared with breast-conserving surgery.

More than one-third of participants reported significant to catastrophic financial burden because of their breast cancer care.

Even in the highest income brackets, two-thirds of women were financially unprepared for the cost of treatment, and 26% said their treatment costs were higher than expected.

The authors commented that “cost transparency” was uncommon between oncologically equivalent surgical treatments, “thus, patients with breast cancer may unknowingly be guiding therapeutic decisions that increase the risk of financial harm.”

“To date, patient out-of-pocket costs and subsequent risk of financial harm have not been routinely incorporated into shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, a process that has otherwise highly revered patient values,” they wrote.

The investigators suggested that revealing the greater risk for financial burden associated with treatments like bilateral mastectomy could help inform surgical treatment decisions.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Duke Cancer Institute. Six authors reported honoraria, research funding, prior employment, and other support from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCE: Greenup RA et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00796.

On the 1-year anniversary of the newest outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite all of the international efforts, “currently the outbreak continues at the same pace, so we don’t see evidence of slowing,” according to Henry Walke, MD, director of the Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections and Incident Manager, 2018 CDC Ebola Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He added that new cases of Ebola have been seen in Goma, which is outside the initial outbreak area. Goma is the largest city in the eastern part of the DRC and a major trading port.

Dr. Walke made his remarks in a telephone media briefing Aug. 1 by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services outlining the current state of the U.S. response to the outbreak.

World Bank/Vincent Tremeau/CCBY-NC-ND 2.0

He described the efforts of the CDC to provide support to the DRC both from Atlanta and in the field. These efforts included support for vaccination activities in DRC’s North Kivu and Ituri provinces for the population and for at-risk health-care workers in the DRC and neighboring countries. In addition, the United States is involved in the testing of experimental therapeutics and vaccines in the DRC in an effort to aid in this and future outbreaks.


“There are no cases of Ebola in the United States,” said Dr. Walke, and the CDC believes the risk to the United States from the outbreak is low. He cited the limited number of travelers from DRC. “There [are] about 16,000 from the DRC to the U.S. on an annual basis, and only about 100 from Goma itself. There aren’t direct flights and we have at the Goma airport both entry and exit screening.”

According to a World Health Organization report, this Ebola outbreak is the second deadliest on record and has killed 1,750 people out of around 2,518 confirmed cases as of July 23.

Efforts to control the epidemic are severely hampered by civil unrest in the area, public mistrust of the government and health care workers, and a comparative lack of international aid compared to previous Ebola outbreaks.

mlesney@mdedge.com

On the 1-year anniversary of the newest outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite all of the international efforts, “currently the outbreak continues at the same pace, so we don’t see evidence of slowing,” according to Henry Walke, MD, director of the Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections and Incident Manager, 2018 CDC Ebola Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He added that new cases of Ebola have been seen in Goma, which is outside the initial outbreak area. Goma is the largest city in the eastern part of the DRC and a major trading port.

Dr. Walke made his remarks in a telephone media briefing Aug. 1 by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services outlining the current state of the U.S. response to the outbreak.

World Bank/Vincent Tremeau/CCBY-NC-ND 2.0

He described the efforts of the CDC to provide support to the DRC both from Atlanta and in the field. These efforts included support for vaccination activities in DRC’s North Kivu and Ituri provinces for the population and for at-risk health-care workers in the DRC and neighboring countries. In addition, the United States is involved in the testing of experimental therapeutics and vaccines in the DRC in an effort to aid in this and future outbreaks.


“There are no cases of Ebola in the United States,” said Dr. Walke, and the CDC believes the risk to the United States from the outbreak is low. He cited the limited number of travelers from DRC. “There [are] about 16,000 from the DRC to the U.S. on an annual basis, and only about 100 from Goma itself. There aren’t direct flights and we have at the Goma airport both entry and exit screening.”

According to a World Health Organization report, this Ebola outbreak is the second deadliest on record and has killed 1,750 people out of around 2,518 confirmed cases as of July 23.

Efforts to control the epidemic are severely hampered by civil unrest in the area, public mistrust of the government and health care workers, and a comparative lack of international aid compared to previous Ebola outbreaks.

mlesney@mdedge.com

On the 1-year anniversary of the newest outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite all of the international efforts, “currently the outbreak continues at the same pace, so we don’t see evidence of slowing,” according to Henry Walke, MD, director of the Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections and Incident Manager, 2018 CDC Ebola Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He added that new cases of Ebola have been seen in Goma, which is outside the initial outbreak area. Goma is the largest city in the eastern part of the DRC and a major trading port.

Dr. Walke made his remarks in a telephone media briefing Aug. 1 by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services outlining the current state of the U.S. response to the outbreak.

World Bank/Vincent Tremeau/CCBY-NC-ND 2.0

He described the efforts of the CDC to provide support to the DRC both from Atlanta and in the field. These efforts included support for vaccination activities in DRC’s North Kivu and Ituri provinces for the population and for at-risk health-care workers in the DRC and neighboring countries. In addition, the United States is involved in the testing of experimental therapeutics and vaccines in the DRC in an effort to aid in this and future outbreaks.


“There are no cases of Ebola in the United States,” said Dr. Walke, and the CDC believes the risk to the United States from the outbreak is low. He cited the limited number of travelers from DRC. “There [are] about 16,000 from the DRC to the U.S. on an annual basis, and only about 100 from Goma itself. There aren’t direct flights and we have at the Goma airport both entry and exit screening.”

According to a World Health Organization report, this Ebola outbreak is the second deadliest on record and has killed 1,750 people out of around 2,518 confirmed cases as of July 23.

Efforts to control the epidemic are severely hampered by civil unrest in the area, public mistrust of the government and health care workers, and a comparative lack of international aid compared to previous Ebola outbreaks.

mlesney@mdedge.com

A significant number of physicians who author practice guidelines are not reporting financial conflicts of interest, a study finds.

Lead author Ramy R. Saleh, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues searched The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) website to identify all clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for systemic therapy published between August 2013 and June 2018. Investigators analyzed self-reported author financial conflicts of interest and funding sources and also reviewed The Open Payments database to identify compensation to guideline authors. Researchers categorized conflicts of interest into two groups: research funding (which could include departmental and/or hospital funding) and nonresearch payments (including travel expenses, honoraria, employment, and stock ownership to the individual author).

The initial search identified 121 CPGs published by ASCO between August 2013 and August 2018 of which 26 guidelines were selected because of their focus on systemic treatment. Findings showed that 239 guideline authors who were not exempt from reporting received industry payments, but only 184 (77%) disclosed these payments, according to the study in Cancer. The mean total of all undisclosed payments from 2013 to 2017 received by CPG authors was $187,503 and the median was $30,500. Of the 55 authors with undisclosed conflicts of interest, 34 authors (62%) received more than $1,000 of nonresearch funding, and 19 authors (35%) received more than $5,000 per calendar year.

The majority of the authors with undisclosed conflicts were medical oncologists, the investigators found. Radiation oncologists and surgeons had similar proportions of undisclosed financial conflicts.

The researchers concluded that financial conflicts of interest among authors of ASCO guidelines are common and are not disclosed in a substantial number of cases. The findings indicate that current self-disclosure practices are not adequate for accurately reporting conflicts, they noted.

“Improved transparency of [financial conflicts of interest should become standard practice among CPG authors,” the investigators wrote. “Professional societies and journal editors need to create a mechanism to verify self-reported [financial conflicts of interest].”

Source: Saleh et. al. 2019 July 29 doi: 10.1002/cncr.32408.

A significant number of physicians who author practice guidelines are not reporting financial conflicts of interest, a study finds.

Lead author Ramy R. Saleh, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues searched The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) website to identify all clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for systemic therapy published between August 2013 and June 2018. Investigators analyzed self-reported author financial conflicts of interest and funding sources and also reviewed The Open Payments database to identify compensation to guideline authors. Researchers categorized conflicts of interest into two groups: research funding (which could include departmental and/or hospital funding) and nonresearch payments (including travel expenses, honoraria, employment, and stock ownership to the individual author).

The initial search identified 121 CPGs published by ASCO between August 2013 and August 2018 of which 26 guidelines were selected because of their focus on systemic treatment. Findings showed that 239 guideline authors who were not exempt from reporting received industry payments, but only 184 (77%) disclosed these payments, according to the study in Cancer. The mean total of all undisclosed payments from 2013 to 2017 received by CPG authors was $187,503 and the median was $30,500. Of the 55 authors with undisclosed conflicts of interest, 34 authors (62%) received more than $1,000 of nonresearch funding, and 19 authors (35%) received more than $5,000 per calendar year.

The majority of the authors with undisclosed conflicts were medical oncologists, the investigators found. Radiation oncologists and surgeons had similar proportions of undisclosed financial conflicts.

The researchers concluded that financial conflicts of interest among authors of ASCO guidelines are common and are not disclosed in a substantial number of cases. The findings indicate that current self-disclosure practices are not adequate for accurately reporting conflicts, they noted.

