During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, multiple variants escaping preexisting immunity emerged, causing reinfections of previously exposed individuals. Here, we used antigenic cartography to analyze patterns of cross-reactivity among 21 variants and 15 groups of human sera obtained after primary infection with 10 different variants or after messenger RNA (mRNA)–1273 or mRNA-1273.351 vaccination. We found antigenic differences among pre-Omicron variants caused by substitutions at spike-protein positions 417, 452, 484, and 501. Quantifying changes in response breadth over time and with additional vaccine doses, our results show the largest increase between 4 weeks and >3 months after a second dose. We found changes in immunodominance of different spike regions, depending on the variant an individual was first exposed to, with implications for variant risk assessment and vaccine-strain selection.

Purpose: Identifying sources of variation in expression microarray data and the effect of variance in gene expression measurements on complex predictive and diagnostic models is essential when translating microarray-based experimental approaches into clinical assays. The technical reproducibility of microarray platforms is well established. Here, we investigate the additional impact of intratumor heterogeneity, a largely unstudied component of variance, on the performance of several microarray-based assays in breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Genome-wide expression profiling was performed on 50 core needle biopsies from 18 breast cancer patients using Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 arrays. Global profiles of expression were characterized using unsupervised clustering methods and variance components models. Array-based measures of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status were compared with immunohistochemistry. The precision of genomic predictors of ER pathway status, recurrence risk, and sensitivity to chemotherapeutics was evaluated by interclass correlation. Results: Global patterns of gene expression demonstrated that intratumor variation was substantially less than the total variation observed across the patient population. Nevertheless, a fraction of genes exhibited significant intratumor heterogeneity in expression. A high degree of reproducibility was observed in single-gene predictors of ER (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.94) and PR expression (ICC = 0.90), and in a multigene predictor of ER pathway activation (ICC = 0.98) with high concordance with immunohistochemistry. Substantial agreement was also observed for multigene signatures of cancer recurrence (ICC = 0.71) and chemotherapeutic sensitivity (ICC = 0.72 and 0.64). Conclusion: Intratumor heterogeneity, although present at the level of individual gene expression, does not preclude precise microarray-based predictions of tumor behavior or clinical outcome in breast cancer patients.

With the emergence of electronic medical records and patient portals, patients are increasingly able to access their health records, including laboratory reports. However, laboratory reports are usually written for clinicians rather than patients, who may not understand much of the information in the report. While several professional guidelines define the content of test reports, there are no guidelines to inform the development of a patient-friendly laboratory report. In this Opinion, we consider patient barriers to comprehension of lab results and suggest several options to reformat the lab report to promote understanding of test results and their significance to patient care, and to reduce patient anxiety and confusion. In particular, patients’ health literacy, genetic literacy, e-health literacy and risk perception may influence their overall understanding of lab results and affect patient care. We propose four options to reformat lab reports: 1) inclusion of an interpretive summary section, 2) a summary letter to accompany the lab report, 3) development of a patient user guide to be provided with the report, and 4) a completely revised patient-friendly report. The complexity of genetic and genomic test reports poses a major challenge to patient understanding that warrants the development of a report more appropriate for patients.

NDRG4 is a largely unstudied member of the predominantly tumor suppressive N-Myc downstream-regulated gene (NDRG) family. Unlike its family members NDRG1-3, which are ubiquitously expressed, NDRG4 is expressed almost exclusively in the heart and brain. Given this tissue-specific expression pattern and the established tumor suppressive roles of the NDRG family in regulating cellular proliferation, we investigated the cellular and biochemical functions of NDRG4 in the context of astrocytes and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cells. We show that, in contrast to NDRG2, NDRG4 expression is elevated in GBM and NDRG4 is required for the viability of primary astrocytes, established GBM cell lines, and both CD133(+) (cancer stem cell (CSC)-enriched) and CD133(-) primary GBM xenograft cells. While NDRG4 overexpression has no effect on cell viability, NDRG4 knockdown causes G(1) cell cycle arrest followed by apoptosis. The initial G(1) arrest is associated with a decrease in cyclin D1 expression and an increase in p27(Kip1) expression, and the subsequent apoptosis is associated with a decrease in the expression of XIAP and survivin. As a result of these effects on cell cycle progression and survival, NDRG4 knockdown decreases the tumorigenic capacity of established GBM cell lines and GBM CSC-enriched cells that have been implanted intracranially into immunocompromised mice. Collectively, these data indicate that NDRG4 is required for cell cycle progression and survival, thereby diverging in function from its tumor suppressive family member NDRG2 in astrocytes and GBM cells.

Donor cell neoplasms are rare complications of treatment regimens that involve stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancies, myelodysplastic processes, or certain genetic or metabolic disorders. We report a case of donor cell leukemia in a pediatric patient with a history of acute myeloid leukemia that manifested as recurrent AML FAB type M5 fourteen months after umbilical cord blood transplantation. Although there was some immunophenotypic drift from the patient's original AML and their posttransplant presentation, the initial pathological impression was of recurrent disease. Bone marrow engraftment analysis by multiplex PCR of short tandem repeat markers performed on the patient's diagnostic specimen showed complete engraftment by donor cells, with a loss of heterozygosity in the donor alleles on chromosome 7. This led to the reinterpretation of this patient's disease as donor-derived leukemia. This interpretation was supported by a routine karyotype and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis showing loss of chromosome 7 and a male (donor) chromosome complement in this female patient. Also noted was a loss of the patient's presenting chromosomal abnormality, t(11;19)(q23;p13). This case highlights the need for close coordination between all aspects of clinical testing for the transplant patient, including molecular engraftment studies, when distinguishing the very common complication of recurrent disease from the exceedingly rare complication of donor cell leukemia.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive genomic profiling to inform targeted therapy selection is a central part of oncology care. However, the volume and complexity of alterations uncovered through genomic profiling make it difficult for oncologists to choose the most appropriate therapy for their patients. Here, we present a solution to this problem, The Molecular Registry of Tumors (MRT) and our Molecular Tumor Board (MTB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: MRT is an internally developed system that aggregates and normalizes genomic profiling results from multiple sources. MRT serves as the foundation for our MTB, a team that reviews genomic results for all Duke University Health System cancer patients, provides notifications for targeted therapies, matches patients to biomarker-driven trials, and monitors the molecular landscape of tumors at our institution. RESULTS: Among 215 patients reviewed by our MTB over a 6-month period, we identified 176 alterations associated with therapeutic sensitivity, 15 resistance alterations, and 51 alterations with potential germline implications. Of reviewed patients, 17% were subsequently treated with a targeted therapy. For 12 molecular therapies approved during the course of this work, we identified between two and 71 patients who could qualify for treatment based on retrospective MRT data. An analysis of 14 biomarker-driven clinical trials found that MRT successfully identified 42% of patients who ultimately enrolled. Finally, an analysis of 4,130 comprehensive genomic profiles from 3,771 patients revealed that the frequency of clinically significant therapeutic alterations varied from approximately 20% to 70% depending on the tumor type and sequencing test used. CONCLUSION: With robust informatics tools, such as MRT, and the right MTB structure, a precision cancer medicine program can be developed, which provides great benefit to providers and patients with cancer.