Clinical bioinformatics desiderata for molecular tumor boards.

Clinical Bioinformatics is a knowledge framework required to interpret data of medical interest via computational methods. This area became of dramatic importance in precision oncology, fueled by cancer genomic profiling: most definitions of Molecular Tumor Boards require the presence of bioinformaticians. However, all available literature remained rather vague on what are the specific needs in terms of digital tools and expertise to tackle and interpret genomics data to assign novel targeted or biomarker-driven targeted therapies to cancer patients. To fill this gap, in this article, we present a catalog of software families and human skills required for the tumor board bioinformatician, with specific examples of real-world applications associated with each element presented.

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.

Integration of proteomics in the molecular tumor board.

Cancer remains one of the most complex and challenging diseases in mankind. To address the need for a personalized treatment approach for particularly complex tumor cases, molecular tumor boards (MTBs) have been initiated. MTBs are interdisciplinary teams that perform in-depth molecular diagnostics to cooperatively and interdisciplinarily advise on the best therapeutic strategy. Current molecular diagnostics are routinely performed on the transcriptomic and genomic levels, aiming to identify tumor-driving mutations. However, these approaches can only partially capture the actual phenotype and the molecular key players of tumor growth and progression. Thus, direct investigation of the expressed proteins and activated signaling pathways provide valuable complementary information on the tumor-driving molecular characteristics of the tissue. Technological advancements in mass spectrometry-based proteomics enable the robust, rapid, and sensitive detection of thousands of proteins in minimal sample amounts, paving the way for clinical proteomics and the probing of oncogenic signaling activity. Therefore, proteomics is currently being integrated into molecular diagnostics within MTBs and holds promising potential in aiding tumor classification and identifying personalized treatment strategies. This review introduces MTBs and describes current clinical proteomics, its potential in precision oncology, and highlights the benefits of multi-omic data integration.

Evaluation of the Geographical Accessibility of Genome-Matched Clinical Trials on a National Experience.

BACKGROUND: Molecular-driven oncology allows oncologists to identify treatments that match a cancer's genomic profile. Clinical trials are promoted as an effective modality to deliver a molecularly matched treatment. We explore the role of geographical accessibility in Italy, and its impact on patient access to clinical trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed molecular data from a single-institutional case series of patients receiving next-generation sequencing testing between March 2019 and July 2020. Actionable alterations were defined as the ones with at least one matched treatment on Clinicaltrials.gov at the time of genomic report signature. We then calculated the hypothetical distance to travel to reach the nearest assigned clinical trial. RESULTS: We identified 159 patients eligible for analysis. One hundred and one could be potentially assigned to a clinical trial in Italy, and the median distance that patients needed to travel to reach the closest location with a suitable clinical trial was 76 km (interquartile range = 127.46 km). Geographical distribution of clinical trials in Italy found to be heterogeneous, with Milan and Naples being the areas with a higher concentration. We then found that the probability of having a clinical trial close to a patient's hometown increased over time, according to registered studies between 2015 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The median distance to be travelled to the nearest trial was generally acceptable for patients, and trials availability is increasing. Nevertheless, many areas are still lacking trials, so efforts are required to increase and homogenize the possibilities to be enrolled in clinical trials for Italian patients with cancer.

The value of virtual molecular tumor boards for informed clinical decision-making.

Genomic profiling and other new technologies have increased the volume and complexity of information available for guiding clinical decision-making in precision oncology. Consequently, there is a need for multidisciplinary expert teams, in the form of molecular tumor boards (MTBs), who can translate this information into a therapeutic plan, including matching patients to suitable clinical trials. Virtual MTBs (vMTBs) can help to overcome many of the challenges associated with in-person MTBs, such as limited time availability, access to appropriate experts or datasets, or interactions between institutions. However, real-world experience from vMTBs is lacking. Here, we describe oncologists' vMTB experiences and the value of working with multicenter and/or multinational vMTBs. We also address knowledge gaps and barriers that could affect the implementation of vMTBs in routine clinical practice. Case studies from Argentina, Turkey, and Portugal illustrate the value of informed clinical decision-making by vMTBs, including expansion of therapeutic options for patients, faster time to treatment, and the resulting improvement in patient outcomes or impact of vMTB discussions on patients. With the uptake of comprehensive genomic profiling and the evolution of some cancers now being conceptualized as a collection of rare diseases with small patient populations based on molecular profiling, the importance of MTBs has increased in modern cancer management. However, an adjustment in clinical decision-making by healthcare professionals is required and evidence of the added value of vMTBs is lacking. Existing vMTBs and recommendations from participating oncologists could point toward a structured evaluation and analysis of this new platform.

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.

