Supporting the decision to perform molecular profiling for cancer patients based on routinely collected data through the use of machine learning

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine offers targeted therapy options for cancer treatment. However, the decision whether to include a patient into next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing is not standardized. This may result in some patients receiving unnecessary testing while others who could benefit from it are not tested. Typically, patients who have exhausted conventional treatment options are of interest for consideration in molecularly targeted therapy. To assist clinicians in decision-making, we developed a decision support tool using routine data from a precision oncology program.

METHODS

We trained a machine learning model on clinical data to determine whether molecular profiling should be performed for a patient. To validate the model, the model's predictions were compared with decisions made by a molecular tumor board (MTB) using multiple patient case vignettes with their characteristics.

RESULTS

The prediction model included 440 patients with molecular profiling and 13,587 patients without testing. High area under the curve (AUC) scores indicated the importance of engineered features in deciding on molecular profiling. Patient age, physical condition, tumor type, metastases, and previous therapies were the most important features. During the validation MTB experts made the same decision of recommending a patient for molecular profiling only in 10 out of 15 of their previous cases but there was agreement between the experts and the model in 9 out of 15 cases.

CONCLUSION

Based on a historical cohort, our predictive model has the potential to assist clinicians in deciding whether to perform molecular profiling.

Simultaneous targeted and discovery-driven clinical proteotyping using hybrid-PRM/DIA

BACKGROUND

Clinical samples are irreplaceable, and their transformation into searchable and reusable digital biobanks is critical for conducting statistically empowered retrospective and integrative research studies. Currently, mainly data-independent acquisition strategies are employed to digitize clinical sample cohorts comprehensively. However, the sensitivity of DIA is limited, which is why selected marker candidates are often additionally measured targeted by parallel reaction monitoring.

METHODS

Here, we applied the recently co-developed hybrid-PRM/DIA technology as a new intelligent data acquisition strategy that allows for the comprehensive digitization of rare clinical samples at the proteotype level. Hybrid-PRM/DIA enables enhanced measurement sensitivity for a specific set of analytes of current clinical interest by the intelligent triggering of multiplexed parallel reaction monitoring (MSxPRM) in combination with the discovery-driven digitization of the clinical biospecimen using DIA. Heavy-labeled reference peptides were utilized as triggers for MSxPRM and monitoring of endogenous peptides.

RESULTS

We first evaluated hybrid-PRM/DIA in a clinical context on a pool of 185 selected proteotypic peptides for tumor-associated antigens derived from 64 annotated human protein groups. We demonstrated improved reproducibility and sensitivity for the detection of endogenous peptides, even at lower concentrations near the detection limit. Up to 179 MSxPRM scans were shown not to affect the overall DIA performance. Next, we applied hybrid-PRM/DIA for the integrated digitization of biobanked melanoma samples using a set of 30 AQUA peptides against 28 biomarker candidates with relevance in molecular tumor board evaluations of melanoma patients. Within the DIA-detected approximately 6500 protein groups, the selected marker candidates such as UFO, CDK4, NF1, and PMEL could be monitored consistently and quantitatively using MSxPRM scans, providing additional confidence for supporting future clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining PRM and DIA measurements provides a new strategy for the sensitive and reproducible detection of protein markers from patients currently being discussed in molecular tumor boards in combination with the opportunity to discover new biomarker candidates.

[Precision medicine in oncology]

Personalized oncology according to current practice is primarily based on tumor biology, which is translated into genomic biomarkers. Mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are targeted by rationally designed drugs and, conversely, are used to inform tailored treatment strategies. Faster and cheaper technologies for DNA sequencing enable genomic medicine in a clinical routine setting. Genomic features, tumor biology and clinical implications are integrated into individual therapy recommendations by molecular tumor boards, which have been established at many cancer centers in Germany and worldwide throughout recent years. This article discusses the promises and limitations of genomics-centered precision oncology and highlights future avenues and alternative approaches to individualize cancer treatment.

The role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

In neuro-oncology, the inclusion of tumor patients in the molecular tumor board has only become increasingly widespread in recent years, but so far there are no standards for indication, procedure, evaluation, therapy recommendations and therapy implementation of neuro-oncological patients. The present work examines the current handling of neuro-oncological patients included in molecular tumor boards in Germany.

METHODS

We created an online based survey with questions covering the handling of neuro-oncologic patient inclusion, annotation of genetic analyses, management of target therapies and the general role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology in Germany. We contacted all members of the Neuro-Oncology working group (NOA) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) by e-mail.

RESULTS

38 responses were collected. The majority of those who responded were specialists in neurosurgery or neurology with more than 10 years of professional experience working at a university hospital. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) regularly take place once a week and all treatment disciplines of neuro-oncology patients take part. The inclusions to the MTB are according to distinct tumors and predominantly in case of tumor recurrence. An independently MTB member mostly create the recommendations, which are regularly implemented in the tumor treatment. Recommendations are given for alteration classes 4 and 5. Problems exist mostly within the cost takeover of experimental therapies. The experimental therapies are mostly given in the department of medical oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular tumor boards for neuro-oncological patients, by now, are not standardized in Germany. Similarities exists for patient inclusion and interpretation of molecular alterations; the time point of inclusion and implementation during the patient treatment differ between the various hospitals. Further studies for standardization and harmonisation are needed. In summary, most of the interviewees envision great opportunities and possibilities for molecular-based neuro-oncological therapy in the future.

Implementing precision oncology for sarcoma patients: the CCCLMUmolecular tumor board experience

PURPOSE

Due to poor outcomes and limited treatment options, patients with advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas (BS/STS) may undergo comprehensive molecular profiling of tumor samples to identify possible therapeutic targets. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of routine molecular profiling in the setting of a dedicated precision oncology program in patients with BS/STS in a German large-volume sarcoma center.

