Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology.
Journal
Nature reviews. Clinical oncology
ISSN: 1759-4782
Titre abrégé: Nat Rev Clin Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101500077
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
accepted:
25
09
2023
medline:
20
11
2023
pubmed:
17
10
2023
entrez:
16
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Over the past 15 years, rapid progress has been made in developmental therapeutics, especially regarding the use of matched targeted therapies against specific oncogenic molecular alterations across cancer types. Molecular tumour boards (MTBs) are panels of expert physicians, scientists, health-care providers and patient advocates who review and interpret molecular-profiling results for individual patients with cancer and match each patient to available therapies, which can include investigational drugs. Interpretation of the molecular alterations found in each patient is a complicated task that requires an understanding of their contextual functional effects and their correlations with sensitivity or resistance to specific treatments. The criteria for determining the actionability of molecular alterations and selecting matched treatments are constantly evolving. Therefore, MTBs have an increasingly necessary role in optimizing the allocation of biomarker-directed therapies and the implementation of precision oncology. Ultimately, increased MTB availability, accessibility and performance are likely to improve patient care. The challenges faced by MTBs are increasing, owing to the plethora of identifiable molecular alterations and immune markers in tumours of individual patients and their evolving clinical significance as more and more data on patient outcomes and results from clinical trials become available. Beyond next-generation sequencing, broader biomarker analyses can provide useful information. However, greater funding, resources and expertise are needed to ensure the sustainability of MTBs and expand their outreach to underserved populations. Harmonization between practice and policy will be required to optimally implement precision oncology. Herein, we discuss the evolving role of MTBs and current and future considerations for their use in precision oncology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37845306
doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00824-4
pii: 10.1038/s41571-023-00824-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Drugs, Investigational
0
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
843-863Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
MedlinePlus. What is the difference between precision medicine and personalized medicine? What about pharmacogenomics? https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/precisionmedicine/precisionvspersonalized/ (2022).
Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy (IMPACT): an MD Anderson Precision Medicine Study. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00002 (2017).
Christofyllakis, K. et al. Cost-effectiveness of precision cancer medicine — current challenges in the use of next generation sequencing for comprehensive tumour genomic profiling and the role of clinical utility frameworks (Review). Mol. Clin. Oncol. 16, 21 (2022).
pubmed: 34909199
doi: 10.3892/mco.2021.2453
Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: the MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 6373–6383 (2012).
pubmed: 22966018
pmcid: 4454458
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1627
Von Hoff, D. D. et al. Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients’ tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 4877–4883 (2010).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.5983
Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Personalized medicine for patients with advanced cancer in the phase I program at MD Anderson: validation and landmark analyses. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 4827–4836 (2014).
pubmed: 24987059
pmcid: 4518867
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0603
Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Long-term overall survival and prognostic score predicting survival: the IMPACT study in precision medicine. J. Hematol. Oncol. 12, 145 (2019).
pubmed: 31888672
pmcid: 6937824
doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0835-1
Larson, K. L. et al. Clinical outcomes of molecular tumor boards: a systematic review. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00495 (2021).
Luthra, R. et al. A targeted high-throughput next-generation sequencing panel for clinical screening of mutations, gene amplifications, and fusions in solid tumors. J. Mol. Diagn. 19, 255–264 (2017).
pubmed: 28017569
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.09.011
Lih, C. J. et al. Analytical validation of the next-generation sequencing assay for a nationwide signal-finding clinical trial: molecular analysis for therapy choice clinical trial. J. Mol. Diagn. 19, 313–327 (2017).
pubmed: 28188106
pmcid: 5397672
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.007
Goswami, R. S. et al. Identification of factors affecting the success of next-generation sequencing testing in solid tumors. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 145, 222–237 (2016).
pubmed: 27124905
doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqv023
Ramani, N. S. et al. Factors impacting clinically relevant RNA fusion assays using next-generation sequencing. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 145, 1405–1412 (2021).
pubmed: 33493304
doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0415-OA
Jennings, L. J. et al. Guidelines for validation of next-generation sequencing-based oncology panels: a Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists. J. Mol. Diagn. 19, 341–365 (2017).
pubmed: 28341590
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.01.011
Li, M. M. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer: a Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J. Mol. Diagn. 19, 4–23 (2017).
pubmed: 27993330
pmcid: 5707196
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.002
Foundation Medicine. FoundationOne CDx. https://www.foundationmedicine.com/test/foundationone-cdx (2023).
TEMPUS. Genomic Profiling. https://www.tempus.com/oncology/genomic-profiling/xt-xr/ (2023).
CARIS LIFE SCIENCES. Molecular Profiling. https://www.carislifesciences.com/products-and-services/molecular-profiling/testing-menu/ (2023).
Malone, E. R., Oliva, M., Sabatini, P. J. B., Stockley, T. L. & Siu, L. L. Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies. Genome Med. 12, 8 (2020).
pubmed: 31937368
pmcid: 6961404
doi: 10.1186/s13073-019-0703-1
Galuppini, F. et al. Tumor mutation burden: from comprehensive mutational screening to the clinic. Cancer Cell Int. 19, 209 (2019).
pubmed: 31406485
pmcid: 6686509
doi: 10.1186/s12935-019-0929-4
Havel, J. J., Chowell, D. & Chan, T. A. The evolving landscape of biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 19, 133–150 (2019).
pubmed: 30755690
pmcid: 6705396
doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0116-x
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pembrolizumab for adults and children with TMB-H solid tumors. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-pembrolizumab-adults-and-children-tmb-h-solid-tumors (2020).
