The Molecular Tumor Board of the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute: from accrual to treatment in real-world.
Access to treatment
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)
Digital PCR (dPCR)
Molecular tumor board
Next generation sequencing (NGS)
Off-label
Target therapy
Tumor DNA (tDNA)
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 10 2023
16 10 2023
Historique:
received:
09
08
2023
accepted:
05
10
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
17
10
2023
entrez:
16
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37845764
doi: 10.1186/s12967-023-04595-5
pii: 10.1186/s12967-023-04595-5
pmc: PMC10577953
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Neoplasm
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
725Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Luchini C, Lawlor RT, Milella M, Scarpa A. Molecular tumor boards in clinical practice. Trends Cancer. 2020;6(9):738–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.05.008
pubmed: 32517959
Larson KL, Huang B, Weiss HL, Hull P, Westgate PM, Miller RW, et al. Clinical outcomes of molecular tumor boards: a systematic review. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00495 .
doi: 10.1200/PO.20.00495
pubmed: 34778691
pmcid: 8575436
Rolfo C, Manca P, Salgado R, Van Dam P, Dendooven A, Machado Coelho A, et al. Multidisciplinary molecular tumour board: a tool to improve clinical practice and selection accrual for clinical trials in patients with cancer. ESMO Open. 2018;3(5):e000398.
doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000398
pubmed: 30094075
pmcid: 6069914
Kato S, Kim KH, Lim HJ, Boichard A, Nikanjam M, Weihe E, et al. Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with a precision N-of-One strategy. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):4965.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18613-3
pubmed: 33009371
pmcid: 7532150
Basse C, Morel C, Alt M, Sablin MP, Franck C, Pierron G, et al. Relevance of a molecular tumour board (MTB) for patients’ enrolment in clinical trials: experience of the institut curie. ESMO Open. 2018;3(3):e000339.
doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000339
pubmed: 29636991
pmcid: 5890857
Green MF, Bell JL, Hubbard CB, McCall SJ, McKinney MS, Riedel JE, et al. Implementation of a molecular tumor registry to support the adoption of precision oncology within an academic medical center: the duke university experience. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.21.00030 .
doi: 10.1200/PO.21.00030
pubmed: 34568718
pmcid: 8457820
Peh KH, Przybylski DJ, Fallon MJ, Bergsbaken JJ, Hutson PR, Yu M, et al. Clinical utility of a regional precision medicine molecular tumor board and challenges to implementation. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/10781552221091282 .
doi: 10.1177/10781552221091282
pubmed: 35369813
Borcoman E, Le Tourneau C, Kamal M. Molecular screening programs in different countries: what we learned and perspectives. Curr Opin Oncol. 2019;31(5):445–53.
doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000561
pubmed: 31261171
Huang B, Chen Q, Allison D, El Khouli R, Peh KH, Mobley J, et al. Molecular tumor board review and improved overall survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.21.00210 .
doi: 10.1200/PO.21.00210
pubmed: 34994651
pmcid: 8492377
Sultova E, Westphalen CB, Jung A, Kumbrink J, Kirchner T, Mayr D, et al. Implementation of precision oncology for patients with metastatic breast cancer in an interdisciplinary MTB setting. Diagnostics. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040733 .
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11040733
pubmed: 33924134
pmcid: 8074310
Louie BH, Kato S, Kim KH, Lim HJ, Lee S, Okamura R, et al. Precision medicine-based therapies in advanced colorectal cancer: the university of California San Diego molecular tumor board experience. Mol Oncol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.13202 .
doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13202
pubmed: 35238467
pmcid: 9251876
Martin-Romano P, Mezquita L, Hollebecque A, Lacroix L, Rouleau E, Gazzah A, et al. Implementing the European society for medical oncology scale for clinical actionability of molecular targets in a comprehensive profiling program: impact on precision medicine oncology. JCO Precis Oncol. 2022;6:e2100484.
doi: 10.1200/PO.21.00484
pubmed: 36315916
Mosele F, Remon J, Mateo J, Westphalen CB, Barlesi F, Lolkema MP, 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. 2020;31(11):1491–505.
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.014
pubmed: 32853681
Chakravarty D, Gao J, Phillips SM, Kundra R, Zhang H, Wang J, et al. OncoKB: a precision oncology knowledge base. JCO Precis Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011 .
doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00011
pubmed: 28890946
pmcid: 5558263
Mateo J, Chakravarty D, Dienstmann R, Jezdic S, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N, 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. 2018;29(9):1895–902.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy263
pubmed: 30137196
pmcid: 6158764
Allegretti M, Fabi A, Giordani E, Ercolani C, Romania P, Nistico C, et al. Liquid biopsy identifies actionable dynamic predictors of resistance to Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2021;20(1):151.
doi: 10.1186/s12943-021-01438-z
pubmed: 34839818
pmcid: 8628389
Von Hoff DD. There are no bad anticancer agents, only bad clinical trial designs–twenty-first richard and hinda rosenthal foundation award lecture. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4(5):1079–86.
Ciliberto G, Canfora M, Terrenato I, Agnoletto C, Agustoni F, Amoroso L, et al. Bridging therapeutic opportunities: a survey by the Italian molecular tumor board workgroup of alliance against cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res CR. 2022;41(1):305.
doi: 10.1186/s13046-022-02512-0
pubmed: 36245005
Sicklick JK, Kato S, Okamura R, Schwaederle M, Hahn ME, Williams CB, et al. Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study. Nat Med. 2019;25(5):744–50.
doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0407-5
pubmed: 31011206
pmcid: 6553618
Allegretti M, Barberi V, Ercolani C, Vidiri A, Giordani E, Ciliberto G, et al. Unusual phylogenetic tree and circulating actionable ESR1 mutations in an aggressive luminal/HER2-low breast cancer: case report. Front Oncol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1050452 .
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1050452
pubmed: 36713585
pmcid: 9874630
Bryce AH, Egan JB, Borad MJ, Stewart AK, Nowakowski GS, Chanan-Khan A, et al. Experience with precision genomics and tumor board, indicates frequent target identification, but barriers to delivery. Oncotarget. 2017;8(16):27145–54.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16057
pubmed: 28423702
pmcid: 5432324