METHODS

92 BS/STS patients who received comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and were subsequently discussed in our molecular tumor board (MTB) between 2016 and 2022 were included. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed, and the clinical impact of NGS-related findings was analyzed.

RESULTS

89.1% of patients had received at least one treatment line before NGS testing. At least one molecular alteration was found in 71 patients (82.6%). The most common alterations were mutations in TP53 (23.3% of patients), followed by PIK3CA and MDM2 mutations (9.3% each). Druggable alterations were identified, and treatment recommended in 32 patients (37.2%). Of those patients with actionable alterations, ten patients (31.2%) received personalized treatment and six patients did benefit from molecular-based therapy in terms of a progression-free survival ratio (PFSr) > 1.3.

CONCLUSION

Our single-center experience shows an increasing uptake of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and highlights current challenges of implementing precision oncology in the management of patients with BS/STS. A relevant number of patients were diagnosed with clinically actionable alterations. Our results highlight the potential benefit of NGS in patients with rare cancers and currently limited therapeutic options.

Clinical availability and characteristics of multigene panel testing for recurrent/advanced gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Japan's health insurance covers multigene panel testing. This study aimed to determine the potential availability and utility of gene panel testing clinically in gynecologic oncology.

METHODS

We analyzed the characteristics of patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent gene panel testing using FoundationOne® CDx or OncoGuide™ NCC Oncopanel between November 2019 and October 2022.

RESULTS

Out of 102 patients analyzed, 32, 18, 43, 8, and 1 had cervical, endometrial, ovarian cancers, sarcoma, and vaginal cancer, respectively. Druggable gene alteration was found in 70 patients (68.6%; 21 with cervical cancer, 15 with endometrial cancer, 28 with ovarian cancer, 5 with sarcoma, and 1 with other). The most common druggable gene alteration was PIK3CA mutation (n = 21), followed by PTEN mutation (n = 12) and high tumor mutation burden (TMB-H) (n = 11). TMB-H was detected in 5 patients with cervical cancer, 5 with endometrial cancer, and 1 with endometrial stromal sarcoma. Eleven patients (10.8%) received molecularly targeted therapy according to their gene aberrations. Gene panel testing was mostly performed when the second-line treatment was ineffective. Of all 102 patients, 60 did not have recommended treatment, and 15 died or had worsened conditions before obtaining the test results.

CONCLUSION

Through multigene panel testing, although many patients had druggable gene alterations, 10.8% of them received the recommended treatment. TMB-H was mainly observed in cervical/endometrial cancer, suggesting its potential as a therapeutic biomarker of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Furthermore, patients' prognosis and performance status should be considered before performing the test.

The Molecular Tumor Board of the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute: from accrual to treatment in real-world

BACKGROUND

Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB) operating in real-world have generated limited consensus on good practices for accrual, actionable alteration mapping, and outcome metrics. These topics are addressed herein in 124 MTB patients, all real-world accrued at progression, and lacking approved therapy options.

METHODS

Actionable genomic alterations identified by tumor DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling were mapped by customized OncoKB criteria to reflect diagnostic/therapeutic indications as approved in Europe. Alterations were considered non-SoC when mapped at either OncoKB level 3, regardless of tDNA/ctDNA origin, or at OncoKB levels 1/2, provided they were undetectable in matched tDNA, and had not been exploited in previous therapy lines.

RESULTS

Altogether, actionable alterations were detected in 54/124 (43.5%) MTB patients, but only in 39 cases (31%) were these alterations (25 from tDNA, 14 from ctDNA) actionable/unexploited, e.g. they had not resulted in the assignment of pre-MTB treatments. Interestingly, actionable and actionable/unexploited alterations both decreased (37.5% and 22.7% respectively) in a subset of 88 MTB patients profiled by tDNA-only, but increased considerably (77.7% and 66.7%) in 18 distinct patients undergoing combined tDNA/ctDNA testing, approaching the potential treatment opportunities (76.9%) in 147 treatment-naïve patients undergoing routine tDNA profiling for the first time. Non-SoC therapy was MTB-recommended to all 39 patients with actionable/unexploited alterations, but only 22 (56%) accessed the applicable drug, mainly due to clinical deterioration, lengthy drug-gathering procedures, and geographical distance from recruiting clinical trials. Partial response and stable disease were recorded in 8 and 7 of 19 evaluable patients, respectively. The time to progression (TTP) ratio (MTB-recommended treatment vs last pre-MTB treatment) exceeded the conventional Von Hoff 1.3 cut-off in 9/19 cases, high absolute TTP and Von Hoff values coinciding in 3 cases. Retrospectively, 8 patients receiving post-MTB treatment(s) as per physician's choice were noted to have a much longer overall survival from MTB accrual than 11 patients who had received no further treatment (35.09 vs 6.67 months, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

MTB-recommended/non-SoC treatments are effective, including those assigned by ctDNA-only alterations. However, real-world MTBs may inadvertently recruit patients electively susceptible to diverse and/or multiple treatments.

Onkopipe: A Snakemake Based DNA-Sequencing Pipeline for Clinical Variant Analysis in Precision Medicine

NGS is increasingly used in precision medicine, but an automated sequencing pipeline that can detect different types of variants (single nucleotide - SNV, copy number - CNV, structural - SV) and does not rely on normal samples as germline comparison is needed. To address this, we developed Onkopipe, a Snakemake-based pipeline that integrates quality control, read alignments, BAM pre-processing, and variant calling tools to detect SNV, CNV, and SV in a unified VCF format without matched normal samples. Onkopipe is containerized and provides features such as reproducibility, parallelization, and easy customization, enabling the analysis of genomic data in precision medicine. Our validation and evaluation demonstrate high accuracy and concordance, making Onkopipe a valuable open-source resource for molecular tumor boards. Onkopipe is being shared as an open source project and is available at https://gitlab.gwdg.de/MedBioinf/mtb/onkopipe.

