Rashes in immunocompromised cancer patients. The diagnostic yield of skin biopsy and its effects on therapy

1993 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Chren
2015 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Merkler ◽  
Babak B. Navi ◽  
Samuel Singer ◽  
Natalie T. Cheng ◽  
Jacqueline B. Stone ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1584-1584
Author(s):  
Shan Yang ◽  
Scott T. Michalski ◽  
Jennifer Holle ◽  
Tali Ekstein ◽  
Erin O'Leary ◽  
...  

1584 Background: Multi-gene testing for cancer predisposition is increasingly utilized in clinical care. Although the diagnostic yield and management implications of such testing in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer are relatively well understood, data for other cancer types are still emerging. In this study we retrospectively examined 39,147 patients referred for hereditary cancer syndrome testing for pathogenic germline variants in 80 cancer risk genes, focusing on those patients with renal, sarcoma, paraganglioma, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers. Methods: Test results and personal/family history were extracted from a sequential series of de-identified clinical test reports. Data for genes not clinically ordered were analyzed under an IRB approved research protocol. Common low penetrance risk alleles were excluded. Results: Overall, 14.3% (5,589) of patients carried germline pathogenic mutations in 80 cancer risk genes. Of the 949 patients with renal cancer 20% (190) were positive, and 44% of these findings were “unexpected”, meaning they appeared in genes that are not commonly requisitioned in renal cancer patients. Of the 423 sarcoma patients, 16% (68) had positive findings, 45% of which were “unexpected”. For both cancer types, greater than 90% of these “unexpected” findings were in genes with published management recommendations. Similar results were observed in melanoma, paraganglioma and pancreatic cancer patients. A second or third pathogenic variant, many of which were also “unexpected”, were found in 3.6% of positive cases. Conclusions: In this series of patients we estimate almost 12% of pathogenic variants across cancer indications are “unexpected”. These data suggest many actionable pathogenic variants are being missed due to adherence to overly restrictive, narrowly constructed tumor-specific panels. Clinicians should expand the scope of their test panels in order to capture variants with the potential to impact patients and their family members by informing implementation of established management guidelines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1092-1092
Author(s):  
Stephen E Lincoln ◽  
Kingshuk Das ◽  
Nhu Ngo ◽  
Sarah M. Nielsen ◽  
Scott T. Michalski ◽  
...  

1092 Background: Germline genetic testing is recommended for breast cancer patients with specific presentations or family histories. Separately, tumor DNA sequencing is increasingly used to inform therapy, most often in patients with advanced disease. Recent NCCN and ESMO guidelines recommend germline testing following somatic testing, under specific circumstances and for specific genes. We examined the utility of germline findings in patients referred for both test modalities. Methods: We reviewed somatic and germline mutations in a consecutive series of patients who: (a) had a current or previous breast cancer diagnosis, (b) were referred for germline testing, and (c) previously received tumor sequencing. Diverse reasons for germline testing included: a tumor finding of potential germline origin, treatment or surgical planning, personal or family history, and patient concern. Results: 227 patients met study criteria of whom 88 (39%) harbored a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) in a high or moderate risk cancer predisposition gene. Mutations in certain genes were most likely to be of germline origin, and most PGVs were potentially actionable (Table). 13% of PGVs were not reported by tumor tests as either germline or somatic findings, usually a result of tumor test limitations. Of note, 27 of the patients with PGVs (31%) had these variants uncovered only after presenting with a second, possibly preventable, malignancy. Conclusions: Germline testing following tumor sequencing often yielded findings that may impact care. Indeed, the 39% PGV rate we observed suggests that such testing may be underutilized. We observed actionable PGVs missed by somatic tests, PGVs uncovered in patients’ second malignancies, and PGVs not within germline reflex testing criteria. These results reinforce the utility of germline testing separate from somatic testing in appropriate patients. [Table: see text]


1998 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Miller ◽  
M. Shevell ◽  
K. Silver ◽  
M. Kramer

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
Haddad , Rakan M. ◽  
Al-Nadi , Khaled M. ◽  
Khasawneh , Hayat ◽  
Kaabneh , Awatef ◽  
Khasawneh , Raja M. ◽  
...  

Cancer ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 117 (17) ◽  
pp. 4041-4048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled M. Elsayes ◽  
James H. Ellis ◽  
Tohamy Elkhouly ◽  
Justin M. Ream ◽  
Michyla Bowerson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1518-1518
Author(s):  
Saud H Aldubayan ◽  
Jake Conway ◽  
Leora Witkowski ◽  
Eric Kofman ◽  
Brendan Reardon ◽  
...  

1518 Background: Germline genetic analysis is an essential tool for implementing precision cancer prevention and treatment. However, only a small fraction of cancer patients, even those with features suggestive of a cancer-predisposition syndrome, have detectable pathogenic germline events, which may in part reflect incomplete pathogenic variant detection by current gold-standard methods. Here, we leveraged deep learning approaches to expand the diagnostic utility of genetic analysis in cancer patients. Methods: Systematic analysis of the detection rate of pathogenic cancer-predisposition variants using the standard clinical variant detection method and a deep learning approach in germline whole-exome sequencing data of 2367 cancer patients (n = 1072 prostate cancer, 1295 melanoma). Results: Of 1072 prostate cancer patients, deep learning variant detection identified 16 additional prostate cancer patients with clinically actionable pathogenic cancer-predisposition variants that went undetected by the gold-standard method (198 vs. 182), yielding higher sensitivity (94.7% vs. 87.1%), specificity (64.0% vs. 36.0%), positive predictive value (95.7% vs. 91.9%), and negative predictive value (59.3% vs. 25.0%). Similarly, germline genetic analysis of 1295 melanoma patients showed that, compared with the standard method, deep learning detected 19 additional patients with validated pathogenic variants (93 vs. 74) with fewer false-positive calls (78 vs. 135) leading to a higher diagnostic yield. Collectively, deep learning identified one additional patient with a pathogenic cancer-risk variant, that went undetected by the standard method, for every 52 to 67 cancer patients undergoing germline analysis. Superior performance of deep learning, for detecting putative loss-of-function variants, was also seen across 5197 clinically relevant Mendelian genes in these cohorts. Conclusions: The gold-standard germline variant detection method, universally used in clinical and research settings, has significant limitations for identifying clinically relevant pathogenic disease-causing variants. We determined that deep learning approaches have a clinically significant increase in the diagnostic yield across commonly examined Mendelian gene sets.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S486-S486
Author(s):  
Niyati Jakharia ◽  
Kristen Stafford ◽  
David J Riedel

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document