Implementation and Outcomes of a Molecular Tumor Board at Herbert-Herman Cancer Center, Sparrow Hospital

Impact of a Clinical Genomics Program on Trial Accrual for Targeted Treatments: Practical Approach Overcoming Barriers to Accrual for Underserved Patients

PURPOSE

Clinical trials of novel and targeted agents increasingly require biomarkers for eligibility. Precision oncology continues to evolve, but challenges hamper broad use of molecular profiling (MP) that could increase the number of patients benefiting from targeted therapy. We implemented an integrated clinical genomics program (CGP), including a virtual Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), and examined its impact on MP use and impact on clinical trial accrual in a multisite regional-based cancer system with an emphasis on effects for isolated clinicians.

METHODS

We assessed MP and MTB use from 2010 to 2020 by practice location, physician experience, and patient characteristics. Use of MTB-recommended treatments was assessed. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated for patients with MP versus MP and MTB review.

RESULTS

After CGP implementation, the number of physicians using MP and the number of MP tests increased ≥ 10-fold. The proportion of Hispanic patients with MP was the same as that in the system (both 2%) with marginal differences observed in the proportion of African Americans tested compared with the system population (16% v 19%). Physicians followed MTB treatment recommendations in 74% of cases. Rapid clinical decline was the most common reason why physicians did not follow MTB recommendations. Clinical trial accrual was 15% (669 of 4,459) for patients with MP alone and 28% (94 of 334) with both MP and MTB review. Clinical trial availability and patient out-of-pocket costs affected MP use.

CONCLUSION

Integrating CGP into clinical workflow with decision support tools, trial matching, and management of patient costs led to increased use of MP by physicians with all levels of experience, enhanced clinical trial accrual, and has the potential to reduce disparities in MP.

Impact of Molecular Tumor Board on the Clinical Management of Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards (MTBs) help in interpreting complex genomic data generated by molecular tumor profiling and improve patients' access to targeted therapies. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of our institution's MTB on the clinical management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

This study was conducted at a tertiary cancer center in India. Cases to be discussed in the MTB were identified by molecular pathologists, scientists, or oncologists. On the basis of the clinical data and molecular test reports, a course of clinical management was recommended and made available to the treating oncologist. We determined the proportion of patients who were recommended a change in the clinical management. We also assessed compliance of the treating oncologists with MTB recommendations.

RESULTS

There were 339 discussions for 328 unique patients. The median age of the cohort was 54 years (range 17-87), and the majority of the patients were men (65.1%). Of 339 cases, 133 (39.2%) were recommended continuation of ongoing therapy while the remaining 206 (60.7%) were recommended a change in clinical management. Compliance with MTB recommendations for a change in clinical management was 58.5% (79 of 138 evaluable cases). Compliance and implementation for MTB's recommendation to start a new therapy in 104 evaluable cases were 60.5% and 44.2%, respectively. A total of 248 biopsies had at least one actionable mutation. A total of 646 mutations were identified in the cohort, with EGFR being the most frequently altered gene.

CONCLUSION

MTBs help in interpreting results of molecular tests, understanding the significance of molecular abnormalities, and assessing the benefits of available targeted therapies and clinical trials in the management of patients with targetable genetic alterations.

Clinical and analytical validation of FoundationOne®CDx, a comprehensive genomic profiling assay for solid tumors

FoundationOne^®CDx (F1CDx) is a United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from treatment in accordance with the approved therapeutic product labeling for 28 drug therapies. F1CDx utilizes next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) technology to examine 324 cancer genes in solid tumors. F1CDx reports known and likely pathogenic short variants (SVs), copy number alterations (CNAs), and select rearrangements, as well as complex biomarkers including tumor mutational burden (TMB) and microsatellite instability (MSI), in addition to genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) in ovarian cancer. CGP services can reduce the complexity of biomarker testing, enabling precision medicine to improve treatment decision-making and outcomes for cancer patients, but only if test results are reliable, accurate, and validated clinically and analytically to the highest standard available. The analyses presented herein demonstrate the extensive analytical and clinical validation supporting the F1CDx initial and subsequent FDA approvals to ensure high sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of the data reported. The analytical validation included several in-depth evaluations of F1CDx assay performance including limit of detection (LoD), limit of blank (LoB), precision, and orthogonal concordance for SVs (including base substitutions [SUBs] and insertions/deletions [INDELs]), CNAs (including amplifications and homozygous deletions), genomic rearrangements, and select complex biomarkers. The assay validation of >30,000 test results comprises a considerable and increasing body of evidence that supports the clinical utility of F1CDx to match patients with solid tumors to targeted therapies or immunotherapies based on their tumor’s genomic alterations and biomarkers. F1CDx meets the clinical needs of providers and patients to receive guideline-based biomarker testing, helping them keep pace with a rapidly evolving field of medicine.

