Validation and clinical performance of a single test, DNA based endometrial cancer molecular classifier.

We have previously shown that DNA based, single test molecular classification by next generation sequencing (NGS) (Proactive Molecular risk classifier for Endometrial cancer (ProMisE) NGS) is highly concordant with the original ProMisE classifier and maintains prognostic value in endometrial cancer. Our aim was to validate ProMisE NGS in an independent cohort and assess the performance of ProMisE NGS in real world clinical practice to address if there were any practical challenges or learning points for implementation. We evaluated DNA extracted from an external research cohort of 211 endometrial cancer cases diagnosed in 2016 from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, across seven European centers, comparing standard molecular classification (NGS for POLE status, immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair and p53) with ProMisE NGS (NGS for POLE and TP53, microsatellite instability assay) for concordance metrics and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics across molecular subtypes. In parallel, we assessed all patients who had undergone a new NGS based molecular classification test (n=334) comparing molecular subtype assignment with the original ProMisE classifier. A total of 545 endometrial cancers were compared. Prognostic differences in progression free, disease specific, and overall survival between the four molecular subtypes were observed for the NGS classifier, recapitulating the survival curves of original ProMisE. In 28 of 545 (5%) discordant cases (8/211 (4%) in the validation set, 20/334 (6%) in the real world cohort), molecular subtype was able to be definitively assigned in all, based on review of the histopathological features and/or additional immunohistochemistry. DNA based molecular classification identified twice as many 'multiple classifier' endometrial cancers; 37 of 545 (7%) compared with 20 of 545 (4%) with original ProMisE. External validation confirmed that single test, DNA based molecular classification was highly concordant (95%) with original ProMisE classification, with prognostic value maintained, representing an acceptable alternative for clinical practice. Careful consideration of reasons for discordance and knowledge of how to correctly assign multiple classifier endometrial cancers is imperative for implementation.

Jamieson A ，Grube M ，Kommoss F ，Lum A ，Leung S ，Chiu D ，Henderson G ，Heitz F ，Heublein S ，Zeimet AG ，Hasenburg A ，Diebold J ，Walter C ，Staebler A ，Reynolds J ，Lapuk A ，McConechy MK ，Huntsman DG ，Gilks B ，Kommoss S ，McAlpine JN ... -  《-》

Can a Liquid Biopsy Detect Circulating Tumor DNA With Low-passage Whole-genome Sequencing in Patients With a Sarcoma? A Pilot Evaluation.

A liquid biopsy is a test that evaluates the status of a disease by analyzing a sample of bodily fluid, most commonly blood. In recent years, there has been progress in the development and clinical application of liquid biopsy methods to identify blood-based, tumor-specific biomarkers for many cancer types. However, the implementation of these technologies to aid in the treatment of patients who have a sarcoma remains behind other fields of cancer medicine. For this study, we chose to evaluate a sarcoma liquid biopsy based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). All human beings have normal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) circulating in the blood. In contrast with cfDNA, ctDNA is genetic material present in the blood stream that is derived from a tumor. ctDNA carries the unique genomic fingerprint of the tumor with changes that are not present in normal circulating cfDNA. A successful ctDNA liquid biopsy must be able to target these tumor-specific genetic alterations. For instance, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are common in lung cancers, and ctDNA liquid biopsies are currently in clinical use to evaluate the status of disease in patients who have a lung cancer by detecting EGFR mutations in the blood. As opposed to many carcinomas, sarcomas do not have common recurrent mutations that could serve as the foundation to a ctDNA liquid biopsy. However, many sarcomas have structural changes to their chromosomes, including gains and losses of portions or entire chromosomes, known as copy number alterations (CNAs), that could serve as a target for a ctDNA liquid biopsy. Murine double minute 2 (MDM2) amplification in select lipomatous tumors or parosteal osteosarcoma is an example of a CNA due to the presence of extra copies of a segment of the long arm of chromosome 12. Since a majority of sarcomas demonstrate a complex karyotype with numerous CNAs, a blood-based liquid biopsy strategy that searches for these CNAs may be able to detect the presence of sarcoma ctDNA. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is a next-generation sequencing technique that evaluates the entire genome. The depth of coverage of WGS refers to how detailed the sequencing is, like higher versus lower power on a microscope. WGS can be performed with high-depth sequencing (that is, > 60×), which can detect individual point mutations, or low-depth sequencing (that is, 0.1× to 5×), referred to as low-passage whole-genome sequencing (LP-WGS), which may not detect individual mutations but can detect structural chromosomal changes including gains and losses (that is, CNAs). While similar strategies have shown favorable early results for specific sarcoma subtypes, LP-WGS has not been evaluated for applicability to the broader population of patients who have a sarcoma. Does an LP-WGS liquid biopsy evaluating for CNAs detect ctDNA in plasma samples from patients who have sarcomas representing a variety of histologic subtypes? This was a retrospective study conducted at a community-based, tertiary referral center. Nine paired (plasma and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] tissue) and four unpaired (plasma) specimens from patients who had a sarcoma were obtained from a commercial biospecimen bank. Three control specimens from individuals who did not have cancer were also obtained. The paired and unpaired specimens from patients who had a sarcoma represented a variety of sarcoma histologic subtypes. cfDNA was extracted, amplified, and quantified. Libraries were prepared, and LP-WGS was performed using a NextSeq 500 next-generation sequencing machine at a low depth of sequencing coverage (∼1×). The ichorCNA bioinformatics algorithm, which was designed to detect CNAs from low-depth genomic sequencing data, was used to analyze the data. In contrast with the gold standard for diagnosis in the form of histopathologic analysis of a tissue sample, this test does not discriminate between sarcoma subtypes but detects the presence of tumor-derived CNAs within the ctDNA in the blood that should not be present in a patient who does not have cancer. The liquid biopsy was positive for the detection of cancer if the ichorCNA algorithm detected the presence of ctDNA. The algorithm was also used to quantitatively estimate the percent ctDNA within the cfDNA. The concentration of ctDNA was then calculated from the percent ctDNA relative to the total concentration of cfDNA. The CNAs of the paired FFPE tissue and plasma samples were graphically visualized using aCNViewer software. This LP-WGS liquid biopsy detected ctDNA in 9 of 13 of the plasma specimens from patients with a sarcoma. The other four samples from patients with a sarcoma and all serum specimens from patients without cancer had no detectable ctDNA. Of those 9 patients with positive liquid biopsy results, the percent ctDNA ranged from 6% to 11%, and calculated ctDNA quantities were 0.04 to 5.6 ng/mL, which are levels to be expected when ctDNA is detectable. In this small pilot study, we were able to detect sarcoma ctDNA with an LP-WGS liquid biopsy searching for CNAs in the plasma of most patients who had a sarcoma representing a variety of histologic subtypes. These results suggest that an LP-WGS liquid biopsy evaluating for CNAs to identify ctDNA may be more broadly applicable to the population of patients who have a sarcoma than previously reported in studies focusing on specific subtypes. Large prospective clinical trials that gather samples at multiple time points during the process of diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance will be needed to further assess whether this technique can be clinically useful. At our institution, we are in the process of developing a large prospective clinical trial for this purpose.