Marabelle, A. et al. Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. Lancet Oncol. 21, 1353–1365 (2020).
pubmed: 32919526
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30445-9
Gelsomino, F., Barbolini, M., Spallanzani, A., Pugliese, G. & Cascinu, S. The evolving role of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: a review. Cancer Treat. Rev. 51, 19–26 (2016).
pubmed: 27838401
doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.10.005
Boland, C. R. & Goel, A. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 138, 2073–2087.e3 (2010).
pubmed: 20420947
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.12.064
Le, D. T. et al. Phase II open-label study of pembrolizumab in treatment-refractory, microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: KEYNOTE-164. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 11–19 (2020).
pubmed: 31725351
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02107
Le, D. T. et al. Pembrolizumab for previously treated, microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient advanced colorectal cancer: final analysis of KEYNOTE-164. Eur. J. Cancer 186, 185–195 (2023).
pubmed: 37141828
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.02.016
O’Malley, D. M. et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with microsatellite instability-high advanced endometrial cancer: results from the KEYNOTE-158 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 752–761 (2022).
pubmed: 34990208
pmcid: 8887941
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01874
Maio, M. et al. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. Ann. Oncol. 33, 929–938 (2022).
pubmed: 35680043
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.519
Andre, T. et al. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite-instability-high advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2207–2218 (2020).
pubmed: 33264544
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2017699
Yoshino, T. et al. Pembrolizumab in Asian patients with microsatellite-instability-high/mismatch-repair-deficient colorectal cancer. Cancer Sci. 114, 1026–1036 (2023).
pubmed: 36369901
doi: 10.1111/cas.15650
Oaknin, A. et al. Safety and antitumor activity of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) or proficient/stable (MMRp/MSS) endometrial cancer: interim results from GARNET-a phase I, single-arm study. J. Immunother. Cancer 10, e003777 (2022).
pubmed: 35064011
pmcid: 8785197
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003777
Oaknin, A. et al. Clinical activity and safety of the anti-programmed death 1 monoclonal antibody dostarlimab for patients with recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer: a nonrandomized phase 1 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 6, 1766–1772 (2020).
pubmed: 33001143
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4515
Oaknin, A. et al. Safety, efficacy, and biomarker analyses of dostarlimab in patients with endometrial cancer: interim results of the phase I GARNET study. Clin. Cancer Res. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3915 (2023).
Lenz, H. J. et al. First-line nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II checkmate 142 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 161–170 (2022).
pubmed: 34637336
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01015
FoundationOne CDx. Technical Information F1CDx. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170019S029C.pdf (2020).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. VENTANA: Ventana Anti-MLH1 (M1) Mouse Monoclonal Primary Antibody. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/P210001D.pdf (2022).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to Pembrolizumab for First Tissue/site Agnostic Indication. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-pembrolizumab-first-tissuesite-agnostic-indication (2017).
MERCK. FDA Converts to Full Approval Indication for KEYTRUDA® (Pembrolizumab) for Certain Adult and Pediatric Patients With Advanced Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) or Mismatch Repair Deficient (dMMR) Solid Tumors. https://www.merck.com/news/fda-converts-to-full-approval-indication-for-keytruda-pembrolizumab-for-certain-adult-and-pediatric-patients-with-advanced-microsatellite-instability-high-msi-h-or-mismatch-repair-deficient/ (2023).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to Dostarlimab-gxly for dMMR Advanced Solid Tumors. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-dostarlimab-gxly-dmmr-advanced-solid-tumors (2023).
Lebofsky, R. et al. Circulating tumor DNA as a non-invasive substitute to metastasis biopsy for tumor genotyping and personalized medicine in a prospective trial across all tumor types. Mol. Oncol. 9, 783–790 (2015).
pubmed: 25579085
doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.12.003
Normanno, N., Cervantes, A., Ciardiello, F., De Luca, A. & Pinto, C. The liquid biopsy in the management of colorectal cancer patients: current applications and future scenarios. Cancer Treat. Rev. 70, 1–8 (2018).
pubmed: 30053724
doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.07.007
Zill, O. A. et al. The landscape of actionable genomic alterations in cell-free circulating tumor DNA from 21,807 advanced cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 3528–3538 (2018).
pubmed: 29776953
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3837
Polivka, J. Jr., Pesta, M. & Janku, F. Testing for oncogenic molecular aberrations in cell-free DNA-based liquid biopsies in the clinic: are we there yet. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 15, 1631–1644 (2015).
pubmed: 26559503
pmcid: 5016094
doi: 10.1586/14737159.2015.1110021
Fleischhacker, M. & Schmidt, B. Circulating nucleic acids (CNAs) and cancer — a survey. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1775, 181–232 (2007).
pubmed: 17137717
Suraj, S., Dhar, C. & Srivastava, S. Circulating nucleic acids: an analysis of their occurrence in malignancies. Biomed. Rep. 6, 8–14 (2017).
pubmed: 28123700
doi: 10.3892/br.2016.812
Janku, F. et al. Development and validation of an ultradeep next-generation sequencing assay for testing of plasma cell-free DNA from patients with advanced cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 5648–5656 (2017).
pubmed: 28536309
pmcid: 5600825
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0291
Said, R., Guibert, N., Oxnard, G. R. & Tsimberidou, A. M. Circulating tumor DNA analysis in the era of precision oncology. Oncotarget 11, 188–211 (2020).
pubmed: 32010431
pmcid: 6968778
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.27418
Sanchez, N. S. et al. Identification of actionable genomic alterations using circulating cell-free DNA. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.19.00017 (2019).