“Improved transparency of [financial conflicts of interest should become standard practice among CPG authors,” the investigators wrote. “Professional societies and journal editors need to create a mechanism to verify self-reported [financial conflicts of interest].”

Source: Saleh et. al. 2019 July 29 doi: 10.1002/cncr.32408.

A significant number of physicians who author practice guidelines are not reporting financial conflicts of interest, a study finds.

Lead author Ramy R. Saleh, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues searched The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) website to identify all clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for systemic therapy published between August 2013 and June 2018. Investigators analyzed self-reported author financial conflicts of interest and funding sources and also reviewed The Open Payments database to identify compensation to guideline authors. Researchers categorized conflicts of interest into two groups: research funding (which could include departmental and/or hospital funding) and nonresearch payments (including travel expenses, honoraria, employment, and stock ownership to the individual author).

The initial search identified 121 CPGs published by ASCO between August 2013 and August 2018 of which 26 guidelines were selected because of their focus on systemic treatment. Findings showed that 239 guideline authors who were not exempt from reporting received industry payments, but only 184 (77%) disclosed these payments, according to the study in Cancer. The mean total of all undisclosed payments from 2013 to 2017 received by CPG authors was $187,503 and the median was $30,500. Of the 55 authors with undisclosed conflicts of interest, 34 authors (62%) received more than $1,000 of nonresearch funding, and 19 authors (35%) received more than $5,000 per calendar year.

The majority of the authors with undisclosed conflicts were medical oncologists, the investigators found. Radiation oncologists and surgeons had similar proportions of undisclosed financial conflicts.

The researchers concluded that financial conflicts of interest among authors of ASCO guidelines are common and are not disclosed in a substantial number of cases. The findings indicate that current self-disclosure practices are not adequate for accurately reporting conflicts, they noted.

“Improved transparency of [financial conflicts of interest should become standard practice among CPG authors,” the investigators wrote. “Professional societies and journal editors need to create a mechanism to verify self-reported [financial conflicts of interest].”

Source: Saleh et. al. 2019 July 29 doi: 10.1002/cncr.32408.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two phase 2 trials in stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that appeared recently in JAMA Oncology. One summarizes a trial in stage IV NSCLC with four or fewer sites of metastasis (oligometastatic disease or OM), in which pembrolizumab is added to locally ablative therapy (LAT). The other examines whether LAT potentiates the response to immuno-oncology (I/O) in distant sites that were unexposed to LAT.

©Sergey Nivens/thinkstockphotos

I/O added to LAT in OM-NSCLC

Joshua M. Bauml, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, published findings from a nonrandomized phase 2 trial in OM-NSCLC in which patients could receive LAT by any technique (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449). Patients could have synchronous or metachronous OM-NSCLC, any histology, and any PD-L1 tumor proportion score. Patients with more than four sites of metastatic disease that regressed to OM-NSCLC after prior therapy (i.e., “oligoremnant NSCLC”) were excluded.

They reported on 51 patients who received conventional-dose pembrolizumab for eight cycles after LAT. Patients without toxicity or progression were allowed to receive up to eight additional cycles of pembrolizumab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months (95% confidence interval, 9.4-28.7 months), significantly longer than the historical comparison group (median PFS, 6.6 months; P = .005). Additionally, the 24-month overall survival (OS) was 77.5%. With respect to safety, no quality of life decrement or new safety signals were seen.
 

What this means in practice

As Dr. Bauml and colleagues suggest, there is strong theoretical rationale for believing that OM-NSCLC represents a special, potentially curable, population of stage IV NSCLC patients. Like the recently published work of Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37[18]:1558-65), who studied LAT in comparison with consolidative/maintenance chemotherapy in a slightly different population of OM-NSCLC patients, the current trial moves clinical research forward.

Practically, this study has limitations that should temper a clinician’s enthusiasm for adopting the strategy of LAT, followed by I/O, as standard practice: small patient numbers, most with only one site of OM-NSCLC; comparison with historical controls; and no meaningful information about patient subsets who benefit from I/O and who do not. As the authors suggest, this study provides a strong rationale for a phase 3 trial with stratification for variables that could influence outcome. It does not inform clinical practice at the present time.
 

LAT added to I/O in stage IV NSCLC

We have limited ability to identify (the majority of) patients with metastatic NSCLC who will not benefit from I/O and no proven interventions to augment benefit in (the majority of) patients with low PD-L1 tumor proportion scores and/or low tumor mutation burden. However, the PEMBRO-RT study was designed to investigate whether LAT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could exploit the hypothesized increase in tumor antigen release and antigen presentation that could lead to better responses to I/O in untreated sites of disease among all patients with stage IV NSCLC.

As reported by Willemijn S.M.E. Theelen, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and colleagues, the PEMBRO-RT study randomized 76 patients with stage IV NSCLC to pembro following SBRT to a single metastatic site (the experimental arm of the trial) or pembrolizumab alone. Pembrolizumab was given in a conventional dose and schedule in both arms of the trial and was administered within 7 days after SBRT on the experimental arm (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478).

The primary outcome was the overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks. Among patients on the experimental versus control arms, the ORR was 36% and 18%, respectively (P = .07). This did not meet the prespecified endpoint of improving ORR from 20% to 50% at 12 weeks. Additionally, although improved on the pembro plus SBRT arm of the trial, the median PFS and OS did not meet statistical criteria for improvement over the control arm, except among the 47 patients in the PD-L1 negative subset.

What this means in practice

There are a lot of potentially relevant variables in this small, randomized phase 2 study. As the authors discuss, if there is a dose and schedule of RT that facilitates antigen release and presentation and or an ideal latent period after radiotherapy that promotes an “abscopal effect” from I/O, it is unclear whether the ideal schema was used in the PEMBRO-RT trial.

At present, if a patient with stage IV NSCLC requires LAT for clinical reasons during I/O treatment, the patient can receive it safely, but without the expectation that the LAT will augment overall benefit from I/O. Additional preclinical work will need to help guide us about a rational way to design the next trial to test the concept of supra-additive benefit from these modalities. Not only is this combination “not ready for prime time” in clinical care, but it’s not ready for the large numbers of patients in a phase 3 clinical trial.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two phase 2 trials in stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that appeared recently in JAMA Oncology. One summarizes a trial in stage IV NSCLC with four or fewer sites of metastasis (oligometastatic disease or OM), in which pembrolizumab is added to locally ablative therapy (LAT). The other examines whether LAT potentiates the response to immuno-oncology (I/O) in distant sites that were unexposed to LAT.

©Sergey Nivens/thinkstockphotos

I/O added to LAT in OM-NSCLC

Joshua M. Bauml, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, published findings from a nonrandomized phase 2 trial in OM-NSCLC in which patients could receive LAT by any technique (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449). Patients could have synchronous or metachronous OM-NSCLC, any histology, and any PD-L1 tumor proportion score. Patients with more than four sites of metastatic disease that regressed to OM-NSCLC after prior therapy (i.e., “oligoremnant NSCLC”) were excluded.

They reported on 51 patients who received conventional-dose pembrolizumab for eight cycles after LAT. Patients without toxicity or progression were allowed to receive up to eight additional cycles of pembrolizumab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months (95% confidence interval, 9.4-28.7 months), significantly longer than the historical comparison group (median PFS, 6.6 months; P = .005). Additionally, the 24-month overall survival (OS) was 77.5%. With respect to safety, no quality of life decrement or new safety signals were seen.
 

What this means in practice

As Dr. Bauml and colleagues suggest, there is strong theoretical rationale for believing that OM-NSCLC represents a special, potentially curable, population of stage IV NSCLC patients. Like the recently published work of Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37[18]:1558-65), who studied LAT in comparison with consolidative/maintenance chemotherapy in a slightly different population of OM-NSCLC patients, the current trial moves clinical research forward.

Practically, this study has limitations that should temper a clinician’s enthusiasm for adopting the strategy of LAT, followed by I/O, as standard practice: small patient numbers, most with only one site of OM-NSCLC; comparison with historical controls; and no meaningful information about patient subsets who benefit from I/O and who do not. As the authors suggest, this study provides a strong rationale for a phase 3 trial with stratification for variables that could influence outcome. It does not inform clinical practice at the present time.
 

LAT added to I/O in stage IV NSCLC

We have limited ability to identify (the majority of) patients with metastatic NSCLC who will not benefit from I/O and no proven interventions to augment benefit in (the majority of) patients with low PD-L1 tumor proportion scores and/or low tumor mutation burden. However, the PEMBRO-RT study was designed to investigate whether LAT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could exploit the hypothesized increase in tumor antigen release and antigen presentation that could lead to better responses to I/O in untreated sites of disease among all patients with stage IV NSCLC.

As reported by Willemijn S.M.E. Theelen, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and colleagues, the PEMBRO-RT study randomized 76 patients with stage IV NSCLC to pembro following SBRT to a single metastatic site (the experimental arm of the trial) or pembrolizumab alone. Pembrolizumab was given in a conventional dose and schedule in both arms of the trial and was administered within 7 days after SBRT on the experimental arm (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478).

