Muscle biopsy in combination with myositis-specific autoantibodies aids prediction of outcomes in juvenile dermatomyositis

ObjectiveJuvenile dermatomyositis (DM) is a rare and severe autoimmune condition characterized by rash and proximal muscle weakness. While some patients respond to standard treatment, others do not. This study was carried out to investigate whether histopathologic findings and myositis‐specific autoantibodies (MSAs) have prognostic significance in juvenile DM.MethodsMuscle biopsy samples (n = 101) from patients in the UK Juvenile Dermatomyositis Cohort and Biomarker Study were stained, analyzed, and scored for severity of histopathologic features. In addition, autoantibodies were measured in the serum or plasma of patients (n = 90) and longitudinal clinical data were collected (median duration of follow‐up 4.9 years). Long‐term treatment status (on or off medication over time) was modeled using generalized estimating equations.ResultsMuscle biopsy scores differed according to MSA subgroup. When the effects of MSA subgroup were accounted for, increased severity of muscle histopathologic features was predictive of an increased risk of remaining on treatment over time: for the global pathology score (histopathologist's visual analog scale [hVAS] score), 1.48‐fold higher odds (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.12–1.96; P = 0.0058), and for the total biopsy score (determined with the standardized score tool), 1.10‐fold higher odds (95% CI 1.01–1.21; P = 0.038). A protective effect was identified in patients with anti–Mi‐2 autoantibodies, in whom the odds of remaining on treatment were 7.06‐fold lower (95% CI 1.41–35.36; P = 0.018) despite muscle biopsy scores indicating more severe disease. In patients with anti–nuclear matrix protein 2 autoantibodies, anti–transcription intermediary factor 1γ autoantibodies, or no detectable autoantibody, increased histopathologic severity alone, without adjustment for the effect of MSA subtype, was predictive of the risk of remaining on treatment: for the hVAS global pathology score, 1.61‐fold higher odds (95% CI 1.16–2.22; P = 0.004), and for the total biopsy score, 1.13‐fold higher odds (95% CI 1.03–1.24; P = 0.013).ConclusionHistopathologic severity, in combination with MSA subtype, is predictive of the risk of remaining on treatment in patients with juvenile DM and may be useful for discussing probable treatment length with parents and patients. Understanding these associations may identify patients at greater risk of severe disease

DNA methylation-based profiling for paediatric CNS tumour diagnosis and treatment: a population-based study

Background: marked variation exists in the use of genomic data in tumour diagnosis, and optimal integration with conventional diagnostic technology remains uncertain despite several studies reporting improved diagnostic accuracy, selection for targeted treatments, and stratification for trials. Our aim was to assess the added value of molecular profiling in routine clinical practice and the impact on conventional and experimental treatments.Methods: this population-based study assessed the diagnostic and clinical use of DNA methylation-based profiling in childhood CNS tumours using two large national cohorts in the UK. In the diagnostic cohort—which included routinely diagnosed CNS tumours between Sept 1, 2016, and Sept 1, 2018—we assessed how the methylation profile altered or refined diagnosis in routine clinical practice and estimated how this would affect standard patient management. For the archival cohort of diagnostically difficult cases, we established how many cases could be solved using modern standard pathology, how many could only be solved using the methylation profile, and how many remained unsolvable.Findings: of 484 patients younger than 20 years with CNS tumours, 306 had DNA methylation arrays requested by the neuropathologist and were included in the diagnostic cohort. Molecular profiling added a unique contribution to clinical diagnosis in 107 (35%; 95% CI 30–40) of 306 cases in routine diagnostic practice—providing additional molecular subtyping data in 99 cases, amended the final diagnosis in five cases, and making potentially significant predictions in three cases. We estimated that it could change conventional management in 11 (4%; 95% CI 2–6) of 306 patients. Among 195 historically difficult-to-diagnose tumours in the archival cohort, 99 (51%) could be diagnosed using standard methods, with the addition of methylation profiling solving a further 34 (17%) cases. The remaining 62 (32%) cases were unresolved despite specialist pathology and methylation profiling.Interpretation: together, these data provide estimates of the impact that could be expected from routine implementation of genomic profiling into clinical practice, and indicate limitations where additional techniques will be required. We conclude that DNA methylation arrays are a useful diagnostic adjunct for childhood CNS tumours