Laufer-Geva, S. et al. The clinical impact of comprehensive genomic testing of circulating cell-free DNA in advanced lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 13, 1705–1716 (2018).
pubmed: 30121392
doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.07.101
TEMPUS | ONCOLOGY. xF+ Gene List. https://www.tempus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Tempus-xFPlus_Gene-Panel.pdf (2022).
FoundationOne Liquid CDx. Technical Specifications. https://assets.ctfassets.net/w98cd481qyp0/wVEm7VtICYR0sT5C1VbU7/fd055e0476183a6acd4eae6b583e3a00/F1LCDx_Technical_Specs_072021.pdf (2021).
Guardant Complete 360. An Expanded Panel of Biomarkers. https://www.guardantcomplete.com/guardant-portfolio/360 (2021).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. List of Cleared or Approved Companion Diagnostic Devices (In Vitro and Imaging Tools). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/list-cleared-or-approved-companion-diagnostic-devices-in-vitro-and-imaging-tools (2023).
CISION PR Newswire. Guardant Health Receives Regulatory Approval for Guardant360 CDx in Japan. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/guardant-health-receives-regulatory-approval-for-guardant360-cdx-in-japan-301501649.html (2022).
FoundationOne Medicine. Clinical Development & CDx. https://www.foundationmedicine.com/service/clinical-development-and-cdx (2022).
Jaiswal, S. & Ebert, B. L. Clonal hematopoiesis in human aging and disease. Science 366, eaan4673 (2019).
pubmed: 31672865
pmcid: 8050831
doi: 10.1126/science.aan4673
Genovese, G. et al. Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 2477–2487 (2014).
pubmed: 25426838
pmcid: 4290021
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409405
Jaiswal, S. et al. Age-related clonal hematopoiesis associated with adverse outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 2488–2498 (2014).
pubmed: 25426837
pmcid: 4306669
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1408617
Coombs, C. C. et al. Identification of clonal hematopoiesis mutations in solid tumor patients undergoing unpaired next-generation sequencing assays. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 5918–5924 (2018).
pubmed: 29866652
pmcid: 6812550
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1201
Bauml, J. & Levy, B. Clonal hematopoiesis: a new layer in the liquid biopsy story in lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 4352–4354 (2018).
pubmed: 29748181
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0969
Ignatiadis, M., Sledge, G. W. & Jeffrey, S. S. Liquid biopsy enters the clinic — implementation issues and future challenges. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 18, 297–312 (2021).
pubmed: 33473219
doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-00457-x
Jensen, K. et al. Association of clonal hematopoiesis in DNA repair genes with prostate cancer plasma cell-free DNA testing interference. JAMA Oncol. 7, 107–110 (2021).
pubmed: 33151258
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5161
Merker, J. D. et al. Circulating tumor DNA analysis in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 1631–1641 (2018).
pubmed: 29504847
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.8671
Coombs, C. C. et al. Therapy-related clonal hematopoiesis in patients with non-hematologic cancers is common and associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Cell Stem Cell 21, 374–382.e4 (2017).
pubmed: 28803919
pmcid: 5591073
doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2017.07.010
Chan, H. T., Chin, Y. M., Nakamura, Y. & Low, S. K. Clonal hematopoiesis in liquid biopsy: from biological noise to valuable clinical implications. Cancers 12, 2277 (2020).
pubmed: 32823942
pmcid: 7463455
doi: 10.3390/cancers12082277
Razavi, P. et al. High-intensity sequencing reveals the sources of plasma circulating cell-free DNA variants. Nat. Med. 25, 1928–1937 (2019).
pubmed: 31768066
pmcid: 7061455
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0652-7
National Cancer Institute. Germline Mutation. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/germline-mutation (2023).
Moore, K. et al. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2495–2505 (2018).
pubmed: 30345884
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810858
DiSilvestro, P. et al. Overall survival with maintenance olaparib at a 7-year follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation: the SOLO1/GOG 3004 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 41, 609–617 (2023).
pubmed: 36082969
doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01549
Banerjee, S. et al. Maintenance olaparib for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (SOLO1/GOG 3004): 5-year follow-up of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 22, 1721–1731 (2021).
pubmed: 34715071
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00531-3
Pujade-Lauraine, E. et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18, 1274–1284 (2017).
pubmed: 28754483
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30469-2
Poveda, A. et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 22, 620–631 (2021).
pubmed: 33743851
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00073-5
Tutt, A. N. J. et al. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 2394–2405 (2021).
pubmed: 34081848
pmcid: 9126186
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2105215
Yamauchi, H. et al. Adjuvant olaparib in the subset of patients from Japan with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated high-risk early breast cancer from the phase 3 OlympiA trial. Breast Cancer 30, 596–605 (2023).
pubmed: 37005966
doi: 10.1007/s12282-023-01451-8
Robson, M. et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 523–533 (2017).
pubmed: 28578601
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450
Robson, M. E. et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 30, 558–566 (2019).
pubmed: 30689707
pmcid: 6503629
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz012
Im, S. A. et al. Olaparib monotherapy for Asian patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: OlympiAD randomized trial subgroup analysis. Sci. Rep. 10, 8753 (2020).
pubmed: 32472001
pmcid: 7260217
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63033-4
de Bono, J. et al. Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 2091–2102 (2020).
pubmed: 32343890
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911440
Golan, T. et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 317–327 (2019).
pubmed: 31157963
pmcid: 6810605
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903387
Kindler, H. L. et al. Overall survival results from the POLO trial: a phase III study of active maintenance olaparib versus placebo for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 3929–3939 (2022).