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) through the lens of precision oncology: a single institution perspective

PURPOSE

For patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP), treatment options are limited. Precision oncology, the interplay of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and targeted therapies, aims to offer additional treatment options to patients with advanced and hard-to-treat cancers. We aimed to highlight the use of a molecular tumor board (MTB) in the therapeutic management of CUP patients.

METHODS

In this single-center observational study, CUP patients, presented to the MTB of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich LMU, a tertiary care center, were analyzed retrospectively. Descriptive statistics were applied to describe relevant findings.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and February 2022, 61 patients with unfavorable CUP were presented to the MTB, detected clinically relevant variants in 74% (45/61) of patients, of which 64% (29/45) led to therapeutic recommendation. In four out of 29 patients (14%), the treatment recommendations were implemented, unfortunately without resulting in clinical benefit. Reasons for not following the therapeutic recommendation were mainly caused by the physicians' choice of another therapy (9/25, 36%), especially in the context of worsening of general condition, lost to follow-up (7/25, 28%) and death (6/25, 24%).

CONCLUSION

CGP and subsequent presentation to a molecular tumor board led to a high rate of therapeutic recommendations in patients with CUP. Recommendations were only implemented at a low rate; however, late GCP diagnostic and, respectively, MTB referral were found more frequent for the patients with implemented treatment. This contrast underscores the need for early implementation of CGP into the management of CUP patients.

High-multiplex tissue imaging in routine pathology-are we there yet?

High-multiplex tissue imaging (HMTI) approaches comprise several novel immunohistological methods that enable in-depth, spatial single-cell analysis. Over recent years, studies in tumor biology, infectious diseases, and autoimmune conditions have demonstrated the information gain accessible when mapping complex tissues with HMTI. Tumor biology has been a focus of innovative multiparametric approaches, as the tumor microenvironment (TME) contains great informative value for accurate diagnosis and targeted therapeutic approaches: unraveling the cellular composition and structural organization of the TME using sophisticated computational tools for spatial analysis has produced histopathologic biomarkers for outcomes in breast cancer, predictors of positive immunotherapy response in melanoma, and histological subgroups of colorectal carcinoma. Integration of HMTI technologies into existing clinical workflows such as molecular tumor boards will contribute to improve patient outcomes through personalized treatments tailored to the specific heterogeneous pathological fingerprint of cancer, autoimmunity, or infection. Here, we review the advantages and limitations of existing HMTI technologies and outline how spatial single-cell data can improve our understanding of pathological disease mechanisms and determinants of treatment success. We provide an overview of the analytic processing and interpretation and discuss how HMTI can improve future routine clinical diagnostic and therapeutic processes.

Clinical outcome of biomarker-guided therapies in adult patients with tumors of the nervous system

Background

The clinical utility of molecular profiling and targeted therapies for neuro-oncology patients outside of clinical trials is not established. We aimed at investigating feasibility and clinical utility of molecular profiling and targeted therapy in adult patients with advanced tumors in the nervous system within a prospective observational study.

Methods

molecular tumor board (MTB)@ZPM (NCT03503149) is a prospective observational precision medicine study for patients with advanced tumors. After inclusion of patients, we performed comprehensive molecular profiling, formulated ranked biomarker-guided therapy recommendations based on consensus by the MTB, and collected prospective clinical outcome data.

Results

Here, we present initial data of 661 adult patients with tumors of the nervous system enrolled by December 31, 2021. Of these, 408 patients were presented at the MTB. Molecular-instructed therapy recommendations could be made in 380/408 (93.1%) cases and were prioritized by evidence levels. Therapies were initiated in 86/380 (22.6%) cases until data cutoff. We observed a progression-free survival ratio >1.3 in 31.3% of patients.

Conclusions

Our study supports the clinical utility of biomarker-guided therapies for neuro-oncology patients and indicates clinical benefit in a subset of patients. Our data might inform future clinical trials, translational studies, and even clinical care.

Software-Tool Support for Collaborative, Virtual, Multi-Site Molecular Tumor Boards

The availability of high-throughput molecular diagnostics builds the foundation for Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs). Although more fine-grained data is expected to support decision making of oncologists, assessment of data is complex and time-consuming slowing down the implementation of MTBs, e.g., due to retrieval of the latest medical publications, assessment of clinical evidence, or linkage to the latest clinical guidelines. We share our findings from analysis of existing tumor board processes and defininion of clinical processes for the adoption of MTBs. Building on our findings, we have developed a real-world software prototype together with oncologists and medical professionals, which supports the preparation and conduct of MTBs and enables collaboration between medical experts by sharing medical knowledge even across the hospital locations. We worked in interdisciplinary teams of clinicians, oncologists, medical experts, medical informaticians, and software engineers using design thinking methodology. With their input, we identified challenges and limitations of the current MTB approaches, derived clinical process models using Business Process and Modeling Notation (BMPN), and defined personas, functional and non-functional requirements for software tool support. Based on it, we developed software prototypes and evaluated them with clinical experts from major university hospitals across Germany. We extended the Kanban methodology enabling holistic tracking of patient cases from "backlog" to "follow-up" in our app. The feedback from interviewed medical professionals showed that our clinical process models and software prototype provide suitable process support for the preparation and conduction of molecular tumor boards. The combination of oncology knowledge across hospitals and the documentation of treatment decision can be used to form a unique medical knowledge base by oncologists for oncologists. Due to the high heterogeneity of tumor diseases and the spread of the latest medical knowledge, a cooperative decision-making process including insights from similar patient cases was considered as a very valuable feature. The ability to transform prepared case data into a screen presentation was recognized as an essential feature speeding up the preparation process. Oncologists require special software tool support to incorporate and assess molecular data for the decision-making process. In particular, the need for linkage to the latest medical knowledge, clinical evidence, and collaborative tools to discuss individual cases were named to be of importance. With the experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic, the acceptance of online tools and collaborative working is expected to grow. Our virtual multi-site approach proved to allow a collaborative decision-making process for the first time, which we consider to have a positive impact on the overall treatment quality.