Pragmatic nationwide master observational trial based on genomic alterations in advanced solid tumors: KOrean Precision Medicine Networking Group Study of MOlecular profiling guided therapy based on genomic alterations in advanced Solid tumors (KOSMOS)-II study protocol KCSG AL-22-09.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been introduced to many Korean institutions to support molecular diagnostics in cancer since 2017, when it became eligible for reimbursement by the National Health Insurance Service. However, the uptake of molecularly guided treatment (MGT) based on NGS results has been limited because of stringent regulations regarding prescriptions outside of approved indications, a lack of clinical trial opportunities, and limited access to molecular tumor boards (MTB) at most institutions. The KOSMOS-II study was designed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of MGT, informed by MTBs, using a nationwide precision medicine platform. METHODS: The KOSMOS-II trial is a large-scale nationwide master observational study. It involves a framework for screening patients with metastatic solid tumors for actionable genetic alterations based on local NGS testing. It recommends MGT through a remote and centralized MTB meeting held biweekly. MGT can include one of the following options: Tier 1, the therapeutic use of investigational drugs targeting genetic alterations such as ALK, EGFR, ERBB2, BRAF, FH, ROS1, and RET, or those with high tumor mutational burden; Tier 2, comprising drugs with approved indications or those permitted for treatment outside of the indications approved by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service of Korea; Tier 3, involving clinical trials matching the genetic alterations recommended by the MTB. Given the anticipated proportion of patients receiving MGT in the range of 50% ± 3.25%, this study aims to enroll 1,000 patients. Patients must have progressed to one or more lines of therapy and undergone NGS before enrollment. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic master protocol provides a mass-screening platform for rare genetic alterations and high-quality real-world data. Collateral clinical trials, translational studies, and clinico-genomic databases will contribute to generating evidence for drug repositioning and the development of new biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05525858.

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.

Primary Results of Patients with Genitourinary Malignancies Presented at a Molecular Tumor Board.

INTRODUCTION: Personalized medicine poses great opportunities and challenges. While the therapeutic landscape markedly expands, descriptions about status, clinical implementation and real-world benefits of precision oncology and molecular tumor boards (MTB) remain sparse, particularly in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancer. Hence, this study characterized urological MTB cases to better understand the potential role of MTB in uro-oncology. METHODS: We analyzed patients with complete data sets being reviewed at an MTB from January 2019 to October 2022, focusing on results of molecular analysis and treatment recommendations. RESULTS: We evaluated 102 patients with GU cancer with a mean patient age of 61.7 years. Prostate cancer (PCa) was the most frequent entity with 52.9% (54/102), followed by bladder cancer (18.6%, 19/102) and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%, 15/102). On average, case presentation at MTB took place 54.9 months after initial diagnosis and after 2.7 previous lines of therapy. During the study period, 49.0% (50/102) of patients deceased. Additional MTB-based treatment recommendations were achieved in a majority of 68.6% (70/102) of patients, with a recommendation for targeted therapy in 64.3% (45/70) of these patients. Only 6.7% (3/45) of patients - due to different reasons - received the recommended MTB-based therapy though, with 33% (1/3) of patients reaching disease control. Throughout the MTB study period, GU cancer case presentations and treatment recommendations increased, while the time interval between initial presentation and final therapy recommendation were decreasing over time. CONCLUSION: Presentation of uro-oncological patients at the MTB is a highly valuable measure for clinical decision-making. Prospectively, earlier presentation of patients at the MTB and changing legislative issues regarding comprehensive molecular testing and targeted treatment approval might further improve patients' benefits from comprehensive molecular diagnostics.

Genetics and beyond: Precision Medicine Real-World Data for Patients with Cervical, Vaginal or Vulvar Cancer in a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Advances in molecular tumor diagnostics have transformed cancer care. However, it remains unclear whether precision oncology has the same impact and transformative nature across all malignancies. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-related gynecologic malignancies who underwent comprehensive molecular profiling and subsequent discussion at the interdisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) of the University Hospital, LMU Munich, between 11/2017 and 06/2022. We identified a total cohort of 31 patients diagnosed with cervical (CC), vaginal or vulvar cancer. Twenty-two patients (fraction: 0.71) harbored at least one mutation. Fifteen patients (0.48) had an actionable mutation and fourteen (0.45) received a recommendation for a targeted treatment within the MTB. One CC patient received a biomarker-guided treatment recommended by the MTB and achieved stable disease on the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus for eight months. Factors leading to non-adherence to MTB recommendations in other patient cases included informed patient refusal, rapid deterioration, stable disease, or use of alternative targeted but biomarker-agnostic treatments such as antibody-drug conjugates or checkpoint inhibitors. Despite a remarkable rate of actionable mutations in HPV-related gynecologic malignancies at our institution, immediate implementation of biomarker-guided targeted treatment recommendations remained low, and access to targeted treatment options after MTB discussion remained a major challenge.