pubmed: 35834777
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01604
Hussain, M. et al. Survival with olaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2345–2357 (2020).
pubmed: 32955174
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022485
Matsubara, N. et al. Olaparib efficacy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alterations identified by testing circulating tumor DNA. Clin. Cancer Res. 29, 92–99 (2023).
pubmed: 36318705
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3577
Matsubara, N. et al. Olaparib in patients with mCRPC with homologous recombination repair gene alterations: PROfound Asian subset analysis. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 52, 441–448 (2022).
pubmed: 35229141
pmcid: 9071396
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyac015
Mirza, M. R. et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2154–2164 (2016).
pubmed: 27717299
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611310
Del Campo, J. M. et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer after a partial response to the last platinum-based chemotherapy in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 2968–2973 (2019).
pubmed: 31173551
pmcid: 6839909
doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02238
Coleman, R. L. et al. Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 390, 1949–1961 (2017).
pubmed: 28916367
pmcid: 5901715
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32440-6
O’Malley, D. M. et al. Clinical and molecular characteristics of ARIEL3 patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib maintenance treatment for high-grade ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol. Oncol. 167, 404–413 (2022).
pubmed: 36273926
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.08.021
Ledermann, J. A. et al. Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 21, 710–722 (2020).
pubmed: 32359490
pmcid: 8210534
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30061-9
Abida, W. et al. Rucaparib for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a DNA damage repair gene alteration: final results from the phase 2 TRITON2 study. Eur. Urol. 84, 321–330 (2023).
pubmed: 37277275
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.05.021
Litton, J. K. et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 753–763 (2018).
pubmed: 30110579
pmcid: 10600918
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905
Chan, H. T. et al. Clinical significance of clonal hematopoiesis in the interpretation of blood liquid biopsy. Mol. Oncol. 14, 1719–1730 (2020).
pubmed: 32449983
pmcid: 7400786
doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12727
Koch, A. et al. Analysis of DNA methylation in cancer: location revisited. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 459–466 (2018).
pubmed: 29666440
doi: 10.1038/s41571-018-0004-4
Xu, L. et al. Long-read sequencing identifies novel structural variations in colorectal cancer. PLoS Genet. 19, e1010514 (2023).
pubmed: 36812239
pmcid: 10013895
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010514
Fisher, C. L., Dillon, R., Anguita, E., Morris-Rosendahl, D. J. & Awan, A. R. A novel bead-capture nanopore sequencing method for large structural rearrangement detection in cancer. J. Mol. Diagn. 24, 1264–1278 (2022).
pubmed: 36243290
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2022.09.006
Chen, Y. et al. Gene fusion detection and characterization in long-read cancer transcriptome sequencing data with FusionSeeker. Cancer Res. 83, 28–33 (2023).
pubmed: 36318117
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-1628
Nathan, P. et al. Overall survival benefit with tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 385, 1196–1206 (2021).
pubmed: 34551229
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103485
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. VITRAKVI: Highlights of Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/210861s008lbl.pdf (2022).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ROZLYTREK: Highlights of Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/212725s006lbl.pdf (2022).
von Bubnoff, N., Schneller, F., Peschel, C. & Duyster, J. BCR-ABL gene mutations in relation to clinical resistance of Philadelphia-chromosome-positive leukaemia to STI571: a prospective study. Lancet 359, 487–491 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07679-1
Gorre, M. E. et al. Clinical resistance to STI-571 cancer therapy caused by BCR-ABL gene mutation or amplification. Science 293, 876–880 (2001).
pubmed: 11423618
doi: 10.1126/science.1062538
Goyal, L. et al. Polyclonal secondary FGFR2 mutations drive acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 7, 252–263 (2017).
pubmed: 28034880
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1000
Katayama, R. et al. Mechanisms of acquired crizotinib resistance in ALK-rearranged lung cancers. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 120ra117 (2012).
doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003316
Yun, C. H. et al. The T790M mutation in EGFR kinase causes drug resistance by increasing the affinity for ATP. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 2070–2075 (2008).
pubmed: 18227510
pmcid: 2538882
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709662105
Pao, W. et al. Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain. PLoS Med. 2, e73 (2005).
pubmed: 15737014
pmcid: 549606
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020073
Yu, H. A. et al. Concurrent alterations in EGFR-mutant lung cancers associated with resistance to EGFR kinase inhibitors and characterization of MTOR as a mediator of resistance. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 3108–3118 (2018).
pubmed: 29530932
pmcid: 6420806
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2961
Kong, L. L. et al. Structural pharmacological studies on EGFR T790M/C797S. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 488, 266–272 (2017).
pubmed: 28456628
doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.04.138
Uchibori, K. et al. Brigatinib combined with anti-EGFR antibody overcomes osimertinib resistance in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat. Commun. 8, 14768 (2017).
pubmed: 28287083
pmcid: 5355811
doi: 10.1038/ncomms14768
Niederst, M. J. et al. The allelic context of the C797S mutation acquired upon treatment with third-generation EGFR inhibitors impacts sensitivity to subsequent treatment strategies. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 3924–3933 (2015).
pubmed: 25964297
pmcid: 4587765
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0560
Yu, H. A. et al. Acquired resistance of EGFR-mutant lung cancer to a T790M-specific EGFR inhibitor: emergence of a third mutation (C797S) in the EGFR tyrosine kinase domain. JAMA Oncol. 1, 982–984 (2015).
