Tumor mutational burden assessment and standardized bioinformatics approach using custom NGS panels in clinical routine

BACKGROUND

High tumor mutational burden (TMB) was reported to predict the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1, received FDA-approval for the treatment of unresectable/metastatic tumors with high TMB as determined by the FoundationOne®CDx test. It remains to be determined how TMB can also be calculated using other tests.

RESULTS

FFPE/frozen tumor samples from various origins were sequenced in the frame of the Institut Curie (IC) Molecular Tumor Board using an in-house next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel. A TMB calculation method was developed at IC (IC algorithm) and compared to the FoundationOne® (FO) algorithm. Using IC algorithm, an optimal 10% variant allele frequency (VAF) cut-off was established for TMB evaluation on FFPE samples, compared to 5% on frozen samples. The median TMB score for MSS/POLE WT tumors was 8.8 mut/Mb versus 45 mut/Mb for MSI/POLE-mutated tumors. When focusing on MSS/POLE WT tumor samples, the highest median TMB scores were observed in lymphoma, lung, endometrial, and cervical cancers. After biological manual curation of these cases, 21% of them could be reclassified as MSI/POLE tumors and considered as "true TMB high." Higher TMB values were obtained using FO algorithm on FFPE samples compared to IC algorithm (40 mut/Mb [10-3927] versus 8.2 mut/Mb [2.5-897], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We herein propose a TMB calculation method and a bioinformatics tool that is customizable to different NGS panels and sample types. We were not able to retrieve TMB values from FO algorithm using our own algorithm and NGS panel.

Determinants Affecting the Clinical Implementation of a Molecularly Informed Molecular Tumor Board Recommendation: Experience from a Tertiary Cancer Center

Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) converge state-of-the-art next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods with the expertise of an interdisciplinary team consisting of clinicians, pathologists, human geneticists, and molecular biologists to provide molecularly informed guidance in clinical decision making to the treating physician. In the present study, we particularly focused on elucidating the factors impacting on the clinical translation of MTB recommendations, utilizing data generated from gene panel mediated comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 554 patients at the MTB of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen, Germany, during the years 2016 to 2020. A subgroup analysis of cases with available follow-up data (n = 332) revealed 139 cases with a molecularly informed MTB recommendation, which was successfully implemented in the clinic in 44 (31.7%) of these cases. Here, the molecularly matched treatment was applied in 45.4% (n = 20/44) of cases for ≥6 months and in 25% (n = 11/44) of cases for 12 months or longer (median time to treatment failure, TTF: 5 months, min: 1 month, max: 38 months, ongoing at data cut-off). In general, recommendations were preferentially implemented in the clinic when of high (i.e., tier 1) clinical evidence level. In particular, this was the case for MTB recommendations suggesting the application of PARP, PIK3CA, and IDH1/2 inhibitors. The main reason for non-compliance to the MTB recommendation was either the application of non-matched treatment modalities (n = 30)/stable disease (n = 7), or deteriorating patient condition (n = 22)/death of patient (n = 9). In summary, this study provides an insight into the factors affecting the clinical implementation of molecularly informed MTB recommendations, and careful considerations of these factors may guide future processes of clinical decision making.

Challenges and Experiences Extending the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics to a Molecular Tumor Board Platform

In Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), therapy recommendations for cancer patients are discussed. To aid decision-making based on the patient's molecular profile, the research platform cBioPortal was extended based on users' requirements. Additionally, a comprehensive dockerized workflow was developed to support the deployment of cBioPortal and connected services. In this work, we present the challenges and experiences of nearly two years of implementing and deploying an MTB platform based on cBioPortal and compare those to findings of a previous study.

Druggable targets meet oncogenic drivers: opportunities and limitations of target-based classification of tumors and the role of Molecular Tumor Boards

The therapeutic landscape of cancer is changing rapidly due to the growing number of approved drugs capable of targeting specific genetic alterations. This aspect, together with the development of noninvasive methods for the assessment of somatic mutations in the peripheral blood of patients, generated a growing interest toward a new tumor-agnostic classification system based on ‘predictive’ biomarkers. The current review article discusses this emerging alternative approach to the classification of cancer and its implications for the selection of treatments. It is suggested that different types of cancers sharing the same molecular profiles could benefit from the same targeted drugs. Although recent clinical trials have demonstrated that this approach cannot be generalized, there are also specific examples that demonstrate the clinical utility of this alternative vision. In this rapidly evolving scenario, a multidisciplinary approach managed by institutional Molecular Tumor Boards is fundamental to interpret the biological and clinical relevance of genetic alterations and the complexity of their relationship with treatment response.

•

The identification of oncogenic drivers offers the opportunity to develop target-specific drugs.