Knowledge bases and software support for variant interpretation in precision oncology.

Precision oncology is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary medical specialty. Comprehensive cancer panels are becoming increasingly available at pathology departments worldwide, creating the urgent need for scalable cancer variant annotation and molecularly informed treatment recommendations. A wealth of mainly academia-driven knowledge bases calls for software tools supporting the multi-step diagnostic process. We derive a comprehensive list of knowledge bases relevant for variant interpretation by a review of existing literature followed by a survey among medical experts from university hospitals in Germany. In addition, we review cancer variant interpretation tools, which integrate multiple knowledge bases. We categorize the knowledge bases along the diagnostic process in precision oncology and analyze programmatic access options as well as the integration of knowledge bases into software tools. The most commonly used knowledge bases provide good programmatic access options and have been integrated into a range of software tools. For the wider set of knowledge bases, access options vary across different parts of the diagnostic process. Programmatic access is limited for information regarding clinical classifications of variants and for therapy recommendations. The main issue for databases used for biological classification of pathogenic variants and pathway context information is the lack of standardized interfaces. There is no single cancer variant interpretation tool that integrates all identified knowledge bases. Specialized tools are available and need to be further developed for different steps in the diagnostic process.

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.

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.

Clinical utility of a regional precision medicine molecular tumor board and challenges to implementation.

PURPOSE: Molecular tumor boards provide precision treatment recommendations based on cancer genomic profile. However, practical barriers limit their benefits. We studied the clinical utility of the precision medicine molecular tumor board (PMMTB) and described challenges with PMMTB implementation. METHODS: An observational cohort study included patients reviewed by the PMMTB between September 2015 to December 2017. Patients who had consented to the registry study were included. The primary endpoint of this study was time on treatment (ToT) ratio. Clinical utility was established if the primary endpoint had least 15% of patients achieving a ToT ratio of ≥1.3. RESULTS: Overall, 278 patients were presented to the PMMTB and 113 cases were included in the final analysis. The PMMTB identified at least one nonstandard of care (SOC) clinically actionable mutation for 69.0% (78/113) of cases. In patients who received non-SOC treatment, 43.8% (7/16) achieved a ToT ratio of 1.3 or more (p < 0.001). Fifty-nine patients did not receive non-SOC recommendations. Reasons for not pursuing treatment included 35.6% having response to current treatment, 20.3% died prior to starting or considering PMMTB recommendations, 13.6% pursued other treatment options based on clinician discretion, another 10.2% pursued other treatment options because clinical trials recommended were not geographically accessible, 8.5% had rapid decline of performance status, 6.8% lacked of financial support for treatment, and 5.1% were excluded from clinical trials due to abnormal laboratory values. CONCLUSION: The regional PMMTB non-SOC recommendations benefitted a majority of patients and additional processes were implemented to assist with non-SOC treatment accessibility.

Assigning evidence to actionability: An introduction to variant interpretation in precision cancer medicine.

Modern concepts in precision cancer medicine are based on increasingly complex genomic analyses and require standardized criteria for the functional evaluation and reporting of detected genomic alterations in order to assess their clinical relevance. In this article, we propose and address the necessary steps in systematic variant evaluation consisting of bioinformatic analysis, functional annotation and clinical interpretation, focusing on the latter two aspects. We discuss the role and clinical application of current variant classification systems and point out their scope and limitations. Finally, we highlight the significance of the molecular tumor board as a platform for clinical decision-making based on genomic analyses.

Chronological improvement in precision oncology implementation in Japan.

In Japan, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests for refractory cancer patients have been approved since June 2019, under the requirement that all cases undergoing CGP tests are annotated by the molecular tumor board (MTB) at each government-designated hospital. To investigate improvement in precision oncology, we evaluated and compared the proportion of cases receiving matched treatments according to CGP results and those recommended to receive genetic counseling at all core hospitals between the first period (11 hospitals, June 2019 to January 2020) and second period (12 hospitals, February 2020 to January 2021). A total of 754 and 2294 cases underwent CGP tests at core hospitals in the first and second periods, respectively; 28 (3.7%) and 176 (7.7%) patients received matched treatments (p < 0.001). Additionally, 25 (3.3%) and 237 (10.3%) cases were recommended to receive genetic counseling in the first and second periods, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion was associated with the type of CGP test: tumor-only (N = 2391) vs. tumor-normal paired (N = 657) analysis (10.0% vs. 3.5%). These results suggest that recommendations regarding available clinical trials in networked MTBs might contribute to increasing the numbers of matched treatments, and that tumor-normal paired rather than tumor-only tests can increase the efficiency of patient referrals for genetic counseling.

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.

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.

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.