pubmed: 26181354
pmcid: 4665629
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1066
Thress, K. S. et al. Acquired EGFR C797S mutation mediates resistance to AZD9291 in non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR T790M. Nat. Med. 21, 560–562 (2015).
pubmed: 25939061
pmcid: 4771182
doi: 10.1038/nm.3854
Song, H. N. et al. Acquired C797S mutation upon treatment with a T790M-specific third-generation EGFR inhibitor (HM61713) in non-small cell lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 11, e45–47 (2016).
pubmed: 26749488
doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2015.12.093
Weigelt, B. et al. Diverse BRCA1 and BRCA2 reversion mutations in circulating cell-free DNA of therapy-resistant breast or ovarian cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 6708–6720 (2017).
pubmed: 28765325
pmcid: 5728372
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0544
Pettitt, S. J. et al. Clinical BRCA1/2 reversion analysis identifies hotspot mutations and predicted neoantigens associated with therapy resistance. Cancer Discov. 10, 1475–1488 (2020).
pubmed: 32699032
pmcid: 7611203
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-1485
Lin, K. K. et al. BRCA reversion mutations in circulating tumor DNA predict primary and acquired resistance to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in high-grade ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 9, 210–219 (2019).
pubmed: 30425037
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0715
Shroff, R. T. et al. Rucaparib monotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer and a known deleterious BRCA mutation. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018, 00316 (2018).
Afghahi, A. et al. Tumor BRCA1 reversion mutation arising during neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer is associated with therapy resistance. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 3365–3370 (2017).
pubmed: 28087643
pmcid: 5496787
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2174
Tobalina, L., Armenia, J., Irving, E., O’Connor, M. J. & Forment, J. V. A meta-analysis of reversion mutations in BRCA genes identifies signatures of DNA end-joining repair mechanisms driving therapy resistance. Ann. Oncol. 32, 103–112 (2021).
pubmed: 33091561
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.470
Zong, H. et al. Comprehensive analysis of somatic reversion mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes in a large cohort of Chinese pan-cancer patients. J. Cancer 13, 1119–1129 (2022).
pubmed: 35281878
pmcid: 8899361
doi: 10.7150/jca.65650
Hilton, J. et al. Results of the phase I CCTG IND.231 trial of CX-5461 in patients with advanced solid tumors enriched for DNA-repair deficiencies. Nat. Commun. 13, 3607 (2022).
pubmed: 35750695
pmcid: 9232501
doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31199-2
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Erbitux: Highlights of Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/125084s279lbl.pdf (2021).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vectibix: Highlights of Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/125147s210lbl.pdf (2021).
Engelman, J. A. et al. MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by activating ERBB3 signaling. Science 316, 1039–1043 (2007).
pubmed: 17463250
doi: 10.1126/science.1141478
Leonetti, A. et al. Resistance mechanisms to osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer 121, 725–737 (2019).
pubmed: 31564718
pmcid: 6889286
doi: 10.1038/s41416-019-0573-8
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1450 (2023).
Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Phase 1 study of M2698, a p70S6K/AKT dual inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer. J. Hematol. Oncol. 14, 127 (2021).
pubmed: 34407844
pmcid: 8371902
doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01132-z
Meric-Bernstam, F. et al. A decision support framework for genomically informed investigational cancer therapy. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 107, djv098 (2015).
pubmed: 25863335
pmcid: 4651038
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv098
Johnson, A. et al. Clinical use of precision oncology decision support. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00036 (2017).
Kurnit, K. C. et al. ‘Personalized cancer therapy’: a publicly available precision oncology resource. Cancer Res. 77, e123–e126 (2017).
pubmed: 29092956
pmcid: 5774617
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0341
Zeng, J. et al. OCTANE: oncology clinical trial annotation engine. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 3, 1–11 (2019).
Zeng, J. et al. Operationalization of next-generation sequencing and decision support for precision oncology. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 3, 1–12 (2019).
Mangat, P. K. et al. Rationale and design of the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) study. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.18.00122 (2018).
Chakravarty, D. et al. OncoKB: a precision oncology knowledge base. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011 (2017).
Patterson, S. E., Statz, C. M., Yin, T. & Mockus, S. M. Utility of the JAX Clinical Knowledgebase in capture and assessment of complex genomic cancer data. npj Precis. Oncol. 3, 2 (2019).
pubmed: 30675517
pmcid: 6333807
doi: 10.1038/s41698-018-0073-y
Tamborero, D. et al. The Molecular Tumor Board Portal supports clinical decisions and automated reporting for precision oncology. Nat. Cancer 3, 251–261 (2022).
pubmed: 35221333
pmcid: 8882467
doi: 10.1038/s43018-022-00332-x
Johnson, A. et al. The right drugs at the right time for the right patient: the MD Anderson precision oncology decision support platform. Drug Discov. Today 20, 1433–1438 (2015).
pubmed: 26148707
pmcid: 5648066
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.05.013
Flaherty, K. T. & Conley, B. A. Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH): A Precision Medicine Signal-Seeking Trial in Oncology. https://www.personalizedmedonc.com/articles/3443:molecular-analysis-for-therapy-choice-nci-match (2023).
Van Allen, E. M. et al. Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine. Nat. Med. 20, 682–688 (2014).
pubmed: 24836576
pmcid: 4048335
doi: 10.1038/nm.3559
Andre, F. et al. Prioritizing targets for precision cancer medicine. Ann. Oncol. 25, 2295–2303 (2014).
pubmed: 25344359
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu478
Mateo, J. et al. A framework to rank genomic alterations as targets for cancer precision medicine: the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Ann. Oncol. 29, 1895–1902 (2018).
pubmed: 30137196
pmcid: 6158764
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy263
Leichsenring, J. et al. Variant classification in precision oncology. Int. J. Cancer 145, 2996–3010 (2019).
pubmed: 31008532
doi: 10.1002/ijc.32358
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CDRH’S Approach to Tumor Profiling Next Generation Sequencing Tests. https://www.fda.gov/media/109050/download (2023).
