Antibodies to Both Ro52 and Ro60 for Identifying Sjögren's Syndrome Patients Best Suited for Clinical Trials of Disease-Modifying Therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 serologic profiles as markers of clinically relevant phenotypic subsets of patients with Sjögren's syndrome (SS). METHODS: From a cohort of 839 consecutive patients with suspected or established SS seen in our multidisciplinary SS center, we compared the association of key phenotypic features in 390 patients who fulfilled SS classification criteria and in the parent cohort, stratifed by the presence of both anti-Ro60 and anti-Ro52, anti-Ro60 alone, and anti-Ro52 alone. RESULTS: The SS cohort included 227 patients (58%) with both anti-Ro60 and anti-Ro52, 65 (17%) with anti-Ro60 alone, 58 (15%) with anti-Ro52 alone, and 40 (10%) with neither antibody. Those with both anti-Ro60 and anti-Ro52 had a significantly increased prevalence of abnormal ocular surface staining, focal lymphocytic sialadenitis with focus score ≥1, antinuclear antibody ≥1:320, anti-SSB/La, rheumatoid factor, and IgG ≥15.6 gm/liter (P < 0.0016 for all). The groups with isolated anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 were equivalent to each other in their phenotypic associations, except for rheumatoid factor, which was higher in the anti-Ro52 alone group. The associations of these Ro antibody serologic profiles were similar in the parent cohort, except for additional associations with salivary gland enlargement and parotid gland ultrasound score. CONCLUSION: SS patients with both anti-Ro60 and anti-Ro52 antibodies are distinguished by a higher prevalence of markers of B-cell hyperactivity and glandular inflammation. Antibody reactivity to both Ro60 and Ro52 may thus serve as an important inclusion criterion for SS patients in clinical trials where the therapeutic agent targets pathways mediating these pathogenic abnormalities.

Gamma Imaging-Guided Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy: Initial Clinical Experience.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate our initial experience with gamma imaging-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in women with abnormal findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), also known as molecular breast imaging (MBI), between April 2011 and October 2015 found 117 nonpalpable mammographically and sonographically occult lesions for which gamma imaging-guided biopsies were recommended. Biopsy was performed with a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted device with subsequent placement of a titanium biopsy site marker. Medical records and pathologic findings were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 117 biopsies recommended, 104 were successful and 13 were canceled. Of the 104 performed biopsies, 32 (30.8%) had abnormal pathologic findings. Of those 32 biopsies, nine (28.1%) found invasive cancers, six (18.8%) found ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 17 (53.1%) found high-risk lesions. Of the 17 high-risk lesions, there were three (17.6%) lobular carcinomas in situ, five (29.4%) atypical ductal hyperplasias, two (11.8%) atypical lobular hyperplasias, one (5.9%) flat epithelial atypia, and six (35.3%) papillomas. Two cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia were upgraded to DCIS at surgery. The overall cancer detection rate for gamma imaging-guided biopsy was 16.3%. In this study, gamma imaging-guided biopsy had a positive predictive value of total successful biopsies of 16.3% for cancer and 30.8% for cancer and high-risk lesions. CONCLUSION: Gamma imaging-guided biopsy is a viable approach to sampling BSGI-MBI-detected lesions without sonographic or mammographic correlate. Our results compare favorably to those reported for MRI-guided biopsy.