Introducing AI to the molecular tumor board: one direction toward the establishment of precision medicine using large-scale cancer clinical and biological information

Since U.S. President Barack Obama announced the Precision Medicine Initiative in his New Year's State of the Union address in 2015, the establishment of a precision medicine system has been emphasized worldwide, particularly in the field of oncology. With the advent of next-generation sequencers specifically, genome analysis technology has made remarkable progress, and there are active efforts to apply genome information to diagnosis and treatment. Generally, in the process of feeding back the results of next-generation sequencing analysis to patients, a molecular tumor board (MTB), consisting of experts in clinical oncology, genetic medicine, etc., is established to discuss the results. On the other hand, an MTB currently involves a large amount of work, with humans searching through vast databases and literature, selecting the best drug candidates, and manually confirming the status of available clinical trials. In addition, as personalized medicine advances, the burden on MTB members is expected to increase in the future. Under these circumstances, introducing cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technology and information and communication technology to MTBs while reducing the burden on MTB members and building a platform that enables more accurate and personalized medical care would be of great benefit to patients. In this review, we introduced the latest status of elemental technologies that have potential for AI utilization in MTB, and discussed issues that may arise in the future as we progress with AI implementation.

Feasibility and outcome of reproducible clinical interpretation of high-dimensional molecular data: a comparison of two molecular tumor boards

BACKGROUND

Structured and harmonized implementation of molecular tumor boards (MTB) for the clinical interpretation of molecular data presents a current challenge for precision oncology. Heterogeneity in the interpretation of molecular data was shown for patients even with a limited number of molecular alterations. Integration of high-dimensional molecular data, including RNA- (RNA-Seq) and whole-exome sequencing (WES), is expected to further complicate clinical application. To analyze challenges for MTB harmonization based on complex molecular datasets, we retrospectively compared clinical interpretation of WES and RNA-Seq data by two independent molecular tumor boards.

METHODS

High-dimensional molecular cancer profiling including WES and RNA-Seq was performed for patients with advanced solid tumors, no available standard therapy, ECOG performance status of 0-1, and available fresh-frozen tissue within the DKTK-MASTER Program from 2016 to 2018. Identical molecular profiling data of 40 patients were independently discussed by two molecular tumor boards (MTB) after prior annotation by specialized physicians, following independent, but similar workflows. Identified biomarkers and resulting treatment options were compared between the MTBs and patients were followed up clinically.

RESULTS

A median of 309 molecular aberrations from WES and RNA-Seq (n = 38) and 82 molecular aberrations from WES only (n = 3) were considered for clinical interpretation for 40 patients (one patient sequenced twice). A median of 3 and 2 targeted treatment options were identified per patient, respectively. Most treatment options were identified for receptor tyrosine kinase, PARP, and mTOR inhibitors, as well as immunotherapy. The mean overlap coefficient between both MTB was 66%. Highest agreement rates were observed with the interpretation of single nucleotide variants, clinical evidence levels 1 and 2, and monotherapy whereas the interpretation of gene expression changes, preclinical evidence levels 3 and 4, and combination therapy yielded lower agreement rates. Patients receiving treatment following concordant MTB recommendations had significantly longer overall survival than patients receiving treatment following discrepant recommendations or physician's choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducible clinical interpretation of high-dimensional molecular data is feasible and agreement rates are encouraging, when compared to previous reports. The interpretation of molecular aberrations beyond single nucleotide variants and preclinically validated biomarkers as well as combination therapies were identified as additional difficulties for ongoing harmonization efforts.

The return of RET GateKeeper mutations? an in-silico exploratory analysis of potential resistance mechanisms to novel RET macrocyclic inhibitor TPX-0046

TPX-0046 is designed to overcome resistance to FDA approved RET inhibitors Selpercatinib and Pralsetinib. Early prediction of resistance mechanisms to investigational drugs may facilitate subsequent drug and trial designs. This study aims to predict potential mutations inducing resistance to TPX-0046. We conducted an in-silico analysis of TPX-0046 macrocyclic structure and predicted the binding mode on RET. We used as reference literary examples of resistance mechanisms to other macrocyclic inhibitors (Lorlatinib on ALK/ROS1) to construct RET secondary resistance mutations. We conducted docking simulations to evaluate impact of mutations on TPX-0046 binding. TPX-0046 binding mode on RET appears to not be influenced by Solventfront G810X mutation presence. Bulky Gatekeeper V804X mutations affect predicted TPX-0046 binding mode. Mutations in Beta 7 strand region L881F and xDFG S891L impair TPX-0046 docking. Our findings suggest that development of second generation RET inhibitors focused mainly on Solventfront G810X mutations granting resistance to selective RET inhibitors Selpercatinib and Pralsetinib. If these findings are confirmed by identification of Gatekeeper V804X mutations in patients progressing to TPX-0046, explanation of acquired resistance and loss of benefit will be easier These findings might accelerate development of third generation RET inhibitors, as well as clinical trial design in precision oncology settings.

[Molecular cytology: Opportunities and challenges]

Predictive marker (re-)analysis of tumor material can be a real obstacle in several tumor entities, like non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), due to difficult anatomic conditions and small biopsy samples. As reported in the literature, cytological samples comprise excellent starting material for predictive marker analysis like fluorescence in situ hybridization and next generation sequencing. As for formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples, rigorous quality control and standardized laboratory operating procedures are mandatory. Further advantages of cytological specimens are the rapid and straightforward inspection of representativeness, for example by rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Another striking advantage is that the fresh cellular material from smears and serous cavity fluids can be used for the generation of two- and three-dimensional cell culture models. Hereby, in addition to the conventional biomarker testing, complex complementary functional genomic assays can also be applied, for example, to assess the effects of multiple variants in one sample and unknown variants of tumor driver genes and tumor suppressor genes. This information may provide additional vulnerabilities of the tumor to be considered for the therapy decision, for example in the molecular tumor board.