Sicklick, J. K. et al. Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study. Nat. Med. 25, 744–750 (2019).
pubmed: 31011206
pmcid: 6553618
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0407-5
Jain, N. M., Culley, A., Micheel, C. M., Osterman, T. J. & Levy, M. A. Learnings from precision clinical trial matching for oncology patients who received NGS testing. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 5, 231–238 (2021).
Meropol, N. J. et al. Barriers to clinical trial participation as perceived by oncologists and patients. J. Natl Compr. Cancer Netw. 5, 655–664 (2007).
Mills, E. J. et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol. 7, 141–148 (2006).
pubmed: 16455478
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70576-9
St Germain, D. C. & McCaskill-Stevens, W. Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual. Cancer 127, 1630–1637 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/cncr.33399
Unger, J. M., Cook, E., Tai, E. & Bleyer, A. The role of clinical trial participation in cancer research: barriers, evidence, and strategies. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book. 35, 185–198 (2016).
pubmed: 27249699
pmcid: 5495113
doi: 10.1200/EDBK_156686
Unger, J. M. et al. ‘When offered to participate’: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 113, 244–257 (2021).
pubmed: 33022716
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa155
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to Dabrafenib in Combination with Trametinib for Unresectable or Metastatic Solid Tumors with BRAF V600E Mutation. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-dabrafenib-combination-trametinib-unresectable-or-metastatic-solid (2022).
European Medicines Agency. Mekinist. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/mekinist (2022).
European Medicines Agency. Tafinlar. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/tafinlar (2021).
Fountzilas, E., Said, R. & Tsimberidou, A. M. Expanded access to investigational drugs: balancing patient safety with potential therapeutic benefits. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 27, 155–162 (2018).
pubmed: 29353505
pmcid: 6291242
doi: 10.1080/13543784.2018.1430137
Hull, R. et al. Cervical cancer in low and middle-income countries. Oncol. Lett. 20, 2058–2074 (2020).
pubmed: 32782524
pmcid: 7400218
doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.11754
Knaul, F. M., Bhadelia, A., Atun, R. & Frenk, J. Achieving effective universal health coverage and diagonal approaches to care for chronic illnesses. Health Aff. 34, 1514–1522 (2015).
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0514
Bharadwaj, M., Vallurupalli, M. & Huang, F. W. Global precision oncology: a call to action on expanding access to targeted cancer therapies. Oncologist 26, 353–355 (2021).
pubmed: 33539588
pmcid: 8100554
doi: 10.1002/onco.13708
Nelson, A. M., Milner, D. A., Rebbeck, T. R. & Iliyasu, Y. Oncologic care and pathology resources in Africa: survey and recommendations. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 20–26 (2016).
pubmed: 26578619
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.9767
Lopez, M. S. et al. Cervical cancer prevention and treatment in Latin America. J. Surg. Oncol. 115, 615–618 (2017).
pubmed: 28168717
pmcid: 5990960
doi: 10.1002/jso.24544
Brandao, M. et al. Survival impact and cost–effectiveness of a multidisciplinary tumor board for breast cancer in Mozambique, Sub-Saharan Africa. Oncologist 26, e996–e1008 (2021).
pubmed: 33325595
pmcid: 8176970
doi: 10.1002/onco.13643
Incorvaia, L., Russo, A. & Cinieri, S. The molecular tumor board: a tool for the governance of precision oncology in the real world. Tumori 108, 288–290 (2022).
pubmed: 34918610
doi: 10.1177/03008916211062266
Erdmann, J. All aboard: will molecular tumor boards help cancer patients? Nat. Med. 21, 655–656 (2015).
pubmed: 26151320
doi: 10.1038/nm0715-655
Mosele, F. et al. Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Ann. Oncol. 31, 1491–1505 (2020).
pubmed: 32853681
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.014
Richards, S. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. 17, 405–424 (2015).
pubmed: 25741868
pmcid: 4544753
doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30
Alva, A. S. et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer with high tumor mutational burden: results from the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 39, 2443–2451 (2021).
pubmed: 33844595
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02923
Ahn, E. R. et al. Palbociclib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with CDKN2A alterations: results from the targeted agent and profiling utilization registry study. JCO Precis. Oncol. 4, 757–766 (2020).
pubmed: 35050752
doi: 10.1200/PO.20.00037
Song, I. W. et al. Precision oncology: evolving clinical trials across tumor types. Cancers 15, 1967 (2023).
pubmed: 37046628
pmcid: 10093499
doi: 10.3390/cancers15071967
Vo, H. H. et al. Challenges and opportunities associated with the MD Anderson IMPACT2 randomized study in precision oncology. npj Precis. Oncol. 6, 78 (2022).
pubmed: 36302890
pmcid: 9612600
doi: 10.1038/s41698-022-00317-0
Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Precision medicine: preliminary results from the Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy 2 (IMPACT2) study. npj Precis. Oncol. 5, 21 (2021).
pubmed: 33742104
pmcid: 7979841
doi: 10.1038/s41698-021-00159-2
Tredan, O. et al. Molecular screening program to select molecular-based recommended therapies for metastatic cancer patients: analysis from the ProfiLER trial. Ann. Oncol. 30, 757–765 (2019).