The primary outcome was the overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks. Among patients on the experimental versus control arms, the ORR was 36% and 18%, respectively (P = .07). This did not meet the prespecified endpoint of improving ORR from 20% to 50% at 12 weeks. Additionally, although improved on the pembro plus SBRT arm of the trial, the median PFS and OS did not meet statistical criteria for improvement over the control arm, except among the 47 patients in the PD-L1 negative subset.

What this means in practice

There are a lot of potentially relevant variables in this small, randomized phase 2 study. As the authors discuss, if there is a dose and schedule of RT that facilitates antigen release and presentation and or an ideal latent period after radiotherapy that promotes an “abscopal effect” from I/O, it is unclear whether the ideal schema was used in the PEMBRO-RT trial.

At present, if a patient with stage IV NSCLC requires LAT for clinical reasons during I/O treatment, the patient can receive it safely, but without the expectation that the LAT will augment overall benefit from I/O. Additional preclinical work will need to help guide us about a rational way to design the next trial to test the concept of supra-additive benefit from these modalities. Not only is this combination “not ready for prime time” in clinical care, but it’s not ready for the large numbers of patients in a phase 3 clinical trial.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two phase 2 trials in stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that appeared recently in JAMA Oncology. One summarizes a trial in stage IV NSCLC with four or fewer sites of metastasis (oligometastatic disease or OM), in which pembrolizumab is added to locally ablative therapy (LAT). The other examines whether LAT potentiates the response to immuno-oncology (I/O) in distant sites that were unexposed to LAT.

©Sergey Nivens/thinkstockphotos

I/O added to LAT in OM-NSCLC

Joshua M. Bauml, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, published findings from a nonrandomized phase 2 trial in OM-NSCLC in which patients could receive LAT by any technique (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449). Patients could have synchronous or metachronous OM-NSCLC, any histology, and any PD-L1 tumor proportion score. Patients with more than four sites of metastatic disease that regressed to OM-NSCLC after prior therapy (i.e., “oligoremnant NSCLC”) were excluded.

They reported on 51 patients who received conventional-dose pembrolizumab for eight cycles after LAT. Patients without toxicity or progression were allowed to receive up to eight additional cycles of pembrolizumab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months (95% confidence interval, 9.4-28.7 months), significantly longer than the historical comparison group (median PFS, 6.6 months; P = .005). Additionally, the 24-month overall survival (OS) was 77.5%. With respect to safety, no quality of life decrement or new safety signals were seen.
 

What this means in practice

As Dr. Bauml and colleagues suggest, there is strong theoretical rationale for believing that OM-NSCLC represents a special, potentially curable, population of stage IV NSCLC patients. Like the recently published work of Daniel R. Gomez, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 20;37[18]:1558-65), who studied LAT in comparison with consolidative/maintenance chemotherapy in a slightly different population of OM-NSCLC patients, the current trial moves clinical research forward.

Practically, this study has limitations that should temper a clinician’s enthusiasm for adopting the strategy of LAT, followed by I/O, as standard practice: small patient numbers, most with only one site of OM-NSCLC; comparison with historical controls; and no meaningful information about patient subsets who benefit from I/O and who do not. As the authors suggest, this study provides a strong rationale for a phase 3 trial with stratification for variables that could influence outcome. It does not inform clinical practice at the present time.
 

LAT added to I/O in stage IV NSCLC

We have limited ability to identify (the majority of) patients with metastatic NSCLC who will not benefit from I/O and no proven interventions to augment benefit in (the majority of) patients with low PD-L1 tumor proportion scores and/or low tumor mutation burden. However, the PEMBRO-RT study was designed to investigate whether LAT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could exploit the hypothesized increase in tumor antigen release and antigen presentation that could lead to better responses to I/O in untreated sites of disease among all patients with stage IV NSCLC.

As reported by Willemijn S.M.E. Theelen, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and colleagues, the PEMBRO-RT study randomized 76 patients with stage IV NSCLC to pembro following SBRT to a single metastatic site (the experimental arm of the trial) or pembrolizumab alone. Pembrolizumab was given in a conventional dose and schedule in both arms of the trial and was administered within 7 days after SBRT on the experimental arm (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478).

The primary outcome was the overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks. Among patients on the experimental versus control arms, the ORR was 36% and 18%, respectively (P = .07). This did not meet the prespecified endpoint of improving ORR from 20% to 50% at 12 weeks. Additionally, although improved on the pembro plus SBRT arm of the trial, the median PFS and OS did not meet statistical criteria for improvement over the control arm, except among the 47 patients in the PD-L1 negative subset.

What this means in practice

There are a lot of potentially relevant variables in this small, randomized phase 2 study. As the authors discuss, if there is a dose and schedule of RT that facilitates antigen release and presentation and or an ideal latent period after radiotherapy that promotes an “abscopal effect” from I/O, it is unclear whether the ideal schema was used in the PEMBRO-RT trial.

At present, if a patient with stage IV NSCLC requires LAT for clinical reasons during I/O treatment, the patient can receive it safely, but without the expectation that the LAT will augment overall benefit from I/O. Additional preclinical work will need to help guide us about a rational way to design the next trial to test the concept of supra-additive benefit from these modalities. Not only is this combination “not ready for prime time” in clinical care, but it’s not ready for the large numbers of patients in a phase 3 clinical trial.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Mr. M wanted a second opinion. He was almost 80 years old and had been healthy his entire life. But recent abdominal discomfort prompted a CT scan, which prompted a biopsy. It appeared the tumor had started in his pancreas and then spread to the lymph nodes and the wall of his abdomen.

He asked his doctor to “give it to him straight,” and she did. She told him that it was incurable, but that chemotherapy might slow it down. He asked how long he had, and she said less than a year.

He wanted a straight answer, but that wasn’t the answer he wanted. Who would? So he did some reading and decided to come to a large academic hospital an hour away for a second opinion.

I interviewed him and then scrolled through his CT scans outside the room. There were a few things we could do, the attending and I discussed. We would send his tumor for genetic testing to see if there were any cancer mutations that could be targeted with drugs more specific than standard chemotherapy. We would also refer him to our cancer genetics clinic to get his blood tested for inherited mutations.

But mostly, all of that would likely turn up negative. Mostly, we agreed with his local oncologist.

We went back in the room. Explaining the genetic testing took the length of the visit because this is not a straightforward concept. We explained the difference between tumor mutations and inherited mutations. We wrote down a list of genetic variations we could discover. We discussed treatment options that could go along with each.

Do you have any questions?

He broke down. He reached for the tissue box sitting on the exam room table. “I feel so much better,” he said. “This is why I came here.” He felt safe, reassured, and hopeful.

I was happy to be helpful, but later, as I wrote my clinic note about him, I felt uneasy about the visit.

Everything we said was true. But somehow, it still felt as though we left him with an overly optimistic view of his illness. Did our emphasis on what could be done overshadow that it was unlikely to change the big picture? Did our in-depth discussion of slim possibilities mask that his prognosis was, in fact, still grim?

Working at a large academic medical center, I see many patients who come for a second opinion. I’m incredibly fortunate to learn at a place that is not just up to date in the most cutting-edge treatments but often leading in innovation.

And so we offer patients these options. They sound novel and exciting. They fill patients with hope because they fill the field with hope. I, too, get enraptured with the possibilities – circulating tumor DNA and clinical trials and targeted therapies.

At big cancer meetings every year, oncologists come together and speak about cancer therapies with enthusiasm and hope. Advances have exploded; it’s an exciting time to be learning and practicing.

And yet, the reality for many patients is very different. We are still discussing hospice after one line of chemotherapy has failed. We are still gently holding hands and saying that we have no more options to treat their aggressive cancers.

How can both of these worlds coexist? How can both be true?

A few years ago, a friend was diagnosed with a devastating neurologic condition. I went to a clinical trials website and typed in her disease. Immediately, hundreds of options popped up. I felt hopeful. The field is moving forward, I thought. There are options.

But in the exam room, there were none. When I asked about what I had read, the neurologist explained how many of these possibilities were being investigated. But in the end, my friend really had no good options.

After my visit with Mr. M, I thought about how commonly this story plays out in my field of hematology and oncology. Yes, there are instances in which we find a mutation that drastically changes management. It’s wonderful to witness: patients handed an ominous diagnosis and then living their normal lives, in remission or with stable disease, years later.

We all hope for that. But we rarely get it. The challenge comes when we spend 95% of a visit talking about something with a 1% chance of working. The numbers don’t add up – it’s an equation that easily results in false understanding. Cancer can be glossed with a veneer of innovative options, obscuring the reality that none are likely to work.

Weaving both truths into the conversation is a difficult skill, but one I decided to be more cognizant of after my encounter with Mr. M.

At our next visit, we were still waiting on the test results. But I decided to speak with him candidly. It’s important to have a plan B, I said, and asked what would be important to him if his time were limited. He nodded, thinking about this. “I’ve just been holding out hope for the mutation,” he admitted.