Lessons learned: the first consecutive 1000 patients of the CCCMunichLMU Molecular Tumor Board

Purpose

In 2016, the University of Munich Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) was implemented to initiate a precision oncology program. This review of cases was conducted to assess clinical implications and functionality of the program, to identify current limitations and to inform future directions of these efforts.

Methods

Charts, molecular profiles, and tumor board decisions of the first 1000 consecutive cases (01/2016–03/2020) were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were applied to describe relevant findings.

Results

Of the first 1000 patients presented to the MTB; 914 patients received comprehensive genomic profiling. Median age of patients was 56 years and 58% were female. The most prevalent diagnoses were breast (16%) and colorectal cancer (10%). Different types of targeted or genome-wide sequencing assays were used; most of them offered by the local department of pathology. Testing was technically successful in 88%. In 41% of cases, a genomic alteration triggered a therapeutic recommendation. The fraction of patients receiving a tumor board recommendation differed significantly between malignancies ranging from over 50% in breast or biliary tract to less than 30% in pancreatic cancers. Based on a retrospective chart review, 17% of patients with an MTB recommendation received appropriate treatment.

Conclusion

Based on these retrospective analyses, patients with certain malignancies (breast and biliary tract cancer) tend to be more likely to have actionable variants. The low rate of therapeutic implementation (17% of patients receiving a tumor board recommendation) underscores the importance of meticulous follow-up for these patients and ensuring broad access to innovative therapies for patients receiving molecular tumor profiling.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00432-022-04165-0.

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.

Recommendations for the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing and the Molecular Tumor Board for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Report from KSMO and KCSG Precision Medicine Networking Group

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming essential in the fields of precision oncology. With implementation of NGS in daily clinic, the needs for continued education, facilitated interpretation of NGS results and optimal treatment delivery based on NGS results have been addressed. Molecular tumor board (MTB) is multidisciplinary approach to keep pace with the growing knowledge of complex molecular alterations in patients with advanced solid cancer. Although guidelines for NGS use and MTB have been developed in western countries, there is limitation for reflection of Korea’s public health environment and daily clinical practice. These recommendations provide a critical guidance from NGS panel testing to final treatment decision based on MTB discussion.

The challenge of the Molecular Tumor Board empowerment in clinical oncology practice: A Position Paper on behalf of the AIOM- SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SIC-SIF-SIGU-SIRM Italian Scientific Societies

The development of innovative technologies and the advances in the genetics and genomics, have offered new opportunities for personalized treatment in oncology. Although the selection of the patient based on the molecular characteristics of the neoplasm has the potential to revolutionize the therapeutic scenario of oncology, this approach is extremely challenging. The access, homogeneity, and economic sustainability of the required genomic tests should be warranted in the clinical practice, as well as the specific scientific and clinical expertise for the choice of medical therapies. All these elements make essential the collaboration of different specialists within the Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs). In this position paper, based on experts' opinion, the AIOM-SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SIC-SIF-SIGU-SIRM Italian Scientific Societies critically discuss the available molecular profiling technologies, the proposed criteria for the selection of patients candidate for evaluation by the MTB, the criteria for the selection and analysis of biological samples, and the regulatory and pharmaco-economic issues.

Framework for Implementing and Tracking a Molecular Tumor Board at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels have evolved in complexity and have changed from selected gene panels with a handful of genes to larger panels with hundreds of genes, sometimes in combination with paired germline filtering and/or testing. With this move toward increasingly large NGS panels, we have rapidly outgrown the available literature supporting the utility of treatments targeting many reported gene alterations, making it challenging for oncology providers to interpret NGS results and make a therapy recommendation for their patients.

METHODS

To support the oncologists at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) in interpreting NGS reports for patient care, we initiated two molecular tumor boards (MTBs)-a VICC-specific institutional board for our patients and a global community MTB open to the larger oncology patient population. Core attendees include oncologists, hematologist, molecular pathologists, cancer geneticists, and cancer genetic counselors. Recommendations generated from MTB were documented in a formal report that was uploaded to our electronic health record system.

RESULTS

As of December 2020, we have discussed over 170 patient cases from 77 unique oncology providers from VICC and its affiliate sites, and a total of 58 international patient cases by 25 unique providers from six different countries across the globe. Breast cancer and lung cancer were the most presented diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we share our learning from the MTB experience and document best practices at our institution. We aim to lay a framework that allows other institutions to recreate MTBs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

With the rapid pace of molecularly driven therapies entering the oncology care spectrum, there is a need to create resources that support timely and accurate interpretation of next-generation sequencing reports to guide treatment decision for patients. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) have been created as a response to this knowledge gap. This report shares implementation strategies and best practices from the Vanderbilt experience of creating an institutional MTB and a virtual global MTB for the larger oncology community. This report describe a reproducible framework that can be adopted to initiate MTBs at other institutions.

[Molecular diagnostics of bladder cancer-practical ramifications]

In the future, precision medicine with agents targeting specific genetic alterations will play an important role in bladder cancer. This includes both single genetic alterations (e.g. FGFR3) and gene panel analyses in patients with no further therapeutic options, rare cancer subtypes or unusual clinical courses. These molecular analyses can be carried out on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples and the results should be discussed in interdisciplinary molecular tumor boards in order to either recommend approved targeted therapies or suggest patients for molecular-based clinical trials, compassionate use programs or off-label use of drugs. The remuneration of molecular diagnostics is largely well-represented for the outpatient sector in Germany; however, the covering of treatment costs must currently be approved by the health insurances.