•

The inhibition of crucial pathways realizes the principle of druggable target to exploit cancer vulnerability.

•

The approval of new anticancer agents based on target-based concept represents a paradigm shift in cancer therapy.

•

However, only few drugs have been approved so far on an agnostic basis and the concept of biomarker cannot be generalized.

•

Tumor Molecular Boards will have an increasing role in the identification of new therapeutic options in selected patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes our experience and outcomes from 54 cases presented to the (Molecular tumor board) MTB.

METHODS

54 Cases presented between July 2017 and April 2018 were included in this analysis. These patients had different types of cancers that had either failed standard therapy or were expected to fail and physicians were looking for future options for anticipated progression. Patients who had obvious mutations and were candidates for Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry or Molecular Analysis for Treatment Choice clinical trials were not included. Oncologists presented the cases virtually and Foundation Medicine scientific and clinical team discussed the molecular pathways to find targeted options or trials. Tumor board attendees included oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, mid-level providers, residents and staff of the Cancer Center.

RESULTS

Amongst the 54 cases presented 81% had one or more potentially actionable alteration. 12 (22%) patients received genomically matched therapy as per MTB recommendations. Additional 13 (24%) patients have options available when they progress. Out of 12 patients who got treatment six are alive at the time of this analysis. Genomically matched therapy or Clinical Trials option were offered to the 46% of patients based on the MTB discussion.

CONCLUSION

More widespread use of molecular diagnostics, better physician education and multidisciplinary collaboration between the staff involved in diagnosis and treatment, as well as third party payers are necessary for consensus on treatment and care of oncology patients.

Response to HER2 Inhibition in a Patient With Brain Metastasis With EGFR TKI Acquired Resistance and an HER2 Amplification

A 62-year-old man was referred to our university hospital for treatment of advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung after disease progression on two lines of EGFR TKI and one line of chemotherapy. Fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis upon progression showed an HER2 amplification. At our weekly Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a decision was made to treat this patient with afatinib, which resulted in a partial response. However, progression was observed with a facial nerve paresis due to a metastasis in the skull. A biopsy of a location in the thorax revealed the presence of an EGFR-T790M mutation associated with acquired resistance, after which treatment with osimertinib was started. After 6 months, disease progression was observed, and a new biopsy was taken from the pelvic bone, which revealed the original amplification of HER2 together with the EGFR-L858R mutation, the EGFR-T790M mutation was not detected. The MTB decided to treat the patient with trastuzumab/paclitaxel. A partial response was observed in different bone lesions, while the skull metastasis with ingrowth in the brain remained stable for 6 months. Because of progression of the bone metastases after 6 months, a biopsy of a lesion in the thorax wall was taken. In this lesion, the EGFR-T790M mutation could be detected again. The MTB advised to start treatment with a combination of osimertinib and afatinib. This resulted in an impressive clinical improvement and a partial response of the bone metastases on the most recent 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computer tomography-scan. In conclusion, adjusting treatment to the mutational make-up of the tumor is a great challenge. For optimal treatment response multiple biopsies and re-biopsy upon progression are imperative. As more genes are investigated, treatment decision becomes increasingly difficult, therefore, expert opinions from an MTB is essential.

Molecular Tumor Boards: current practice and future needs

Background

Due to rapid technical advances, steeply declining sequencing costs, and the ever-increasing number of targeted therapies, it can be expected that extensive tumor sequencing such as whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing will soon be applied in standard care. Clinicians will thus be confronted with increasingly complex genetic information and multiple test-platforms to choose from. General medical training, meanwhile, can hardly keep up with the pace of innovation. Consequently, there is a rapidly growing gap between clinical knowledge and genetic potential in cancer care. Multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) have been suggested as a means to address this disparity, but shared experiences are scarce in literature and no quality requirements or guidelines have been published to date.

Methods

Based on literature review, a survey among hospitals in The Netherlands, and our own experience with the establishment of a nationally operating MTB, this article evaluates current knowledge and unmet needs and lays out a strategy for successful MTB implementation.

Results

Having access to an MTB can improve and increase the application of genetics-guided cancer care. In our survey, however, <50% of hospitals and only 5% of nonacademic hospitals had access to an MTB. In addition, current MTBs vary widely in terms of composition, tasks, tools, and workflow. This may not only lead to variation in quality of care but also hinders data sharing and thus creation of an effective learning community.

Conclusions

This article acknowledges a leading role for MTBs to govern (extensive) tumor sequencing into daily practice and proposes three basic necessities for successful MTB implementation: (i) global harmonization in cancer sequencing practices and procedures, (ii) minimal member and operational requirements, and (iii) an appropriate unsolicited findings policy. Meeting these prerequisites would not only optimize MTB functioning but also improve general interpretation and application of genomics-guided cancer care.