The next week his genetic testing came back negative, and he decided to get palliative chemotherapy closer to home. He had no reason to come to a large academic hospital anymore. With nothing special to offer him, I never saw him again.

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

Mr. M wanted a second opinion. He was almost 80 years old and had been healthy his entire life. But recent abdominal discomfort prompted a CT scan, which prompted a biopsy. It appeared the tumor had started in his pancreas and then spread to the lymph nodes and the wall of his abdomen.

He asked his doctor to “give it to him straight,” and she did. She told him that it was incurable, but that chemotherapy might slow it down. He asked how long he had, and she said less than a year.

He wanted a straight answer, but that wasn’t the answer he wanted. Who would? So he did some reading and decided to come to a large academic hospital an hour away for a second opinion.

I interviewed him and then scrolled through his CT scans outside the room. There were a few things we could do, the attending and I discussed. We would send his tumor for genetic testing to see if there were any cancer mutations that could be targeted with drugs more specific than standard chemotherapy. We would also refer him to our cancer genetics clinic to get his blood tested for inherited mutations.

But mostly, all of that would likely turn up negative. Mostly, we agreed with his local oncologist.

We went back in the room. Explaining the genetic testing took the length of the visit because this is not a straightforward concept. We explained the difference between tumor mutations and inherited mutations. We wrote down a list of genetic variations we could discover. We discussed treatment options that could go along with each.

Do you have any questions?

He broke down. He reached for the tissue box sitting on the exam room table. “I feel so much better,” he said. “This is why I came here.” He felt safe, reassured, and hopeful.

I was happy to be helpful, but later, as I wrote my clinic note about him, I felt uneasy about the visit.

Everything we said was true. But somehow, it still felt as though we left him with an overly optimistic view of his illness. Did our emphasis on what could be done overshadow that it was unlikely to change the big picture? Did our in-depth discussion of slim possibilities mask that his prognosis was, in fact, still grim?

Working at a large academic medical center, I see many patients who come for a second opinion. I’m incredibly fortunate to learn at a place that is not just up to date in the most cutting-edge treatments but often leading in innovation.

And so we offer patients these options. They sound novel and exciting. They fill patients with hope because they fill the field with hope. I, too, get enraptured with the possibilities – circulating tumor DNA and clinical trials and targeted therapies.

At big cancer meetings every year, oncologists come together and speak about cancer therapies with enthusiasm and hope. Advances have exploded; it’s an exciting time to be learning and practicing.

And yet, the reality for many patients is very different. We are still discussing hospice after one line of chemotherapy has failed. We are still gently holding hands and saying that we have no more options to treat their aggressive cancers.

How can both of these worlds coexist? How can both be true?

A few years ago, a friend was diagnosed with a devastating neurologic condition. I went to a clinical trials website and typed in her disease. Immediately, hundreds of options popped up. I felt hopeful. The field is moving forward, I thought. There are options.

But in the exam room, there were none. When I asked about what I had read, the neurologist explained how many of these possibilities were being investigated. But in the end, my friend really had no good options.

After my visit with Mr. M, I thought about how commonly this story plays out in my field of hematology and oncology. Yes, there are instances in which we find a mutation that drastically changes management. It’s wonderful to witness: patients handed an ominous diagnosis and then living their normal lives, in remission or with stable disease, years later.

We all hope for that. But we rarely get it. The challenge comes when we spend 95% of a visit talking about something with a 1% chance of working. The numbers don’t add up – it’s an equation that easily results in false understanding. Cancer can be glossed with a veneer of innovative options, obscuring the reality that none are likely to work.

Weaving both truths into the conversation is a difficult skill, but one I decided to be more cognizant of after my encounter with Mr. M.

At our next visit, we were still waiting on the test results. But I decided to speak with him candidly. It’s important to have a plan B, I said, and asked what would be important to him if his time were limited. He nodded, thinking about this. “I’ve just been holding out hope for the mutation,” he admitted.

The next week his genetic testing came back negative, and he decided to get palliative chemotherapy closer to home. He had no reason to come to a large academic hospital anymore. With nothing special to offer him, I never saw him again.

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

Mr. M wanted a second opinion. He was almost 80 years old and had been healthy his entire life. But recent abdominal discomfort prompted a CT scan, which prompted a biopsy. It appeared the tumor had started in his pancreas and then spread to the lymph nodes and the wall of his abdomen.

He asked his doctor to “give it to him straight,” and she did. She told him that it was incurable, but that chemotherapy might slow it down. He asked how long he had, and she said less than a year.

He wanted a straight answer, but that wasn’t the answer he wanted. Who would? So he did some reading and decided to come to a large academic hospital an hour away for a second opinion.

I interviewed him and then scrolled through his CT scans outside the room. There were a few things we could do, the attending and I discussed. We would send his tumor for genetic testing to see if there were any cancer mutations that could be targeted with drugs more specific than standard chemotherapy. We would also refer him to our cancer genetics clinic to get his blood tested for inherited mutations.

But mostly, all of that would likely turn up negative. Mostly, we agreed with his local oncologist.

We went back in the room. Explaining the genetic testing took the length of the visit because this is not a straightforward concept. We explained the difference between tumor mutations and inherited mutations. We wrote down a list of genetic variations we could discover. We discussed treatment options that could go along with each.

Do you have any questions?

He broke down. He reached for the tissue box sitting on the exam room table. “I feel so much better,” he said. “This is why I came here.” He felt safe, reassured, and hopeful.

I was happy to be helpful, but later, as I wrote my clinic note about him, I felt uneasy about the visit.

Everything we said was true. But somehow, it still felt as though we left him with an overly optimistic view of his illness. Did our emphasis on what could be done overshadow that it was unlikely to change the big picture? Did our in-depth discussion of slim possibilities mask that his prognosis was, in fact, still grim?

Working at a large academic medical center, I see many patients who come for a second opinion. I’m incredibly fortunate to learn at a place that is not just up to date in the most cutting-edge treatments but often leading in innovation.

And so we offer patients these options. They sound novel and exciting. They fill patients with hope because they fill the field with hope. I, too, get enraptured with the possibilities – circulating tumor DNA and clinical trials and targeted therapies.

At big cancer meetings every year, oncologists come together and speak about cancer therapies with enthusiasm and hope. Advances have exploded; it’s an exciting time to be learning and practicing.

And yet, the reality for many patients is very different. We are still discussing hospice after one line of chemotherapy has failed. We are still gently holding hands and saying that we have no more options to treat their aggressive cancers.

How can both of these worlds coexist? How can both be true?

A few years ago, a friend was diagnosed with a devastating neurologic condition. I went to a clinical trials website and typed in her disease. Immediately, hundreds of options popped up. I felt hopeful. The field is moving forward, I thought. There are options.

But in the exam room, there were none. When I asked about what I had read, the neurologist explained how many of these possibilities were being investigated. But in the end, my friend really had no good options.

After my visit with Mr. M, I thought about how commonly this story plays out in my field of hematology and oncology. Yes, there are instances in which we find a mutation that drastically changes management. It’s wonderful to witness: patients handed an ominous diagnosis and then living their normal lives, in remission or with stable disease, years later.

We all hope for that. But we rarely get it. The challenge comes when we spend 95% of a visit talking about something with a 1% chance of working. The numbers don’t add up – it’s an equation that easily results in false understanding. Cancer can be glossed with a veneer of innovative options, obscuring the reality that none are likely to work.

Weaving both truths into the conversation is a difficult skill, but one I decided to be more cognizant of after my encounter with Mr. M.

At our next visit, we were still waiting on the test results. But I decided to speak with him candidly. It’s important to have a plan B, I said, and asked what would be important to him if his time were limited. He nodded, thinking about this. “I’ve just been holding out hope for the mutation,” he admitted.

The next week his genetic testing came back negative, and he decided to get palliative chemotherapy closer to home. He had no reason to come to a large academic hospital anymore. With nothing special to offer him, I never saw him again.

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

Over the past few decades, our understanding of the molecular underpinning of primary neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) has progressed substantially. Thanks in large part to this expansion in our knowledge base, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently updated its classification of tumors of the CNS.¹ One of the key elements of this update was the inclusion of molecular diagnostic criteria for the classification of infiltrating gliomas. While the previous classification system was based upon histologic subtypes of the tumor (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, and oligoastrocytoma), the revised classification system incorporates molecular testing to establish the genetic characteristics of the tumor to reach a final integrated diagnosis.

In this article, we present 3 cases to highlight some of these recent changes in the WHO diagnostic categories of primary CNS tumors and to illustrate the role of specific molecular tests in reaching a final integrated diagnosis. We then propose a clinical practice guideline for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that recommends use of molecular testing for veterans as part of the diagnostic workup of primary CNS neoplasms.

