Intraclonal heterogeneity and distinct molecular mechanisms characterize the development of t(4;14) and t(11;14) myeloma.

We have used whole exome sequencing to compare a group of presentation t(4;14) with t(11;14) cases of myeloma to define the mutational landscape. Each case was characterized by a median of 24.5 exonic nonsynonymous single-nucleotide variations, and there was a consistently higher number of mutations in the t(4;14) group, but this number did not reach statistical significance. We show that the transition and transversion rates in the 2 subgroups are similar, suggesting that there was no specific mechanism leading to mutation differentiating the 2 groups. Only 3% of mutations were seen in both groups, and recurrently mutated genes include NRAS, KRAS, BRAF, and DIS3 as well as DNAH5, a member of the axonemal dynein family. The pattern of mutation in each group was distinct, with the t(4;14) group being characterized by deregulation of chromatin organization, actin filament, and microfilament movement. Recurrent RAS pathway mutations identified subclonal heterogeneity at a mutational level in both groups, with mutations being present as either dominant or minor subclones. The presence of subclonal diversity was confirmed at a single-cell level using other tumor-acquired mutations. These results are consistent with a distinct molecular pathogenesis underlying each subgroup and have important impacts on targeted treatment strategies. The Medical Research Council Myeloma IX trial is registered under ISRCTN68454111.

Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research.
Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical
appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy
studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here
we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every
report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of
bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such,
STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy
studies.