KRAS-mutation incidence and prognostic value are metastatic site-specific in lung adenocarcinoma: poor prognosis in patients with KRAS-mutation and bone metastasis

Current guidelines lack comprehensive information on the metastatic site-specific role of KRAS mutation in lung adenocarcinoma (LADC). We investigated the effect of KRAS mutation on overall survival (OS) in this setting. In our retrospective study, 500 consecutive Caucasian metastatic LADC patients with known KRAS mutational status were analyzed after excluding 32 patients with EGFR mutations. KRAS mutation incidence was 28.6%. The most frequent metastatic sites were lung (45.6%), bone (26.2%), adrenal gland (17.4%), brain (16.8%), pleura (15.6%) and liver (11%). Patients with intrapulmonary metastasis had significantly increased KRAS mutation frequency compared to those with extrapulmonary metastases (35% vs 26.5%, p=0.0125). In contrast, pleural dissemination and liver involvement were associated with significantly decreased KRAS mutation incidence (vs all other metastatic sites; 17% (p<0.001) and 16% (p=0.02) vs 33%, respectively). Strikingly, we found a significant prognostic effect of KRAS status only in the bone metastatic subcohort (KRAS-wild-type vs KRAS-mutant; median OS 9.7v 3.7 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.79; p =0.003). Our study suggests that KRAS mutation frequency in LADC patients shows a metastatic site dependent variation and, moreover, that the presence of KRAS mutation is associated with significantly worse outcome in bone metastatic cases.(VLID)469049

Small group interventions for children aged 5-9 years old with mathematical learning difficulties

The research related to educational interventions for children with mathematical learning difficulties has been increasing steadily. In this chapter I focus on small group interventions for children aged 5–9 years old with learning difficulties in mathematics. First, I describe the important issues: (1) who are the children having problems in mathematics, (2) what do we mean with (special) education intervention, (3) what does Responsiveness to Intervention mean, and (4) what intervention features have been found effective for children aged 5–9 years with learning difficulties in mathematics. Then, I describe the research and developmental work that has been done in Finland on designing web services which provide evidence-based information and materials for educators. The two web services are LukiMat and ThinkMath. Together, these two web services include the knowledge base, assessment batteries and intervention tools to be used in relation to mathematical learning difficulties in the age group 5–9 years.Peer reviewe

A prospective prostate cancer screening programme for men with pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (IMPACT): initial results from an international prospective study.

Funder: Victorian Cancer AgencyFunder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Cancer Research UKFunder: Cancer Council TasmaniaFunder: Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIFunder: Cancer AustraliaFunder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el CáncerFunder: Cancer Council South AustraliaFunder: Swedish Cancer SocietyFunder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Institut Català de la SalutFunder: Cancer Council VictoriaFunder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of AustraliaFunder: National Institutes of HealthBACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer

NSCLC molecular testing in Central and Eastern European countries

Background: The introduction of targeted treatments for subsets of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has highlighted the importance of accurate molecular diagnosis to determine if an actionable genetic alteration is present. Few data are available for Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) on mutation rates, testing rates, and compliance with testing guidelines. Methods: A questionnaire about molecular testing and NSCLC management was distributed to relevant specialists in nine CEE countries, and pathologists were asked to provide the results of EGFR and ALK testing over a 1-year period. Results: A very high proportion of lung cancer cases are confirmed histologically/cytologically (75-100%), and molecular testing of NSCLC samples has been established in all evaluated CEE countries in 2014. Most countries follow national or international guidelines on which patients to test for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements. In most centers at that time, testing was undertaken on request of the clinician rather than on the preferred reflex basis. Immunohistochemistry, followed by fluorescent in situ hybridization confirmation of positive cases, has been widely adopted for ALK testing in the region. Limited reimbursement is a significant barrier to molecular testing in the region and a disincentive to reflex testing. Multidisciplinary tumor boards are established in most of the countries and centers, with 75-100% of cases being discussed at a multidisciplinary tumor board at specialized centers. Conclusions: Molecular testing is established throughout the CEE region, but improved and unbiased reimbursement remains a major challenge for the future. Increasing the number of patients reviewed by multidisciplinary boards outside of major centers and access to targeted therapy based on the result of molecular testing are other major challenges

Can learning health systems help organisations deliver personalised care?

There is increasing international policy and clinical interest in developing learning health systems and delivering precision medicine, which it is hoped will help reduce variation in the quality and safety of care, improve efficiency, and lead to increasing the personalisation of healthcare. Although reliant on similar policies, informatics tools, and data science and implementation research capabilities, these two major initiatives have thus far largely progressed in parallel. In this opinion piece, we argue that they should be considered as complementary, synergistic initiatives whereby the creation of learning health systems infrastructure can support and catalyse the delivery of precision medicine that maximises the benefits and minimises the risks associated with treatments for individual patients. We illustrate this synergy by considering the example of treatments for asthma, which is now recognised as an umbrella term for a heterogeneous group of related conditions