Purpose

In 2013 the VHA National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services (P&LMS) chartered a national molecular genetics pathology workgroup (MGPW) that was charged with 4 specific tasks: (1) Provide recommendations about the effective use of molecular genetic testing for veterans; (2) Promote increased quality and availability of molecular testing within the VHA; (3) Encourage internal referral testing; and (4) Create an organizational structure and policies for molecular genetic testing and laboratory developed tests. The workgroup is currently composed of 4 subcommittees: genetic medicine, hematopathology, pharmacogenomics, and molecular oncology. The molecular oncology subcommittee is focused upon molecular genetic testing for solid tumors.

This article is intended to be the first of several publications from the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW that address some of the aforementioned tasks. Similar to the recent publication from the hematopathology subcommittee of the MGPW, this article focuses on CNS neoplasms.²

Scope of Problem

The incidence of tumors of the CNS in the US population varies among age groups. It is the most common solid tumor in children aged < 14 years and represents a significant cause of mortality across all age groups.³ Of CNS tumors, diffuse gliomas comprise about 20% of the tumors and more than 70% of the primary malignant CNS tumors.³ Analysis of the VA Central Cancer Registry data from 2010 to 2014 identified 1,186 veterans (about 237 veterans per year) who were diagnosed with diffuse gliomas. (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018). While the majority (nearly 80%) of these cases were glioblastomas (GBMs), unfortunately a majority of these cases did not undergo molecular testing (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018).

Although this low rate of testing may be in part reflective of the period from which these data were gleaned (ie, prior to the WHO release of their updated the classification of tumors of the CNS), it is important to raise VA practitioners’ awareness of these recent changes to ensure that veterans receive the proper diagnosis and treatment for their disease. Thus, while the number of veterans diagnosed with diffuse gliomas within the VHA is relatively small in comparison to other malignancies, such as prostatic adenocarcinomas and lung carcinomas, the majority of diffuse gliomas do not seem to be receiving the molecular testing that would be necessary for (1) appropriate classification under the recently revised WHO recommendations; and (2) making important treatment decisions.

Case Presentations

Case 1. A veteran of the Gulf War presented with a 3-month history of possible narcoleptic events associated with a motor vehicle accident. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large left frontal mass lesion with minimal surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C). 

Neither mitotic figures nor endothelial proliferation were identified. Immunohistochemical stains revealed a lack of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, a loss of nuclear staining for ATRX protein within a substantial number of cells, and a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression (Figures 1E, 1F, and 1G). The lesion demonstrated diffuse glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity and a low proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining; estimated at less than 5%) (Figures 1H and 1I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were negative for 1p/19q codeletion, pyrosequencing analysis revealed the presence of a c.394C>T (R132C) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 1J). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s GlioSeq targeted next-generation sequence (NGS) analysis confirmed the presence of the c.394C > T mutation in IDH1 gene.⁴ Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant was rendered.

Case 2. A Vietnam War veteran presented with a 6-week history of new onset falls with associated left lower extremity weakness. A MRI revealed a right frontoparietal mass lesion with surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C). 

Immunohistochemical stains revealed R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, the lack of a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, diffuse GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 20% (Figures 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H and 2I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were positive for 1p/19q codeletion, and pyrosequencing analysis confirmed the immunohistochemical findings of a c.395G>A (R132H) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 2J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis confirmed the presence of the c.395G>A mutation in the IDH1 gene, a mutation in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter, and possible decreased copy number of the CIC (chromosome 1p) and FUBP1 (chromosome 19q) genes.

A final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted was rendered based on the additional information. With this final diagnosis, methylation analysis of the MGMT gene promoter, which was performed for prognostic and predictive purposes, was identified in this case.^5,6

Case 3. A veteran of the Vietnam War presented with a new onset seizure. A MRI revealed a focally contrast-enhancing mass with surrounding edema within the left frontal lobe (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C). 

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections following formalin fixation and paraffin embedding demonstrated similar findings (Figure 3D), and while mitotic figures were readily identified, areas of necrosis were not identified and endothelial proliferation was not a prominent feature. Immunohistochemical stains revealed no evidence of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, patchy GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 50% (Figures 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and the tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were negative for EGFR gene amplification and 1p/19q codeletion, although a gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 was detected. Pyrosequencing analysis for mutations in codon 132 of the IDH1 gene revealed no mutations (Figure 3J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis identified mutations within the NF1, TP53, and PIK3CA genes without evidence of mutations in the IDH1, IDH2, ATRX, H3F3A, or EGFR genes or the TERT promoter. Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of GBM, IDH wild-type was issued. The MGMT gene promoter was negative for methylation, a finding that has prognostic and predictive impact with regard to treatment with temazolamide.^7-9

New Diffuse Glioma Classification

Since the issuance of the previous edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors in 2007, several sentinel discoveries have been made that have advanced our understanding of the underlying biology of primary CNS neoplasms. Since a detailed review of these findings is beyond the scope and purpose of this manuscript and salient reviews on the topic can be found elsewhere, we will focus on the molecular findings that have been incorporated into the recently revised WHO classification.¹⁰ The importance of providing such information for proper patient management is illustrated by the recent acknowledgement by the American Academy of Neurology that molecular testing of brain tumors is a specific area in which there is a need for quality improvement.¹¹ Therefore, it is critical that these underlying molecular abnormalities are identified to allow for proper classification and treatment of diffuse gliomas in the veteran population.

As noted previously, based on VA cancer registry data, diffuse gliomas are the most commonly encountered primary CNS cancers in the veteran population. Several of the aforementioned seminal discoveries have been incorporated into the updated classification of diffuse gliomas. While the recently updated WHO classification allows for the assignment of “not otherwise specified (NOS)” diagnostic designation, this category must be limited to cases where there is insufficient data to allow for a more precise classification due to sample limitations and not simply due to a failure of VA pathology laboratories to pursue the appropriate diagnostic testing.

Figure 4 presents the recommended diagnostic workflow for the workup of diffuse gliomas. As illustrated in the above cases, a variety of different methodologies, including immunohistochemical, FISH, loss of heterozygosity analysis, traditional and NGS may be applied when elucidating the status of molecular events at critical diagnostic branch points. 

Diagnostic Uses of Molecular Testing

While the case studies in this article demonstrate the use of ancillary testing and provide a suggested strategy for properly subclassifying diffuse gliomas, inherent in this strategy is the assumption that, based upon the initial clinical and pathologic information available, one can accurately categorize the lesion as a diffuse glioma. In reality, such a distinction is not always a straightforward endeavor. It is well recognized that a proportion of low-grade, typically radiologically circumscribed, CNS neoplasms, such as pilocytic astrocytomas and glioneuronal tumors, may infiltrate the surrounding brain parenchyma. In addition, many of these low-grade CNS neoplasms also may have growth patterns that are shared with diffuse gliomas, a diagnostic challenge that often can be further hampered by the inherent limitations involved in obtaining adequate samples for diagnosis from the CNS.

Although there are limitations and caveats, molecular diagnostic testing may be invaluable in properly classifying CNS tumors in such situations. The finding of mutations in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes has been shown to be very valuable in distinguishing low-grade diffuse glioma from both nonneoplastic and low-grade circumscribed neuroepithelial neoplasms that may exhibit growth patterns that can mimic those of diffuse gliomas.^15-17 Conversely, finding abnormalities in the BRAF gene in a brain neoplasm that has a low-grade morphology suggests that the lesion may represent one of these low-grade lesions such as a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, or mixed neuronal-glial tumor as opposed to a diffuse glioma.^18,19

Depending upon the environment in which one practices, small biopsy specimens may be prevalent, and unfortunately, it is not uncommon to obtain a biopsy that exhibits a histologic growth pattern that is discordant from what one would predict based on the clinical context and imaging findings. Molecular testing may be useful in resolving discordances in such situations. If a biopsy of a ring-enhancing lesion demonstrates a diffuse glioma that doesn’t meet WHO grade IV criteria, applying methodologies that look for genetic features commonly encountered in high-grade astrocytomas may identify genetic abnormalities that suggest a more aggressive lesion than is indicated by the histologic findings. The presence of genetic abnormalities such as homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene, TERT promoter mutation, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 10q and/or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations, EGFR gene amplification or the presence of the EGFR variant III are a few findings that would suggest the aforementioned sample may represent an undersampling of a higher grade diffuse astrocytoma, which would be important information to convey to the treating clinicians.^20-26

Testing In the VA

The goals of the MPWG include promoting increased quality and availability of genetic testing within the VHA as well as encouraging internal referral testing. An informal survey of the chiefs of VA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services was conducted in November of 2017 in an attempt to identify internal VA pathology laboratories currently conducting testing that may be of use in the workup of diffuse gliomas (Table 1). 

The VA currently offers NGS panels for patients with advanced-stage malignancies under the auspices of the Precision Oncology Program, whose reports provide both (1) mutational analyses for genes such as TP53, ATRX, NF1, BRAF, PTEN, TERT IDH1, and IDH2 that may be useful in the proper classifying of high-grade diffuse gliomas; and (2) information regarding clinical trials for which the veteran may be eligible for based on their glioma’s mutational profile. Interested VA providers should visit tinyurl.com/precisiononcology/ for more information about this program. Finally, although internal testing within VA laboratories is recommended to allow for the development of more cost-effective testing, testing may be performed through many nationally contracted reference laboratories.

