Association of PCOA scores; GPA; and other factors with NAPLEX Pass Rate: A cross sectional retrospective evaluation at one College of Pharmacy

Class of 2020 Abstract, Report and PosterSpecific Aims: To identify certain variables as predictors for overall NAPLEX passing scores for this University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Class of 2018 cohort. By the end of the study, associations between GPA, PCOA scores, and other factors should lead to a predictive tool for accessing a student's future success (or failure) on the NAPLEX. Methods: Data was collected via University of Arizona College of Pharmacy admissions data along with release of MPJE and NAPLEX scores as well. The data was compiled together without demographic data to ensure anonymity of each participants' records. Main Results: Stepwise logistic regression showed that the PCOA scaled score was a predictor for NAPLEX outcome, estimated parameter value: -0.0457 (p=0.0015). There was a significant difference in the pre-admissions cumulative GPA between the group passing the NAPLEX (mean GPA=3.61, SD=0.28) and the group that did not pass (mean GPA=3.30, SD=0.15) using a t-test statistic (p <.0001). The differences between PCOA (p <.0001) and composite PCAT scores (p=0.0286) also differed significantly between those who passed and those who failed the NAPLEX. Moderate, statistically significant correlations were found between NAPLEX scaled score with MPJE scaled score (r=0.59, p <.0001) and PCOA scaled score (r=0.51, p <.0001). Conclusions: The PCOA test and pre-admissions GPA are good potential predictors for determining a student's outcome (pass or fail) on the NAPLEX test.This item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, [email protected]

DNA Mismatch Repair Proteins and BRAF V600E Detection by Immunohistochemistry in Colorectal Cancer Demonstrates Concordance with Next Generation Sequencing

Background and Aims: Multiple laboratory methods are used to screen patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for mismatch repair (MMR) protein deficiency to identify possible Lynch syndrome patients. The goal of this study was to compare the agreement between ready-to-use immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays for MLH-1, PMS-2, MSH-2, MSH-6, and mutated BRAF at V600E and molecular methods in CRC cases. The inclusion of the BRAF V600E mutation testing is important for the identification of patients with sporadic CRC, as the BRAF V600E mutation is very rarely observed in patients with Lynch syndrome tumors. Methods: CRC cases were analyzed by ColoSeqTM tumor sequencing assay and VENTANA MMR IHC Panel that included anti-MLH1, anti-PMS2, anti-MSH2, anti-MSH6, and anti-BRAF V600E antibodies. Additionally, CRC cases with MLH1 IHC loss were evaluated for MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. Results: One hundred and eighteen cases were analyzed. The overall percent agreement (OPA) for each evaluated marker status compared to next-generation sequencing (NGS) exceeded 96%. Twenty-three cases were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation by IHC and NGS, and twenty cases showed loss of MLH1 protein and were positive for MLH1 hypermethylation. Samples with loss of MMR protein expression by IHC demonstrated genetic and/or epigenetic alterations that were consistent with the observed protein expression patterns. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that ready-to-use IHC assays can correctly identify the loss of MMR proteins and the presence of mutated BRAF V600E protein, supporting the utility of the VENTANA MMR IHC Panel as an aid to stratify patients with sporadic CRC vs. potential Lynch syndrome