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%).

CONCLUSION

MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.

Prospective Validation of the Italian Alliance Against Cancer Lung Panel in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The deeper knowledge of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) biology and the discovery of driver molecular alterations have opened the era of precision medicine in lung oncology, thus significantly revolutionizing the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to NSCLC. In Italy, however, molecular assessment remains heterogeneous across the country, and numbers of patients accessing personalized treatments remain relatively low. Nationwide programs have demonstrated that the creation of consortia represent a successful strategy to increase the number of patients with a molecular classification.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Alliance Against Cancer (ACC), a network of 25 Italian Research Institutes, has developed a targeted sequencing panel for the detection of genomic alterations in 182 genes in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC (ACC lung panel). One thousand metastatic NSCLC patients will be enrolled onto a prospective trial designed to measure the sensitivity and specificity of the ACC lung panel as a tool for molecular screening compared to standard methods.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The ongoing trial is part of a nationwide strategy of ACC to develop infrastructures and improve competences to make the Italian research institutes independent for genomic profiling of cancer patients.

Precision medicine in breast cancer: From clinical trials to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women and, despite the undeniable improvements in the outcome of these patients obtained in the last decade, the discovery and the validation of new actionable molecular targets represent a priority. ESCAT permits to rank molecular alterations in different classes according to their evidence of actionability in a specific cancer type, assisting clinicians in their therapeutical decisions. MAIN: ERBB2, PIK3CA and germline BRCA1/2 alterations are biomarkers prospectively validated in BC, driving the selection of targeted therapies, and are therefore classified in the highest level of evidence (Ia). Agnostic biomarkers, namely microsatellite instability, NTRK fusions and high tumor mutational burden, demonstrated similar activity across different tumor types and are consequently ranked in tier Ic. In tier II are classified alterations that still need confirmatory prospective studies but for which evidence of efficacy is available. Somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, germline PALB2 mutations, HER2-low expression, ERBB2 mutations, PTEN deletions, AKT1 mutations, ESR1 resistance mutations satisfy the requirements to be classified in this tier. In tier III are ranked various molecular alterations for which there is evidence of actionability in other tumors (IIIa) or that have similar functional impact in the same gene or pathway of a tier I alteration, without clinical data (IIIb). In tier IV are listed the molecular alterations for which only preclinical studies are available.

CONCLUSION

In this review we report the most relevant molecular targets in BC, ordered pursuant to their pathway and classified in concordance with ESCAT.

NGS-guided precision oncology in metastatic breast and gynecological cancer: first experiences at the CCC Munich LMU

Purpose

Comprehensive genomic profiling identifying actionable molecular alterations aims to enable personalized treatment for cancer patients. The purpose of this analysis was to retrospectively assess the impact of personalized recommendations made by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) on the outcome of patients with breast or gynecological cancers, who had progressed under standard treatment. Here, first experiences of our Comprehensive Cancer Center Molecular Tumor Board are reported.

Methods

All patients were part of a prospective local registry. 95 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer or gynecological malignancies underwent extended molecular profiling. From May 2017 through March 2019, the MTB reviewed all clinical cases considering tumor profile and evaluated molecular alterations regarding further diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations.

Results

95 patients with metastatic breast or gynecological cancers were discussed in the MTB (68% breast cancer, 20% ovarian cancer, 5% cervical cancer, 3% endometrial cancer and 4% others). Genes with highest mutation rate were PIK3CA and ERBB2. Overall, 34 patients (36%) received a biomarker-based targeted therapy recommendation. Therapeutic recommendations were implemented in nine cases; four patients experienced clinical benefit with a partial response or disease stabilization lasting over 4 months.

Conclusion

In the setting of a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board, a small but clinically meaningful group of breast and gynecological cancer patients benefits from comprehensive genomic profiling. Broad and successful implementation of precision medicine is complicated by patient referral at late stage disease and limited access to targeted agents and early clinical trials.

Trial registration number

284-10 (03.05.2018).

Molecular matching and treatment strategies for advanced stage lung cancer at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center: A three-year review of a Molecular Tumor Board

Matching of actionable tumor mutations with targeted therapy increases response rates and prolongs survival in lung cancer patients. Drug development and trials targeting genetic alterations are expanding rapidly. We describe the role of a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) in the design of molecularly informed treatment strategies in our lung cancer patient population. Tumor DNA was sequenced using a 50-gene targeted next-generation sequencing panel. Cases were evaluated by a multidisciplinary MTB who suggested a course of treatment based on each patient's molecular findings. During a three-year period, 21 lung cancer patients were presented at the MTB. All patients lacked common activating EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements. One patient had Stage IIIb disease; all others were Stage IV; 18 patients had received ≥1 prior line of therapy (range 0-5). Suggestions for treatment with a targeted therapy were made for 19/21 (90.5%) patients, and four patients (21%) underwent treatment with a targeted agent, two as part of a clinical trial. Identified barriers to treatment with targeted therapy included: ineligibility for clinical trials (n ​= ​2), lack of interest in study/distance to travel (n ​= ​2), lack of disease progression (n ​= ​2), poor performance status (n ​= ​5), decision to treat next with immunotherapy (n ​= ​3), and unknown (n ​= ​1). For the majority of lung cancer patients, the MTB provided recommendations based on tumor genetic profiles. Identified barriers to treatment suggest that presentation to the MTB at earlier stages of disease may increase the number of patients eligible for treatment with a genetically informed targeted agent.