Impact of molecular tumour board discussion on targeted therapy allocation in advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Molecular tumour boards (MTB) optimally match oncological therapies to patients with genetic aberrations. Prostate cancer (PCa) is underrepresented in these MTB discussions. This study describes the impact of routine genetic profiling and MTB referral on the outcome of PCa patients in a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

All PCa patients that received next-generation sequencing results and/or were discussed at an MTB between Jan 1, 2017 and Jan 1, 2020 were included. Genetically matched therapies (GMT) in clinical trials or compassionate use were linked to actionable alterations. Response to these agents was retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of the 277 genetically profiled PCa patients, 215 (78%) were discussed in at least one MTB meeting. A GMT was recommended to 102 patients (47%), of which 63 patients (62%) initiated the GMT. The most recommended therapies were PARP inhibitors (n = 74), programmed death-(ligand) 1 inhibitors (n = 21) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 19). Once started, 41.3% had a PFS of ≥6 months, 43.5% a PSA decline ≥50% and 38.5% an objective radiographic response.

CONCLUSION

Recommendation for a GMT is achieved in almost half of the patients with advanced prostate cancer, with GMT initiation leading to durable responses in over 40% of patients. These data justify routine referral of selected PCa patients to MTB's.

Precision medicine-based therapies in advanced colorectal cancer: The University of California San Diego Molecular Tumor Board experience

Treatment for advanced colorectal cancer is often limited by complex molecular profiles, which promote resistance to systemic agents and targeted monotherapies. Recent studies suggest that a personalized, combinatorial approach of matching drugs to tumor alterations may be more effective. We implemented a precision medicine strategy by forming a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, scientists, bioinformaticians and geneticists. The MTB integrated molecular profiling information and patient characteristics to develop N-of-One treatments for 51 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. All patients had metastatic disease and 63% had received ≥3 prior therapy lines. Overall, 34/51 patients (67%) were matched to ≥1 drug recommended by the MTB based on individual tumor characteristics whereas 17/51 (33%) patients received unmatched therapies. Patients who received matched therapy demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.81; P=0.01) and a trend towards higher clinical benefit rates (41% vs. 18% P=0.058) (all multivariate) compared to patients receiving unmatched therapy. The MTB facilitated personalized matching of drugs to tumor characteristics, which was associated with improved progression-free survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Implementation of a molecular tumour board in LATAM: the impact on treatment decisions for patients evaluated at Instituto Alexander Fleming, Argentina

BACKGROUND

The role of the molecular tumour board (MTB) is to recommend personalised therapy for patients with cancer beyond standard-of-care treatment. A comprehensive molecular analysis of the tumour in a molecular pathology laboratory is important for all targeted therapies approaches. Here we report the 1-year experience of the Instituto Alexander Fleming Molecular Tumour Board.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The MTB of the Instituto Alexander Fleming was launched in December 2019 in a monthly meeting. In each interactive monthly session, five cases were presented and discussed by the members. These cases were referred by the treating oncologists. The MTB recommendations were sent to each physician individually, and to the rest of the meeting participants. This was discussed with the patients/families by the treating oncologist. The final decision to choose therapy was left to the treating physicians. Of the 32 patients presented at MTB, 28 (87.5%) had potentially actionable alterations and only 4 (12.5%) had no actionable mutation. Six (19%) patients received a local regulatory agency approved drug recommendation, nine (28%) patients received an off-label approval treatment recommendation and three (9%) patients did not receive the treatment due to access and reimbursement of the drug.