pubmed: 30865223
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz080
Bonneville-Levard, A. et al. Molecular profile to guide personalized medicine in adult patients with primary brain tumors: results from the ProfiLER trial. Med. Oncol. 39, 4 (2021).
pubmed: 34739635
doi: 10.1007/s12032-021-01536-4
Varnier, R. et al. Actionable molecular alterations in advanced gynaecologic malignancies: updated results from the ProfiLER programme. Eur. J. Cancer 118, 156–165 (2019).
pubmed: 31351267
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.06.017
Tredan O, P. D. et al. Increasing targeted therapy options for patients with relapsed cancer with broader somatic gene panel analysis from the primary tumor: the Profiler02 randomized phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 1104659 (2022).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.3130
ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group. NCI-MATCH Searchable Treatment Arms Table. https://ecog-acrin.org/nci-match-eay131/ (2022).
Flaherty, K. T. et al. The molecular analysis for therapy choice (NCI-MATCH) trial: lessons for genomic trial design. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 112, 1021–1029 (2020).
pubmed: 31922567
pmcid: 7566320
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz245
Flaherty, K. T. et al. Molecular landscape and actionable alterations in a genomically guided cancer clinical trial: National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH). J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 3883–3894 (2020).
pubmed: 33048619
pmcid: 7676882
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010
Basse, C. et al. Relevance of a molecular tumour board (MTB) for patients’ enrolment in clinical trials: experience of the Institut Curie. ESMO Open. 3, e000339 (2018).
pubmed: 29636991
pmcid: 5890857
doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000339
Tao, J. J. et al. Real-world outcomes of an automated physician support system for genome-driven oncology. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.19.00066 (2019).
Pagel, K. A. et al. Integrated informatics analysis of cancer-related variants. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 4, 310–317 (2020).
Reardon, B. et al. Integrating molecular profiles into clinical frameworks through the molecular oncology almanac to prospectively guide precision oncology. Nat. Cancer 2, 1102–1112 (2021).
pubmed: 35121878
pmcid: 9082009
doi: 10.1038/s43018-021-00243-3
Farhangfar, C. J. et al. Impact of a clinical genomics program on trial accrual for targeted treatments: practical approach overcoming barriers to accrual for underserved patients. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 6, e2200011 (2022).
Kato, S. et al. Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with a precision N-of-one strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 4965 (2020).
pubmed: 33009371
pmcid: 7532150
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18613-3
Rodon, J. et al. Genomic and transcriptomic profiling expands precision cancer medicine: the WINTHER trial. Nat. Med. 25, 751–758 (2019).
pubmed: 31011205
pmcid: 6599610
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0424-4
Lamping, M. et al. Support of a molecular tumour board by an evidence-based decision management system for precision oncology. Eur. J. Cancer 127, 41–51 (2020).
pubmed: 31982633
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.017
Moore, D. A. et al. Prospective analysis of 895 patients on a UK Genomics Review Board. ESMO Open 4, e000469 (2019).
pubmed: 31245058
pmcid: 6557082
doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000469
Rothwell, D. G. et al. Utility of ctDNA to support patient selection for early phase clinical trials: the TARGET study. Nat. Med. 25, 738–743 (2019).
pubmed: 31011204
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0380-z
Righi, M. L. V., Martinez, P., Silva, A., Umpierrez, C. & Rodriguez, R. Oncotherapy: a decision support system to validate oncological treatments. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 264, 1799–1800 (2019).
Tamborero, D. et al. Support systems to guide clinical decision-making in precision oncology: the Cancer Core Europe Molecular Tumor Board Portal. Nat. Med. 26, 992–994 (2020).
pubmed: 32632195
doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0969-2
Andre, F. et al. Genomics to select treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Nature 610, 343–348 (2022).
pubmed: 36071165
doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05068-3
Sadik, H. et al. Impact of clinical practice gaps on the implementation of personalized medicine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. 6, e2200246 (2022).
pubmed: 36315914
pmcid: 9666118
doi: 10.1200/PO.22.00246
Kim, E. S. et al. Continuing to broaden eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative and inclusive: ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement. Clin. Cancer Res. 27, 2394–2399 (2021).
pubmed: 33563632
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3852
Love, T. M., Anaya, D. A., Prime, M. S., Ardolino, L. & Ekinci, O. Development and validation of ACTE-MTB: a tool to systematically assess the maturity of molecular tumor boards. PLoS ONE 17, e0268477 (2022).
pubmed: 35560035
pmcid: 9106161
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268477
Zeng, J. & Shufean, M. A. Molecular-based precision oncology clinical decision making augmented by artificial intelligence. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 5, 757–764 (2021).
pubmed: 34874054
pmcid: 8786281
doi: 10.1042/ETLS20210220
Ballester, P. J. & Carmona, J. Artificial intelligence for the next generation of precision oncology. npj Precis. Oncol. 5, 79 (2021).
pubmed: 34408248
pmcid: 8373978
doi: 10.1038/s41698-021-00216-w
Azuaje, F. Artificial intelligence for precision oncology: beyond patient stratification. npj Precis. Oncol. 3, 6 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41698-019-0078-1
Bhalla, S. & Lagana, A. Artificial intelligence for precision oncology. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1361, 249–268 (2022).
pubmed: 35230693
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-91836-1_14
Hernandez-Boussard, T. et al. Digital twins for predictive oncology will be a paradigm shift for precision cancer care. Nat. Med. 27, 2065–2066 (2021).
pubmed: 34824458
pmcid: 9097784
doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01558-5
Bodenmiller, B. Multiplexed epitope-based tissue imaging for discovery and healthcare applications. Cell Syst. 2, 225–238 (2016).
pubmed: 27135535
doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2016.03.008
Mateo, J. et al. Delivering precision oncology to patients with cancer. Nat. Med. 28, 658–665 (2022).
pubmed: 35440717
doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01717-2
O’Regan, P. et al. Digital ECMT cancer trial matching tool: an open source research application to support oncologists in the identification of precision medicine clinical trials. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 7, e2200137 (2023).