Implementation of a molecular tumor board at a regional level to improve access to targeted therapy

BACKGROUND

With the development of precision oncology, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB) are developing in many institutions. However, the implementation of MTB in routine clinical practice has still not been thoroughly studied.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since the first drugs approved for targeted therapies, patient tumor samples were centralized to genomic testing platforms. In our institution, all tumor samples have been analyzed since 2014 by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). In 2015, we established a regional MTB to discuss patient cases with 1 or more alterations identified by NGS, in genes different from those related to drug approval. We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis to study whether our MTB increased the prescriptions of Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTT) and the inclusions of patients in clinical trials with MTT, in comparison with patients with available NGS data but no MTB discussion.

RESULTS

In 2014, 86 patients had UGA, but the results were not available to clinicians and not discussed in MTB. During the years 2015 and 2016, 113 patients with an UGA (unreferenced genomic alteration) were discussed in MTB. No patients with an UGA were included in 2014 in a clinical trial, versus 2 (2%) in 2015-2016. 13 patients with an UGA (12%) were treated in 2015-2016 with a MTT whereas in 2014, no patient (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis, we showed that the association of large-scale genomic testing and MTB was feasible, and could increase the prescription of MTT. However, in routine clinical practice, the majority of patients with UGA still do not have access to MTT.

SwissMTB: establishing comprehensive molecular cancer diagnostics in Swiss clinics

Background

Molecular precision oncology is an emerging practice to improve cancer therapy by decreasing the risk of choosing treatments that lack efficacy or cause adverse events. However, the challenges of integrating molecular profiling into routine clinical care are manifold. From a computational perspective these include the importance of a short analysis turnaround time, the interpretation of complex drug-gene and gene-gene interactions, and the necessity of standardized high-quality workflows. In addition, difficulties faced when integrating molecular diagnostics into clinical practice are ethical concerns, legal requirements, and limited availability of treatment options beyond standard of care as well as the overall lack of awareness of their existence.

Methods

To the best of our knowledge, we are the first group in Switzerland that established a workflow for personalized diagnostics based on comprehensive high-throughput sequencing of tumors at the clinic. Our workflow, named SwissMTB (Swiss Molecular Tumor Board), links genetic tumor alterations and gene expression to therapeutic options and clinical trial opportunities. The resulting treatment recommendations are summarized in a clinical report and discussed in a molecular tumor board at the clinic to support therapy decisions.

Results

Here we present results from an observational pilot study including 22 late-stage cancer patients. In this study we were able to identify actionable variants and corresponding therapies for 19 patients. Half of the patients were analyzed retrospectively. In two patients we identified resistance-associated variants explaining lack of therapy response. For five out of eleven patients analyzed before treatment the SwissMTB diagnostic influenced treatment decision.

Conclusions

SwissMTB enables the analysis and clinical interpretation of large numbers of potentially actionable molecular targets. Thus, our workflow paves the way towards a more frequent use of comprehensive molecular diagnostics in Swiss hospitals.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-018-0680-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

From somatic variants towards precision oncology: Evidence-driven reporting of treatment options in molecular tumor boards

Background

A comprehensive understanding of cancer has been furthered with technological improvements and decreasing costs of next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, the complexity of interpreting genomic data is hindering the implementation of high-throughput technologies in the clinical context: increasing evidence on gene–drug interactions complicates the task of assigning clinical significance to genomic variants.

Methods

Here we present a method that automatically matches patient-specific genomic alterations to treatment options. The method relies entirely on public knowledge of somatic variants with predictive evidence on drug response. The output report is aimed at supporting clinicians in the task of finding the clinical meaning of genomic variants. We applied the method to 1) The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE) cohorts and 2) 11 patients from the NCT MASTER trial whose treatment discussions included information on their genomic profiles.

Results

Our reporting strategy showed a substantial number of patients with actionable variants in the analyses of TCGA and GENIE samples. Notably, it was able to reproduce experts’ treatment suggestions in a retrospective study of 11 patients from the NCT MASTER trial. Our results establish a proof of concept for comprehensive, evidence-based reports as a supporting tool for discussing treatment options in tumor boards.

Conclusions

We believe that a standardized method to report actionable somatic variants will smooth the incorporation of NGS in the clinical context. We anticipate that tools like the one we present here will become essential in summarizing for clinicians the growing evidence in the field of precision medicine. The R code of the presented method is provided in Additional file 6 and available at https://github.com/jperera-bel/MTB-Report.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13073-018-0529-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

CVE: an R package for interactive variant prioritisation in precision oncology

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of precision oncology programmes are being launched world-wide. To support this development, we present the Cancer Variant Explorer (CVE), an R package with an interactive Shiny web browser interface.

RESULTS

Leveraging Oncotator and the Drug Gene Interaction Database, CVE offers exploration of variants within single or multiple tumour exomes to identify drivers, resistance mechanisms and to assess druggability. We present example applications including the analysis of an individual patient and a cohort-wide study, and provide a first extension of CVE by adding a tumour-specific co-expression network.

CONCLUSIONS

The CVE package allows interactive variant prioritisation to expedite the analysis of cancer sequencing studies. Our framework also includes the prioritisation of druggable targets, allows exploratory analysis of tissue specific networks and is extendable for specific applications by virtue of its modular design. We encourage the use of CVE within translational research studies and molecular tumour boards. The CVE package is available via Bioconductor ( http://bioconductor.org/packages/CVE/ ).

Key Lessons Learned from Moffitt's Molecular Tumor Board: The Clinical Genomics Action Committee Experience

BACKGROUND

The increasing practicality of genomic sequencing technology has led to its incorporation into routine clinical practice. Successful identification and targeting of driver genomic alterations that provide proliferative and survival advantages to tumor cells have led to approval and ongoing development of several targeted cancer therapies. Within many major cancer centers, molecular tumor boards are constituted to shepherd precision medicine into clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In July 2014, the Clinical Genomics Action Committee (CGAC) was established as the molecular tumor board companion to the Personalized Medicine Clinical Service (PMCS) at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. The processes and outcomes of the program were assessed in order to help others move into the practice of precision medicine.