Anderson CJ ，Yang H ，Parsons J ，Ahrens WA ，Jagosky MH ，Hsu JH ，Patt JC ，Kneisl JS ，Steuerwald NM ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that affects millions of people worldwide. The disease course varies greatly across individuals and many disease-modifying treatments with different safety and efficacy profiles have been developed recently. Prognostic models evaluated and shown to be valid in different settings have the potential to support people with MS and their physicians during the decision-making process for treatment or disease/life management, allow stratified and more precise interpretation of interventional trials, and provide insights into disease mechanisms. Many researchers have turned to prognostic models to help predict clinical outcomes in people with MS; however, to our knowledge, no widely accepted prognostic model for MS is being used in clinical practice yet. To identify and summarise multivariable prognostic models, and their validation studies for quantifying the risk of clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity in adults with MS. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1996 until July 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and references citing the included studies. We included all statistically developed multivariable prognostic models aiming to predict clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity, as measured by disability, relapse, conversion to definite MS, conversion to progressive MS, or a composite of these in adult individuals with MS. We also included any studies evaluating the performance of (i.e. validating) these models. There were no restrictions based on language, data source, timing of prognostication, or timing of outcome. Pairs of review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data using a piloted form based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), assessed risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and assessed reporting deficiencies based on the checklist items in Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). The characteristics of the included models and their validations are described narratively. We planned to meta-analyse the discrimination and calibration of models with at least three external validations outside the model development study but no model met this criterion. We summarised between-study heterogeneity narratively but again could not perform the planned meta-regression. We included 57 studies, from which we identified 75 model developments, 15 external validations corresponding to only 12 (16%) of the models, and six author-reported validations. Only two models were externally validated multiple times. None of the identified external validations were performed by researchers independent of those that developed the model. The outcome was related to disease progression in 39 (41%), relapses in 8 (8%), conversion to definite MS in 17 (18%), and conversion to progressive MS in 27 (28%) of the 96 models or validations. The disease and treatment-related characteristics of included participants, and definitions of considered predictors and outcome, were highly heterogeneous amongst the studies. Based on the publication year, we observed an increase in the percent of participants on treatment, diversification of the diagnostic criteria used, an increase in consideration of biomarkers or treatment as predictors, and increased use of machine learning methods over time. Usability and reproducibility All identified models contained at least one predictor requiring the skills of a medical specialist for measurement or assessment. Most of the models (44; 59%) contained predictors that require specialist equipment likely to be absent from primary care or standard hospital settings. Over half (52%) of the developed models were not accompanied by model coefficients, tools, or instructions, which hinders their application, independent validation or reproduction. The data used in model developments were made publicly available or reported to be available on request only in a few studies (two and six, respectively). Risk of bias We rated all but one of the model developments or validations as having high overall risk of bias. The main reason for this was the statistical methods used for the development or evaluation of prognostic models; we rated all but two of the included model developments or validations as having high risk of bias in the analysis domain. None of the model developments that were externally validated or these models' external validations had low risk of bias. There were concerns related to applicability of the models to our research question in over one-third (38%) of the models or their validations. Reporting deficiencies Reporting was poor overall and there was no observable increase in the quality of reporting over time. The items that were unclearly reported or not reported at all for most of the included models or validations were related to sample size justification, blinding of outcome assessors, details of the full model or how to obtain predictions from it, amount of missing data, and treatments received by the participants. Reporting of preferred model performance measures of discrimination and calibration was suboptimal. The current evidence is not sufficient for recommending the use of any of the published prognostic prediction models for people with MS in clinical routine today due to lack of independent external validations. The MS prognostic research community should adhere to the current reporting and methodological guidelines and conduct many more state-of-the-art external validation studies for the existing or newly developed models.

Reeve K ，On BI ，Havla J ，Burns J ，Gosteli-Peter MA ，Alabsawi A ，Alayash Z ，Götschi A ，Seibold H ，Mansmann U ，Held U ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》