Xu, Q. et al. OncoPubMiner: a platform for mining oncology publications. Brief. Bioinform. 23, bbac383 (2022).
pubmed: 36058206
doi: 10.1093/bib/bbac383
Bosserman, L. D. et al. Pyramidal decision support framework leverages subspecialty expertise across enterprise to achieve superior cancer outcomes and personalized, precision care plans. J. Clin. Med. 11, 6738 (2022).
pubmed: 36431215
pmcid: 9697355
doi: 10.3390/jcm11226738
Kurz, N. S. et al. Identifying actionable variants in cancer — the dual web and batch processing tool MTB-Report. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 296, 73–80 (2022).
de Andrade, K. C. et al. The TP53 database: transition from the International Agency for Research on Cancer to the US National Cancer Institute. Cell Death Differ. 29, 1071–1073 (2022).
pubmed: 35352025
pmcid: 9090805
doi: 10.1038/s41418-022-00976-3
UniProt Consortium. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D480–D489 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1100
Chunn, L. M. et al. Mastermind: a comprehensive genomic association search engine for empirical evidence curation and genetic variant interpretation. Front. Genet. 11, 577152 (2020).
pubmed: 33281875
pmcid: 7691534
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.577152
Xu, Q. et al. OncoPDSS: an evidence-based clinical decision support system for oncology pharmacotherapy at the individual level. BMC Cancer 20, 740 (2020).
pubmed: 32770988
pmcid: 7414679
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07221-5
Gudmundsson, S. et al. Variant interpretation using population databases: lessons from gnomAD. Hum. Mutat. 43, 1012–1030 (2022).
pubmed: 34859531
doi: 10.1002/humu.24309
Cline, M. S. et al. BRCA challenge: BRCA exchange as a global resource for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. PLoS Genet. 14, e1007752 (2018).
pubmed: 30586411
pmcid: 6324924
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007752
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1062–D1067 (2018).
pubmed: 29165669
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1153
Patterson, S. E. et al. The clinical trial landscape in oncology and connectivity of somatic mutational profiles to targeted therapies. Hum. Genomics 10, 4 (2016).
pubmed: 26772741
pmcid: 4715272
doi: 10.1186/s40246-016-0061-7
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/nature15393
Bayle, A. et al. Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA sequencing with a large panel: a National Center for Precision Medicine (PRISM) study. Ann. Oncol. 34, 389–396 (2023).
pubmed: 36709039
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.01.008
Hlevnjak, M. et al. CATCH: a prospective precision oncology trial in metastatic breast cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00248 (2021).
Irmisch, A. et al. The tumor profiler study: integrated, multi-omic, functional tumor profiling for clinical decision support. Cancer Cell 39, 288–293 (2021).
pubmed: 33482122
doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.01.004
Conley, B. A. & Doroshow, J. H. Molecular analysis for therapy choice: NCI MATCH. Semin. Oncol. 41, 297–299 (2014).
pubmed: 25023344
doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2014.05.002
Keller, R. B. et al. Programmatic precision oncology decision support for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. 7, e2200342 (2023).
pubmed: 36634297
pmcid: 9929103
doi: 10.1200/PO.22.00342
Cannon, T. L. et al. Patient attendance at molecular tumor board: a new means of shared decision making. Curr. Probl. Cancer 46, 100860 (2022).
pubmed: 35436642
doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2022.100860
Le Tourneau, C. et al. An approach to solving the complex clinicogenomic data landscape in precision oncology: learnings from the design of WAYFIND-R, a global precision oncology registry. JCO Precis. Oncol. 6, e2200019 (2022).
pubmed: 35939770
pmcid: 9384950
doi: 10.1200/PO.22.00019
Heinrich, K. et al. Lessons learned: the first consecutive 1000 patients of the CCCMunich(LMU) Molecular Tumor Board. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 149, 1905–1915 (2023).
pubmed: 35796778
doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-04165-0
Thouvenin, J. et al. PRECISION: the Belgian molecular profiling program of metastatic cancer for clinical decision and treatment assignment. ESMO Open. 7, 100524 (2022).
pubmed: 35970014
pmcid: 9434164
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100524
Park, K. H. et al. Genomic landscape and clinical utility in Korean advanced pan-cancer patients from prospective clinical sequencing: K-MASTER program. Cancer Discov. 12, 938–948 (2022).
pubmed: 34862196
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1064
Malani, D. et al. Implementing a functional precision medicine tumor board for acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Discov. 12, 388–401 (2022).
pubmed: 34789538
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0410
Lin, F. P. et al. Criteria-based curation of a therapy-focused compendium to support treatment recommendations in precision oncology. npj Precis. Oncol. 5, 58 (2021).
pubmed: 34162978
pmcid: 8222322
doi: 10.1038/s41698-021-00194-z
Jain, N. M. et al. Framework for implementing and tracking a molecular tumor board at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Oncologist 26, e1962–e1970 (2021).
pubmed: 34390291
pmcid: 8571748
doi: 10.1002/onco.13936