RESULTS

Through the establishment and initial 1,400 patients of the PMCS and its associated molecular tumor board at a major cancer center, five practical lessons of broad applicability have been learned: transdisciplinary engagement, the use of the molecular report as an aid to clinical management, clinical actionability, getting therapeutic options to patients, and financial considerations. Value to patients includes access to cutting-edge practice merged with individualized preferences in treatment and care.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic-driven cancer medicine is increasingly becoming a part of routine clinical practice. For successful implementation of precision cancer medicine, strategically organized molecular tumor boards are critical to provide objective evidence-based translation of observed molecular alterations into patient-centered clinical action. Molecular tumor board implementation models along with clinical and economic outcomes will define future treatment standards. The Oncologist 2017;22:144-151Implications for Practice: It is clear that the increasing practicality of genetic tumor sequencing technology has led to its incorporation as part of routine clinical practice. Subsequently, many cancer centers are seeking to develop a personalized medicine services and/or molecular tumor board to shepherd precision medicine into clinical practice. This article discusses the key lessons learned through the establishment and development of a molecular tumor board and personalized medicine clinical service. This article highlights practical issues and can serve as an important guide to other centers as they conceive and develop their own personalized medicine services and molecular tumor boards.

Use of comprehensive genomic profiling to direct point-of-care management of patients with gynecologic cancers

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and clinical utility of using comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care to identify clinically relevant tumor genomic alterations for patients with either rare or refractory gynecologic cancers to facilitate point-of-care management. Use of an expert, multidisciplinary, institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) assessment is discussed regarding input on putative targeted options for individualized therapy.

METHODS

A prospective clinical trial is ongoing. We report on the initial 69 patients with gynecologic cancers that were either rare or refractory to standard therapy. CGP was performed by Foundation Medicine, Inc. Genomic alterations were reviewed by members of an MTB. Consensus recommendations on genomically targeted, FDA-approved, on- and off-label therapies and clinical trials were sent to the treating physician, and decisions and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Study outcomes were available for 64 patients. The mean number of genes altered per tumor was 4.97 (median=4; range, 1-26), and the average turnaround time from testing laboratory report to generation of formal recommendations was approximately three weeks. Evaluation of genomic and clinical data by the MTB led to generation of targeted treatment options in all 64 patients, and the percentage of patients for whom one or more of these recommendations were implemented by the treating physician was 39%. Sixty-four percent of the patients receiving targeted therapy based on a CGP result experienced radiologic response or showed evidence of clinical benefit or stable disease.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that an institutional MTB is a feasible venue for reviewing tumor genomic profiling results and generating clinical recommendations. These data also support the need for further studies and guidelines on clinical decision making with greater availability of broad genomically based diagnostics.

Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: The Impact on Treatment Decisions for 35 Patients Evaluated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Although genetic profiling of tumors is a potentially powerful tool to predict drug sensitivity and resistance, its routine use has been limited because clinicians are often unfamiliar with interpretation and incorporation of the information into practice. We established a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) to interpret individual patients' tumor genetic profiles and provide treatment recommendations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

DNA from tumor specimens was sequenced in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory to identify coding mutations in a 50-gene panel (n = 34) or a 255-gene panel (n = 1). Cases were evaluated by a multidisciplinary MTB that included pathologists, oncologists, hematologists, basic scientists, and genetic counselors.

RESULTS

During the first year, 35 cases were evaluated by the MTB, with 32 presented for recommendations on targeted therapies, and 3 referred for potential germline mutations. In 56.3% of cases, MTB recommended treatment with a targeted agent based on evaluation of tumor genetic profile and treatment history. Four patients (12.5%) were subsequently treated with a MTB-recommended targeted therapy; 3 of the 4 patients remain on therapy, 2 of whom experienced clinical benefit lasting >10 months.

CONCLUSION

For the majority of cases evaluated, the MTB was able to provide treatment recommendations based on targetable genetic alterations. The most common reasons that MTB-recommended therapy was not administered stemmed from patient preferences and genetic profiling at either very early or very late stages of disease; lack of drug access was rarely encountered. Increasing awareness of molecular profiling and targeted therapies by both clinicians and patients will improve acceptance and adherence to treatments that could significantly improve outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Case evaluation by a multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) is critical to benefit from individualized genetic data and maximize clinical impact. MTB recommendations shaped treatment options for the majority of cases evaluated. In the few patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy, disease outcomes were positive and support genetically informed treatment.

Molecular tumor board: the University of California-San Diego Moores Cancer Center experience

OBJECTIVE

DNA sequencing tests are enabling physicians to interrogate the molecular profiles of patients' tumors, but most oncologists have not been trained in advanced genomics. We initiated a molecular tumor board to provide expert multidisciplinary input for these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A team that included clinicians, basic scientists, geneticists, and bioinformatics/pathway scientists with expertise in various cancer types attended. Molecular tests were performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments environment.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 34, since December 2012) had received a median of three prior therapies. The median time from physician order to receipt of molecular diagnostic test results was 27 days (range: 14-77 days). Patients had a median of 4 molecular abnormalities (range: 1-14 abnormalities) found by next-generation sequencing (182- or 236-gene panels). Seventy-four genes were involved, with 123 distinct abnormalities. Importantly, no two patients had the same aberrations, and 107 distinct abnormalities were seen only once. Among the 11 evaluable patients whose treatment had been informed by molecular diagnostics, 3 achieved partial responses (progression-free survival of 3.4 months, ≥6.5 months, and 7.6 months). The most common reasons for being unable to act on the molecular diagnostic results were that patients were ineligible for or could not travel to an appropriately targeted clinical trial and/or that insurance would not cover the cognate agents.

CONCLUSION

Genomic sequencing is revealing complex molecular profiles that differ by patient. Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards may help optimize management. Barriers to personalized therapy include access to appropriately targeted drugs.