Background: Precision oncology treatments are being applied more commonly in breast and gynecological oncology through the implementation of Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), but real-world clinical outcome data remain limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted in patients with breast cancer (BC) and gynecological malignancies referred to our center's MTB from 2018 to 2023. The analysis covered patient characteristics, next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, MTB recommendations, therapy received, and clinical outcomes. Results: Sixty-three patients (77.8%) had metastatic disease, and forty-four patients (54.3%) had previously undergone three or more lines of systemic treatment. Personalized treatment recommendations were provided to 50 patients (63.3%), while 29 (36.7%) had no actionable target. Ultimately, 23 patients (29.1%) underwent molecular-matched treatment (MMT). Commonly altered genes in patients with pan-gyn tumors (BC and gynecological malignancies) included TP53 (n = 42/81, 51.9%), PIK3CA (n = 18/81, 22.2%), BRCA1/2 (n = 10/81, 12.3%), and ARID1A (n = 9/81, 11.1%). Patients treated with MMT showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median PFS 5.5 vs. 3.5 months, p = 0.0014). Of all patients who underwent molecular profiling, 13.6% experienced a major clinical benefit (PFSr ≥ 1.3 and PR/SD ≥ 6 months) through precision oncology. Conclusions: NGS-guided precision oncology demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in a subgroup of patients with gynecological and breast cancers.
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in corona virus disease 19 (COVID-19) is triggered by hyperinflammation, thus providing a rationale for immunosuppressive treatments. The Janus kinase inhibitor Ruxolitinib (Ruxo) has shown efficacy in severe and critical COVID-19. In this study, we hypothesized that Ruxo's mode of action in this condition is reflected by changes in the peripheral blood proteome. Methods: This study included 11 COVID-19 patients, who were treated at our center's Intensive Care Unit (ICU). All patients received standard-of-care treatment and n = 8 patients with ARDS received Ruxo in addition. Blood samples were collected before (day 0) and on days 1, 6, and 10 of Ruxo treatment or, respectively, ICU admission. Serum proteomes were analyzed by mass spectrometry (MS) and cytometric bead array. Results: Linear modeling of MS data yielded 27 significantly differentially regulated proteins on day 1, 69 on day 6 and 72 on day 10. Only five factors (IGLV10-54, PSMB1, PGLYRP1, APOA5, WARS1) were regulated both concordantly and significantly over time. Overrepresentation analysis revealed biological processes involving T-cells only on day 1, while a humoral immune response and complement activation were detected at day 6 and day 10. Pathway enrichment analysis identified the NRF2-pathway early under Ruxo treatment and Network map of SARS-CoV-2 signaling and Statin inhibition of cholesterol production at later time points. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the mechanism of action of Ruxo in COVID-19-ARDS can be related to both known effects of this drug as a modulator of T-cells and the SARS-CoV-2-infection.
In breast cancer, the current guideline for pathological workup includes recommendations for advanced molecular analysis of certain predictive molecular markers in addition to basic immunohistochemical diagnostics. These markers are determined depending on tumor stage, including sequencing techniques and immunohistochemical methods. This comprises the systematic investigation of molecular alterations such as PIK3CA or BRCA1,2 mutations, NTRK fusions, or microsatellite instability as a basis for targeted therapy. Further alterations, for example in the PI3K pathway, ESR1 alterations, or ERBB2 mutations, may also be relevant for individual therapy decisions especially in the context of resistant or relapsed disease. Thus, particularly in advanced stages, a more comprehensive molecular characterization of the tumor may reveal genetic alterations that act as tumor drivers and provide targets for personalized therapies. Due to the large number of potential molecular targets, NGS panel diagnostics are a suitable approach in this conjunction with immunohistochemical characterization and the individual clinical situation. Molecular based therapeutical strategies outside of entity-specific approvals should be discussed in an interdisciplinary team within the framework of a molecular tumor board.
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases/genetics , Mutation , Pathology, Molecular
BACKGROUND: Increasing knowledge of cancer biology and an expanding spectrum of molecularly targeted therapies provide the basis for precision oncology. Despite extensive gene diagnostics, previous reports indicate that less than 10% of patients benefit from this concept. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients referred to our center's Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) from 2018 to 2021. Molecular testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) included a 67-gene panel for the detection of short-sequence variants and copy-number alterations, a 53- or 137-gene fusion panel and an ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing for the detection of additional copy-number alterations outside the panel's target regions. Immunohistochemistry for microsatellite instability and PD-L1 expression complemented NGS. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were referred to the MTB. In all, 78 patients received therapeutic proposals (70 based on NGS) and 33 were treated accordingly. Evaluable patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy (n = 30) had significantly longer progression-free survival than patients treated with other therapies (n = 17) (4.3 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.0094). Seven patients treated with off-label regimens experienced major clinical benefits. CONCLUSION: The combined focused sequencing assays detected targetable alterations in the majority of patients. Patient benefits appeared to lie in the same range as with large-scale sequencing approaches.