Conclusion

In light of the recent progress made in our understanding of the molecular events of gliomagenesis, the way we diagnose diffuse gliomas within the CNS has undergone a major paradigm shift. While histology still plays a critical role in the process, we believe that additional ancillary testing is a requirement for all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within VA pathology laboratories. In the context of recently encountered cases, we have provided a recommended workflow highlighting the testing that can be performed to allow for the proper diagnosis of our veterans with diffuse gliomas (Figure 4).

Unless limited by the amount of tissue available for such tests, ancillary testing must be performed on all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within the VA system to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of our veterans with diffuse gliomas. 

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Craig M. Horbinski (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University) and Dr. Geoffrey H. Murdoch (University of Pittsburgh) for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. We also thank the following individuals for past service as members of the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW: Dr. George Ansstas (Washington University School of Medicine), Dr. Osssama Hemadeh (Bay Pines VA Health Care System), Dr. James Herman (VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System), and Dr. Ryan Phan (formerly of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System) as well as the members of the Veterans Administration pathology and laboratory medicine service molecular genetics pathology workgroup.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Dr. Kulich is the Acting Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and member of the Division of Neuropathology at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Dr. Duvvuri is an Otolaryngologist at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and Dr. Passero is the Section Chief of Hematology\Oncology at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker is an Oncologist at VA-New York Harbor Healthcare System. Dr. Dacic is a Pathologist at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology in Pennsylvania. Dr. Ehsan is Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services at the South Texas Veterans Healthcare System in San Antonio. Dr. Gutkin is the former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Dr. Hou is a Pathologist at St. Louis VA Medical Center in Missouri. Dr. Icardi is the VA National Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services. Dr. Lyle is a Pathologist at Bay Pine Health Care System in Florida. Dr. Lynch is an Investigator at VA Salt Lake Health Care System Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Dr. Montgomery is an Oncologist at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Przygodzki is the Director of Genomic Medicine Implementation and Associate Director of Genomic Medicine for the VA. Dr. Colman is a Neuro-Oncologist at George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center and the Director of Medical Neuro-Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Correspondence: Dr. Kulich (scott.kulich@va.gov)

Over the past few decades, our understanding of the molecular underpinning of primary neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) has progressed substantially. Thanks in large part to this expansion in our knowledge base, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently updated its classification of tumors of the CNS.¹ One of the key elements of this update was the inclusion of molecular diagnostic criteria for the classification of infiltrating gliomas. While the previous classification system was based upon histologic subtypes of the tumor (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, and oligoastrocytoma), the revised classification system incorporates molecular testing to establish the genetic characteristics of the tumor to reach a final integrated diagnosis.

In this article, we present 3 cases to highlight some of these recent changes in the WHO diagnostic categories of primary CNS tumors and to illustrate the role of specific molecular tests in reaching a final integrated diagnosis. We then propose a clinical practice guideline for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that recommends use of molecular testing for veterans as part of the diagnostic workup of primary CNS neoplasms.

Purpose

In 2013 the VHA National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services (P&LMS) chartered a national molecular genetics pathology workgroup (MGPW) that was charged with 4 specific tasks: (1) Provide recommendations about the effective use of molecular genetic testing for veterans; (2) Promote increased quality and availability of molecular testing within the VHA; (3) Encourage internal referral testing; and (4) Create an organizational structure and policies for molecular genetic testing and laboratory developed tests. The workgroup is currently composed of 4 subcommittees: genetic medicine, hematopathology, pharmacogenomics, and molecular oncology. The molecular oncology subcommittee is focused upon molecular genetic testing for solid tumors.

This article is intended to be the first of several publications from the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW that address some of the aforementioned tasks. Similar to the recent publication from the hematopathology subcommittee of the MGPW, this article focuses on CNS neoplasms.²

Scope of Problem

The incidence of tumors of the CNS in the US population varies among age groups. It is the most common solid tumor in children aged < 14 years and represents a significant cause of mortality across all age groups.³ Of CNS tumors, diffuse gliomas comprise about 20% of the tumors and more than 70% of the primary malignant CNS tumors.³ Analysis of the VA Central Cancer Registry data from 2010 to 2014 identified 1,186 veterans (about 237 veterans per year) who were diagnosed with diffuse gliomas. (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018). While the majority (nearly 80%) of these cases were glioblastomas (GBMs), unfortunately a majority of these cases did not undergo molecular testing (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018).

Although this low rate of testing may be in part reflective of the period from which these data were gleaned (ie, prior to the WHO release of their updated the classification of tumors of the CNS), it is important to raise VA practitioners’ awareness of these recent changes to ensure that veterans receive the proper diagnosis and treatment for their disease. Thus, while the number of veterans diagnosed with diffuse gliomas within the VHA is relatively small in comparison to other malignancies, such as prostatic adenocarcinomas and lung carcinomas, the majority of diffuse gliomas do not seem to be receiving the molecular testing that would be necessary for (1) appropriate classification under the recently revised WHO recommendations; and (2) making important treatment decisions.

Case Presentations

Case 1. A veteran of the Gulf War presented with a 3-month history of possible narcoleptic events associated with a motor vehicle accident. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large left frontal mass lesion with minimal surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C). 

Neither mitotic figures nor endothelial proliferation were identified. Immunohistochemical stains revealed a lack of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, a loss of nuclear staining for ATRX protein within a substantial number of cells, and a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression (Figures 1E, 1F, and 1G). The lesion demonstrated diffuse glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity and a low proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining; estimated at less than 5%) (Figures 1H and 1I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were negative for 1p/19q codeletion, pyrosequencing analysis revealed the presence of a c.394C>T (R132C) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 1J). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s GlioSeq targeted next-generation sequence (NGS) analysis confirmed the presence of the c.394C > T mutation in IDH1 gene.⁴ Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant was rendered.

Case 2. A Vietnam War veteran presented with a 6-week history of new onset falls with associated left lower extremity weakness. A MRI revealed a right frontoparietal mass lesion with surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C). 

Immunohistochemical stains revealed R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, the lack of a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, diffuse GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 20% (Figures 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H and 2I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were positive for 1p/19q codeletion, and pyrosequencing analysis confirmed the immunohistochemical findings of a c.395G>A (R132H) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 2J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis confirmed the presence of the c.395G>A mutation in the IDH1 gene, a mutation in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter, and possible decreased copy number of the CIC (chromosome 1p) and FUBP1 (chromosome 19q) genes.

A final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted was rendered based on the additional information. With this final diagnosis, methylation analysis of the MGMT gene promoter, which was performed for prognostic and predictive purposes, was identified in this case.^5,6

Case 3. A veteran of the Vietnam War presented with a new onset seizure. A MRI revealed a focally contrast-enhancing mass with surrounding edema within the left frontal lobe (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C). 

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections following formalin fixation and paraffin embedding demonstrated similar findings (Figure 3D), and while mitotic figures were readily identified, areas of necrosis were not identified and endothelial proliferation was not a prominent feature. Immunohistochemical stains revealed no evidence of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, patchy GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 50% (Figures 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and the tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were negative for EGFR gene amplification and 1p/19q codeletion, although a gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 was detected. Pyrosequencing analysis for mutations in codon 132 of the IDH1 gene revealed no mutations (Figure 3J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis identified mutations within the NF1, TP53, and PIK3CA genes without evidence of mutations in the IDH1, IDH2, ATRX, H3F3A, or EGFR genes or the TERT promoter. Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of GBM, IDH wild-type was issued. The MGMT gene promoter was negative for methylation, a finding that has prognostic and predictive impact with regard to treatment with temazolamide.^7-9

New Diffuse Glioma Classification

Since the issuance of the previous edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors in 2007, several sentinel discoveries have been made that have advanced our understanding of the underlying biology of primary CNS neoplasms. Since a detailed review of these findings is beyond the scope and purpose of this manuscript and salient reviews on the topic can be found elsewhere, we will focus on the molecular findings that have been incorporated into the recently revised WHO classification.¹⁰ The importance of providing such information for proper patient management is illustrated by the recent acknowledgement by the American Academy of Neurology that molecular testing of brain tumors is a specific area in which there is a need for quality improvement.¹¹ Therefore, it is critical that these underlying molecular abnormalities are identified to allow for proper classification and treatment of diffuse gliomas in the veteran population.

As noted previously, based on VA cancer registry data, diffuse gliomas are the most commonly encountered primary CNS cancers in the veteran population. Several of the aforementioned seminal discoveries have been incorporated into the updated classification of diffuse gliomas. While the recently updated WHO classification allows for the assignment of “not otherwise specified (NOS)” diagnostic designation, this category must be limited to cases where there is insufficient data to allow for a more precise classification due to sample limitations and not simply due to a failure of VA pathology laboratories to pursue the appropriate diagnostic testing.

