Impact of an NCCN-Compliant Multidisciplinary Conference on Treatment Decisions for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to investigate the impact of an NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference on treatment decisions of patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review of our quality assurance localized prostate cancer database was performed. All patients with localized prostate cancer who sought a second opinion at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center between 2009 and 2019 were presented to the multidisciplinary Localized Prostate Cancer Conference (LPCC) that includes urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and patient advocates. Multivariable regression models were fit to evaluate variables associated with concordance between community recommendations, LPCC recommendations, and treatment received by patients. RESULTS: A total of 1,164 patients were identified, of whom 26% had NCCN very low-/low-risk, 27% had favorable intermediate-risk, 25% had unfavorable intermediate-risk, and 22% had high-/very high-risk prostate cancer. Pathology changed in 11% of patients after genitourinary pathologist review, which caused disease reclassification in 9%. Concordance between community and LPCC recommendations occurred in 78%, with lowest concordance for androgen deprivation therapy (21%) and radiotherapy (53%). Concordance between community recommendations and treatment received occurred in 65%, with lowest concordance for androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy; among those who were recommended radiotherapy as the only option by their community urologist, only 26% received it. Concordance between LPCC recommendations and treatment received occurred in 92%. CONCLUSIONS: Community recommendations differed from the multidisciplinary NCCN-compliant recommendations in 22% of patients, primarily for radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary recommendations matched the treatment received in 92% of patients compared with 65% for community recommendations.

CHRFAM7A: A human specific fusion gene, accounts for the translational gap for cholinergic strategies in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Cholinergic neuronal loss is one of the hallmarks of AD related neurodegeneration; however, preclinical promise of α7 nAChR drugs failed to translate into humans. CHRFAM7A, a uniquely human fusion gene, is a negative regulator of α7 nAChR and was unaccounted for in preclinical models. METHODS: Molecular methods: Function of CHRFAM7A alleles was studied in vitro in two disease relevant phenotypic readouts: electrophysiology and Aß uptake. Genome edited human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) were used as a model system with the human context. Double blind pharmacogenetic study: We performed double-blind pharmacogenetic analysis on the effect of AChEI therapy based on CHRFAM7A carrier status in two paradigms: response to drug initiation and DMT effect. Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) was used as outcome measure. Change in MMSE score from baseline was compared by 2-tailed T-test. Longitudinal analysis of clinical outcome (MMSE) was performed using a fitted general linear model, based on an assumed autoregressive covariance structure. Model independent variables included age, sex, and medication regimen at the time of the first utilized outcome measure (AChEI alone or AChEI plus memantine), APOE4 carrier status (0, 1 or 2 alleles as categorical variables) and CHRFAM7A genotype. FINDINGS: The direct and inverted alleles have distinct phenotypes. Functional CHRFAM7A allele classifies the population as 25% non-carriers and 75% carriers. Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) models α7 nAChR mediated Aß neurotoxicity. Pharmacological readout translates into both first exposure (p = 0.037) and disease modifying effect (p = 0.0048) in two double blind pharmacogenetic studies. INTERPRETATION: CHRFAM7A accounts for the translational gap in cholinergic strategies in AD. Clinical trials not accounting for this uniquely human genetic factor may have rejected drug candidates that would benefit 25% of AD. Reanalyses of the completed trials using this pharmacogenetic paradigm may identify effective therapy.

Clinical significance of prospectively assigned Gleason tertiary pattern 4 in contemporary Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the oncologic impact of prospectively assigned tertiary pattern 4 in contemporary Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 = 6 radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Oncologic outcomes were retrospectively reviewed for 720 consecutive patients from a single National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) center with at least 6 months follow-up after RP for GS3 + 3 = 6 (GS6, N = 222), GS6 with tertiary pattern 4 (GS6t4, N = 62), or GS3 + 4 = 7 (N = 436) prostate cancer, as prospectively graded since 2006 using the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathologists criteria. Preoperative NCCN risk category, RP pathology, progression-free survival (PFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were compared among the GS6, GS6t4, and GS3 + 4 = 7 groups using χ(2) , Kaplan-Meier, and log-rank analyses. RESULTS: The incidence of low NCCN preoperative risk classification for GS6t4 patients (63%) was less than that for GS6 patients (77%) while greater than that for GS3 + 4 = 7 patients (30%, P < 0.001). GS6t4 patients had RP pathologic features which were intermediate in risk between that of GS6 and GS3 + 4 = 7 based on extraprostatic extension (27% vs. 6% vs. 31%, respectively, P < 0.001) and mean percentage of prostate gland involvement (13% vs. 10% vs. 16%, respectively, P < 0.001). With a mean overall follow-up of 42 months, PFS for GS6t4 patients (5-year 85%) was intermediate between that of GS6 (5-year 93%) and GS3 + 4 = 7 (5-year 76%) patients (P < 0.001). The 5-year MFS rate was 100% for GS6 and GS6t4 patients compared to 97% for GS3 + 4 = 7 patients (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the longest follow-up to date for RP patients with prospectively assigned GS6t4 and supports a risk for adverse RP pathology and postoperative disease progression that is intermediate between GS6 and GS3 + 4 = 7. Whether a tertiary pattern 4 in GS6 disease increases the risk of metastasis is uncertain and requires longer term study. Given favorable oncologic outcomes, less stringent postoperative surveillance for both GS6 and GS6t4 patients may be warranted.