Gating Harmonization Guidelines for Intracellular Cytokine Staining Validated in Second International Multiconsortia Proficiency Panel Conducted by Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium (CIC/CRI).

Results from the first gating proficiency panel of intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) highlighted the value of using a consensus gating approach to reduce the variability across laboratories in reported %CD8+ or %CD4+ cytokine-positive cells. Based on the data analysis from the first proficiency panel, harmonization guidelines for a consensus gating protocol were proposed. To validate the recommendations from the first panel and to examine factors that were not included in the first panel, a second ICS gating proficiency panel was organized. All participants analyzed the same set of Flow Cytometry Standard (FCS) files using their own gating protocol. An optional learning module was provided to demonstrate how to apply the previously established gating recommendations and harmonization guidelines to actual ICS data files. Eighty-three participants took part in this proficiency panel. The results from this proficiency panel confirmed the harmonization guidelines from the first panel. These recommendations addressed the (1) placement of the cytokine-positive gate, (2) identification of CD4+ CD8+ double-positive T cells, (3) placement of lymphocyte gate, (4) inclusion of dim cells, (5) gate uniformity, and (6) proper adjustment of the biexponential scaling. In addition, based on the results of this proficiency gating panel, two new recommendations were added to expand the harmonization guidelines: (1) inclusion of dump channel marker to gate all live and dump negative cells and (2) backgating to confirm the correct placement of gates across all populations. © 2020 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.

MPD-RC 101 prospective study of reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with myelofibrosis.

From 2007 to 2011, 66 patients with primary myelofibrosis or myelofibrosis (MF) preceded by essential thrombocythemia or polycythemia vera were enrolled into a prospective phase 2 clinical trial of reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT), Myeloproliferative Disorder Research Consortium 101 trial. The study included patients with sibling donors (n = 32) receiving fludarabine/melphalan (FluMel) as a preparative regimen and patients with unrelated donors (n = 34) receiving conditioning with FluMel plus anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG). Patient characteristics in the 2 cohorts were similar. Engraftment occurred in 97% of siblings and 76% of unrelated transplants, whereas secondary graft failure occurred in 3% and 12%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 25 months for patients alive, the overall survival (OS) was 75% in the sibling group (median not reached) and 32% in the unrelated group (median OS: 6 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3, 25) (hazard ratio 3.9, 95% CI: 1.8,8.9) (P < .001). Nonrelapse mortality was 22% in sibling and 59% in unrelated AHSCT. Survival correlated with type of donor, but not with the degree of histocompatibility match, age, or JAK2(V617F) status. In patients with MF with sibling donors, AHSCT is an effective therapy, whereas AHSCT from unrelated donors with FluMel/ATG conditioning led to a high rate of graft failure and limited survival. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00572897.

Single versus multiple primary melanomas: old questions and new answers.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multiple primary melanomas (MPM), mean tumor thickness tends to decrease from the first melanoma to the second melanoma, and prognosis may be improved compared with the prognosis for patients who have a single primary melanoma (SPM). In this study, the authors compared the clinicopathologic features of patients with MPM and SPM to better characterize the differences between these 2 groups and to determine whether or not there is an inherent difference in tumor aggression. METHODS: In total, 788 patients with melanoma who were enrolled prospectively in the Interdisciplinary Melanoma Cooperative Group database from 2002 to 2008 were studied. Patients with SPM and with MPM were compared with regard to clinical and primary melanoma characteristics. RESULTS: Of 788 patients with melanoma, 61 patients (7.7%) had 2 or more primary melanomas. The incidence of developing a second primary melanoma 1 year and 5 years after initial melanoma diagnosis was 4.1% and 8.7%, respectively, and most of the risk accumulated within the first year. The incidence of MPM was greater in patients aged ≥60 years than in those aged ≤60 years. The absence or presence of mitosis and other tumor characteristics did not differ significantly between patients with SPM and patients with MPM (P = .61). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was observed in the presence or absence of mitoses, a marker of tumor proliferation, in SPM and MPM. Because it has been demonstrated that the presence of mitosis is a powerful prognostic marker, the current findings suggested that the tumors behave similarly in patients with SPM and patients with MPM. The authors concluded that differences in tumor thickness and prognosis between SPM and MPM more likely are caused by factors other than tumor biology, such as increased surveillance.

Impact of socioeconomic status and sociodemographic factors on melanoma presentation among ethnic minorities.

Minority melanoma patients have worse survival. In this study, we evaluated the impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors on minority melanoma patients presenting to two different New York City hospitals (one public and one private) managed by the same multidisciplinary team. Sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were retrieved for melanoma patients presenting to Bellevue Hospital Center (BHC), a public hospital, and the New York University Cancer Institute (NYUCI), a private cancer center. Socioeconomic data was obtained from the United States Census Bureau database. The Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests were used to evaluate the associations between race/ethnicity and continuous and categorical variables (e.g. income, stage at presentation), respectively. Minorities comprised 2% (27/1296) of melanoma patients at the NYUCI compared to 42% (50/119) at BHC. Those presenting to the NYUCI were more likely to have a higher median household income (P = 0.05), a higher educational level (P = 0.04), and an earlier stage at presentation (P = 0.02) than those at BHC. NYUCI patients were predominantly covered by commercial insurance (70%), whereas Medicaid (62%) was common among BHC patients. Only 19% of Hispanic patients at BHC chose English as their preferred language. Our data demonstrate that language and health care system factors affect melanoma presentation in minorities.