Figure 4 presents the recommended diagnostic workflow for the workup of diffuse gliomas. As illustrated in the above cases, a variety of different methodologies, including immunohistochemical, FISH, loss of heterozygosity analysis, traditional and NGS may be applied when elucidating the status of molecular events at critical diagnostic branch points. 

Diagnostic Uses of Molecular Testing

While the case studies in this article demonstrate the use of ancillary testing and provide a suggested strategy for properly subclassifying diffuse gliomas, inherent in this strategy is the assumption that, based upon the initial clinical and pathologic information available, one can accurately categorize the lesion as a diffuse glioma. In reality, such a distinction is not always a straightforward endeavor. It is well recognized that a proportion of low-grade, typically radiologically circumscribed, CNS neoplasms, such as pilocytic astrocytomas and glioneuronal tumors, may infiltrate the surrounding brain parenchyma. In addition, many of these low-grade CNS neoplasms also may have growth patterns that are shared with diffuse gliomas, a diagnostic challenge that often can be further hampered by the inherent limitations involved in obtaining adequate samples for diagnosis from the CNS.

Although there are limitations and caveats, molecular diagnostic testing may be invaluable in properly classifying CNS tumors in such situations. The finding of mutations in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes has been shown to be very valuable in distinguishing low-grade diffuse glioma from both nonneoplastic and low-grade circumscribed neuroepithelial neoplasms that may exhibit growth patterns that can mimic those of diffuse gliomas.^15-17 Conversely, finding abnormalities in the BRAF gene in a brain neoplasm that has a low-grade morphology suggests that the lesion may represent one of these low-grade lesions such as a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, or mixed neuronal-glial tumor as opposed to a diffuse glioma.^18,19

Depending upon the environment in which one practices, small biopsy specimens may be prevalent, and unfortunately, it is not uncommon to obtain a biopsy that exhibits a histologic growth pattern that is discordant from what one would predict based on the clinical context and imaging findings. Molecular testing may be useful in resolving discordances in such situations. If a biopsy of a ring-enhancing lesion demonstrates a diffuse glioma that doesn’t meet WHO grade IV criteria, applying methodologies that look for genetic features commonly encountered in high-grade astrocytomas may identify genetic abnormalities that suggest a more aggressive lesion than is indicated by the histologic findings. The presence of genetic abnormalities such as homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene, TERT promoter mutation, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 10q and/or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations, EGFR gene amplification or the presence of the EGFR variant III are a few findings that would suggest the aforementioned sample may represent an undersampling of a higher grade diffuse astrocytoma, which would be important information to convey to the treating clinicians.^20-26

Testing In the VA

The goals of the MPWG include promoting increased quality and availability of genetic testing within the VHA as well as encouraging internal referral testing. An informal survey of the chiefs of VA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services was conducted in November of 2017 in an attempt to identify internal VA pathology laboratories currently conducting testing that may be of use in the workup of diffuse gliomas (Table 1). 

The VA currently offers NGS panels for patients with advanced-stage malignancies under the auspices of the Precision Oncology Program, whose reports provide both (1) mutational analyses for genes such as TP53, ATRX, NF1, BRAF, PTEN, TERT IDH1, and IDH2 that may be useful in the proper classifying of high-grade diffuse gliomas; and (2) information regarding clinical trials for which the veteran may be eligible for based on their glioma’s mutational profile. Interested VA providers should visit tinyurl.com/precisiononcology/ for more information about this program. Finally, although internal testing within VA laboratories is recommended to allow for the development of more cost-effective testing, testing may be performed through many nationally contracted reference laboratories.

Conclusion

In light of the recent progress made in our understanding of the molecular events of gliomagenesis, the way we diagnose diffuse gliomas within the CNS has undergone a major paradigm shift. While histology still plays a critical role in the process, we believe that additional ancillary testing is a requirement for all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within VA pathology laboratories. In the context of recently encountered cases, we have provided a recommended workflow highlighting the testing that can be performed to allow for the proper diagnosis of our veterans with diffuse gliomas (Figure 4).

Unless limited by the amount of tissue available for such tests, ancillary testing must be performed on all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within the VA system to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of our veterans with diffuse gliomas. 

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Craig M. Horbinski (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University) and Dr. Geoffrey H. Murdoch (University of Pittsburgh) for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. We also thank the following individuals for past service as members of the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW: Dr. George Ansstas (Washington University School of Medicine), Dr. Osssama Hemadeh (Bay Pines VA Health Care System), Dr. James Herman (VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System), and Dr. Ryan Phan (formerly of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System) as well as the members of the Veterans Administration pathology and laboratory medicine service molecular genetics pathology workgroup.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Dr. Kulich is the Acting Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and member of the Division of Neuropathology at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Dr. Duvvuri is an Otolaryngologist at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and Dr. Passero is the Section Chief of Hematology\Oncology at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker is an Oncologist at VA-New York Harbor Healthcare System. Dr. Dacic is a Pathologist at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology in Pennsylvania. Dr. Ehsan is Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services at the South Texas Veterans Healthcare System in San Antonio. Dr. Gutkin is the former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Dr. Hou is a Pathologist at St. Louis VA Medical Center in Missouri. Dr. Icardi is the VA National Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services. Dr. Lyle is a Pathologist at Bay Pine Health Care System in Florida. Dr. Lynch is an Investigator at VA Salt Lake Health Care System Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Dr. Montgomery is an Oncologist at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Przygodzki is the Director of Genomic Medicine Implementation and Associate Director of Genomic Medicine for the VA. Dr. Colman is a Neuro-Oncologist at George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center and the Director of Medical Neuro-Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Correspondence: Dr. Kulich (scott.kulich@va.gov)

Over the past few decades, our understanding of the molecular underpinning of primary neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) has progressed substantially. Thanks in large part to this expansion in our knowledge base, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently updated its classification of tumors of the CNS.¹ One of the key elements of this update was the inclusion of molecular diagnostic criteria for the classification of infiltrating gliomas. While the previous classification system was based upon histologic subtypes of the tumor (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, and oligoastrocytoma), the revised classification system incorporates molecular testing to establish the genetic characteristics of the tumor to reach a final integrated diagnosis.

In this article, we present 3 cases to highlight some of these recent changes in the WHO diagnostic categories of primary CNS tumors and to illustrate the role of specific molecular tests in reaching a final integrated diagnosis. We then propose a clinical practice guideline for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that recommends use of molecular testing for veterans as part of the diagnostic workup of primary CNS neoplasms.

Purpose

In 2013 the VHA National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services (P&LMS) chartered a national molecular genetics pathology workgroup (MGPW) that was charged with 4 specific tasks: (1) Provide recommendations about the effective use of molecular genetic testing for veterans; (2) Promote increased quality and availability of molecular testing within the VHA; (3) Encourage internal referral testing; and (4) Create an organizational structure and policies for molecular genetic testing and laboratory developed tests. The workgroup is currently composed of 4 subcommittees: genetic medicine, hematopathology, pharmacogenomics, and molecular oncology. The molecular oncology subcommittee is focused upon molecular genetic testing for solid tumors.

This article is intended to be the first of several publications from the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW that address some of the aforementioned tasks. Similar to the recent publication from the hematopathology subcommittee of the MGPW, this article focuses on CNS neoplasms.²

Scope of Problem

The incidence of tumors of the CNS in the US population varies among age groups. It is the most common solid tumor in children aged < 14 years and represents a significant cause of mortality across all age groups.³ Of CNS tumors, diffuse gliomas comprise about 20% of the tumors and more than 70% of the primary malignant CNS tumors.³ Analysis of the VA Central Cancer Registry data from 2010 to 2014 identified 1,186 veterans (about 237 veterans per year) who were diagnosed with diffuse gliomas. (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018). While the majority (nearly 80%) of these cases were glioblastomas (GBMs), unfortunately a majority of these cases did not undergo molecular testing (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018).

Although this low rate of testing may be in part reflective of the period from which these data were gleaned (ie, prior to the WHO release of their updated the classification of tumors of the CNS), it is important to raise VA practitioners’ awareness of these recent changes to ensure that veterans receive the proper diagnosis and treatment for their disease. Thus, while the number of veterans diagnosed with diffuse gliomas within the VHA is relatively small in comparison to other malignancies, such as prostatic adenocarcinomas and lung carcinomas, the majority of diffuse gliomas do not seem to be receiving the molecular testing that would be necessary for (1) appropriate classification under the recently revised WHO recommendations; and (2) making important treatment decisions.

Case Presentations

Case 1. A veteran of the Gulf War presented with a 3-month history of possible narcoleptic events associated with a motor vehicle accident. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large left frontal mass lesion with minimal surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C). 