CONCLUSION

In most of the cases evaluated, the MTB was able to provide treatment recommendations based on targetable genetic alterations. Molecular-guided extended personalised patient care is effective for a small but clinically significant proportion of patients in challenging clinical situations. We believe that the implementation of a MTB is feasible in the Latin America (LATAM) region.

Clinical Outcomes of Molecular Tumor Boards: A Systematic Review

We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with molecular tumor board (MTB) review in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes in patients with cancer who were reviewed by an MTB. To be included, studies had to report clinical outcomes, including clinical benefit, response, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed quality with the Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group or the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies depending on the type of study being reviewed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included with a total of 3,328 patients with cancer. All studies included patients without standard-of-care treatment options and usually with multiple prior lines of therapy. In studies reporting response rates, patients receiving MTB-recommended therapy had overall response rates ranging from 0% to 67%. In the only trial powered on clinical outcome and including a control group, the group receiving MTB-recommended therapy had significantly improved rate of progression-free survival compared with those receiving conventional therapy.

CONCLUSION

Although data quality is limited by a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials, MTBs appear to improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Future research should concentrate on prospective trials and standardization of approach and outcomes.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.

Collaborative, Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Cancer Variants Through Virtual Molecular Tumor Boards Informs Local Clinical Practices

PURPOSE

The cancer research community is constantly evolving to better understand tumor biology, disease etiology, risk stratification, and pathways to novel treatments. Yet the clinical cancer genomics field has been hindered by redundant efforts to meaningfully collect and interpret disparate data types from multiple high-throughput modalities and integrate into clinical care processes. Bespoke data models, knowledgebases, and one-off customized resources for data analysis often lack adequate governance and quality control needed for these resources to be clinical grade. Many informatics efforts focused on genomic interpretation resources for neoplasms are underway to support data collection, deposition, curation, harmonization, integration, and analytics to support case review and treatment planning.

METHODS

In this review, we evaluate and summarize the landscape of available tools, resources, and evidence used in the evaluation of somatic and germline tumor variants within the context of molecular tumor boards.

RESULTS

Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are collaborative efforts of multidisciplinary cancer experts equipped with genomic interpretation resources to aid in the delivery of accurate and timely clinical interpretations of complex genomic results for each patient, within an institution or hospital network. Virtual MTBs (VMTBs) provide an online forum for collaborative governance, provenance, and information sharing between experts outside a given hospital network with the potential to enhance MTB discussions. Knowledge sharing in VMTBs and communication with guideline-developing organizations can lead to progress evidenced by data harmonization across resources, crowd-sourced and expert-curated genomic assertions, and a more informed and explainable usage of artificial intelligence.

CONCLUSION

Advances in cancer genomics interpretation aid in better patient and disease classification, more streamlined identification of relevant literature, and a more thorough review of available treatments and predicted patient outcomes.

Molecular Profiling in Drug Development: Paving a Way Forward

As researchers learn more about tumor biology and the molecular mechanisms involved in tumorigenesis, metastasis, and tumor evolution, clinical trials are growing more complex and patient selection for clinical trials is becoming more specific. Rather than exploit certain phenotypic characteristics of tumor cells (e.g., rapid cell division and uncontrolled cell growth), pharmaceuticals targeting the genotypic causes of tumorigenesis are emerging. The sequencing of the human genome, advances in chemical techniques, and increased efficiency in drug target identification have changed the way drugs are developed. Now, more precise drugs targeting specific mutations within individual genes are being used to treat narrow patient populations harboring these specific driver mutations, often with greater efficacy and lower toxicity than traditional chemotherapeutic agents. This precision in drug development relies not only on the ability to design exquisitely specific pharmaceuticals but also to identify (with the same level of precision) the patients who are most likely to respond to those therapies. Robust screening techniques and adequate molecular oncology education are required to match the appropriate patient to precision therapies, and these same screening techniques provide the data necessary to advance to the next generation of drug development.