Neither mitotic figures nor endothelial proliferation were identified. Immunohistochemical stains revealed a lack of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, a loss of nuclear staining for ATRX protein within a substantial number of cells, and a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression (Figures 1E, 1F, and 1G). The lesion demonstrated diffuse glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity and a low proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining; estimated at less than 5%) (Figures 1H and 1I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were negative for 1p/19q codeletion, pyrosequencing analysis revealed the presence of a c.394C>T (R132C) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 1J). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s GlioSeq targeted next-generation sequence (NGS) analysis confirmed the presence of the c.394C > T mutation in IDH1 gene.⁴ Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant was rendered.

Case 2. A Vietnam War veteran presented with a 6-week history of new onset falls with associated left lower extremity weakness. A MRI revealed a right frontoparietal mass lesion with surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C). 

Immunohistochemical stains revealed R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, the lack of a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, diffuse GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 20% (Figures 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H and 2I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were positive for 1p/19q codeletion, and pyrosequencing analysis confirmed the immunohistochemical findings of a c.395G>A (R132H) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 2J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis confirmed the presence of the c.395G>A mutation in the IDH1 gene, a mutation in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter, and possible decreased copy number of the CIC (chromosome 1p) and FUBP1 (chromosome 19q) genes.

A final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted was rendered based on the additional information. With this final diagnosis, methylation analysis of the MGMT gene promoter, which was performed for prognostic and predictive purposes, was identified in this case.^5,6

Case 3. A veteran of the Vietnam War presented with a new onset seizure. A MRI revealed a focally contrast-enhancing mass with surrounding edema within the left frontal lobe (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C). 

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections following formalin fixation and paraffin embedding demonstrated similar findings (Figure 3D), and while mitotic figures were readily identified, areas of necrosis were not identified and endothelial proliferation was not a prominent feature. Immunohistochemical stains revealed no evidence of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, patchy GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 50% (Figures 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and the tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were negative for EGFR gene amplification and 1p/19q codeletion, although a gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 was detected. Pyrosequencing analysis for mutations in codon 132 of the IDH1 gene revealed no mutations (Figure 3J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis identified mutations within the NF1, TP53, and PIK3CA genes without evidence of mutations in the IDH1, IDH2, ATRX, H3F3A, or EGFR genes or the TERT promoter. Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of GBM, IDH wild-type was issued. The MGMT gene promoter was negative for methylation, a finding that has prognostic and predictive impact with regard to treatment with temazolamide.^7-9

New Diffuse Glioma Classification

Since the issuance of the previous edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors in 2007, several sentinel discoveries have been made that have advanced our understanding of the underlying biology of primary CNS neoplasms. Since a detailed review of these findings is beyond the scope and purpose of this manuscript and salient reviews on the topic can be found elsewhere, we will focus on the molecular findings that have been incorporated into the recently revised WHO classification.¹⁰ The importance of providing such information for proper patient management is illustrated by the recent acknowledgement by the American Academy of Neurology that molecular testing of brain tumors is a specific area in which there is a need for quality improvement.¹¹ Therefore, it is critical that these underlying molecular abnormalities are identified to allow for proper classification and treatment of diffuse gliomas in the veteran population.

As noted previously, based on VA cancer registry data, diffuse gliomas are the most commonly encountered primary CNS cancers in the veteran population. Several of the aforementioned seminal discoveries have been incorporated into the updated classification of diffuse gliomas. While the recently updated WHO classification allows for the assignment of “not otherwise specified (NOS)” diagnostic designation, this category must be limited to cases where there is insufficient data to allow for a more precise classification due to sample limitations and not simply due to a failure of VA pathology laboratories to pursue the appropriate diagnostic testing.

Figure 4 presents the recommended diagnostic workflow for the workup of diffuse gliomas. As illustrated in the above cases, a variety of different methodologies, including immunohistochemical, FISH, loss of heterozygosity analysis, traditional and NGS may be applied when elucidating the status of molecular events at critical diagnostic branch points. 

Diagnostic Uses of Molecular Testing

While the case studies in this article demonstrate the use of ancillary testing and provide a suggested strategy for properly subclassifying diffuse gliomas, inherent in this strategy is the assumption that, based upon the initial clinical and pathologic information available, one can accurately categorize the lesion as a diffuse glioma. In reality, such a distinction is not always a straightforward endeavor. It is well recognized that a proportion of low-grade, typically radiologically circumscribed, CNS neoplasms, such as pilocytic astrocytomas and glioneuronal tumors, may infiltrate the surrounding brain parenchyma. In addition, many of these low-grade CNS neoplasms also may have growth patterns that are shared with diffuse gliomas, a diagnostic challenge that often can be further hampered by the inherent limitations involved in obtaining adequate samples for diagnosis from the CNS.

Although there are limitations and caveats, molecular diagnostic testing may be invaluable in properly classifying CNS tumors in such situations. The finding of mutations in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes has been shown to be very valuable in distinguishing low-grade diffuse glioma from both nonneoplastic and low-grade circumscribed neuroepithelial neoplasms that may exhibit growth patterns that can mimic those of diffuse gliomas.^15-17 Conversely, finding abnormalities in the BRAF gene in a brain neoplasm that has a low-grade morphology suggests that the lesion may represent one of these low-grade lesions such as a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, or mixed neuronal-glial tumor as opposed to a diffuse glioma.^18,19

Depending upon the environment in which one practices, small biopsy specimens may be prevalent, and unfortunately, it is not uncommon to obtain a biopsy that exhibits a histologic growth pattern that is discordant from what one would predict based on the clinical context and imaging findings. Molecular testing may be useful in resolving discordances in such situations. If a biopsy of a ring-enhancing lesion demonstrates a diffuse glioma that doesn’t meet WHO grade IV criteria, applying methodologies that look for genetic features commonly encountered in high-grade astrocytomas may identify genetic abnormalities that suggest a more aggressive lesion than is indicated by the histologic findings. The presence of genetic abnormalities such as homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene, TERT promoter mutation, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 10q and/or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations, EGFR gene amplification or the presence of the EGFR variant III are a few findings that would suggest the aforementioned sample may represent an undersampling of a higher grade diffuse astrocytoma, which would be important information to convey to the treating clinicians.^20-26

Testing In the VA

The goals of the MPWG include promoting increased quality and availability of genetic testing within the VHA as well as encouraging internal referral testing. An informal survey of the chiefs of VA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services was conducted in November of 2017 in an attempt to identify internal VA pathology laboratories currently conducting testing that may be of use in the workup of diffuse gliomas (Table 1). 

The VA currently offers NGS panels for patients with advanced-stage malignancies under the auspices of the Precision Oncology Program, whose reports provide both (1) mutational analyses for genes such as TP53, ATRX, NF1, BRAF, PTEN, TERT IDH1, and IDH2 that may be useful in the proper classifying of high-grade diffuse gliomas; and (2) information regarding clinical trials for which the veteran may be eligible for based on their glioma’s mutational profile. Interested VA providers should visit tinyurl.com/precisiononcology/ for more information about this program. Finally, although internal testing within VA laboratories is recommended to allow for the development of more cost-effective testing, testing may be performed through many nationally contracted reference laboratories.

Conclusion

In light of the recent progress made in our understanding of the molecular events of gliomagenesis, the way we diagnose diffuse gliomas within the CNS has undergone a major paradigm shift. While histology still plays a critical role in the process, we believe that additional ancillary testing is a requirement for all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within VA pathology laboratories. In the context of recently encountered cases, we have provided a recommended workflow highlighting the testing that can be performed to allow for the proper diagnosis of our veterans with diffuse gliomas (Figure 4).

Unless limited by the amount of tissue available for such tests, ancillary testing must be performed on all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within the VA system to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of our veterans with diffuse gliomas. 

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Craig M. Horbinski (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University) and Dr. Geoffrey H. Murdoch (University of Pittsburgh) for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. We also thank the following individuals for past service as members of the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW: Dr. George Ansstas (Washington University School of Medicine), Dr. Osssama Hemadeh (Bay Pines VA Health Care System), Dr. James Herman (VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System), and Dr. Ryan Phan (formerly of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System) as well as the members of the Veterans Administration pathology and laboratory medicine service molecular genetics pathology workgroup.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Dr. Kulich is the Acting Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and member of the Division of Neuropathology at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Dr. Duvvuri is an Otolaryngologist at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and Dr. Passero is the Section Chief of Hematology\Oncology at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker is an Oncologist at VA-New York Harbor Healthcare System. Dr. Dacic is a Pathologist at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology in Pennsylvania. Dr. Ehsan is Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services at the South Texas Veterans Healthcare System in San Antonio. Dr. Gutkin is the former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Dr. Hou is a Pathologist at St. Louis VA Medical Center in Missouri. Dr. Icardi is the VA National Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services. Dr. Lyle is a Pathologist at Bay Pine Health Care System in Florida. Dr. Lynch is an Investigator at VA Salt Lake Health Care System Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Dr. Montgomery is an Oncologist at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Przygodzki is the Director of Genomic Medicine Implementation and Associate Director of Genomic Medicine for the VA. Dr. Colman is a Neuro-Oncologist at George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center and the Director of Medical Neuro-Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Correspondence: Dr. Kulich (scott.kulich@va.gov)