Monitoring ctDNA by liquid biopsies seems to represent the perfect match for precision oncology and its cornerstone clinical framework: the molecular tumour board (MTB). Detecting and scrutinising the success of targeted therapies or tracking and, for that matter, addressing the therapy with the evolutive nature of a tumour are some of the main advancements one considers to be important for the MTB. One challenge is correlating the estimated allele frequency of each identified genetic alteration determined by analysing the ctDNA sequencing results and matching these with the range of suitable drugs, which may limit the simultaneous treatment of all tumour variations. This limitation arises because a new biopsy would typically be required to evaluate the response to treatment. As a result, evaluating the success of MTB recommendations relies on traditional staging methods, highlighting an existing diagnostic gap. Thus, optimising liquid biopsy technology could enhance the efficacy of MTB treatment recommendations and ensuing tailored therapies. Herein, we discuss the prospect of ctDNA analyses in the molecular tumour board.

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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: NCT05525858.

The emerging era of precision medicine is characterized by an increasing availability of targeted anticancer therapies and by the parallel development of techniques to obtain more refined molecular data, whose interpretation may not always be straightforward. Molecular tumor boards gather various professional figures, in order to leverage the analysis of molecular data and provide prognostic and predictive insights for clinicians. In addition to healthcare development, they could also become a tool to promote knowledge and research spreading. A growing body of evidence on the application of molecular tumor boards to clinical practice is forming and positive signals are emerging, although a certain degree of heterogeneity exists. This work analyzes molecular tumor boards\' potential workflows, figures involved, data sources, sample matrices and eligible patients, as well as available evidence and learning examples. The emerging concept of multi-institutional, disease-specific molecular tumor boards is also considered by presenting two ongoing nationwide experiences.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive molecular tumor profiling is widely used in the management of patients with cancer. Molecular tumor boards devise treatment strategies based on testing results. In this setting, the Transsectoral Molecular Tumor Board exchange platform Deutschland (TEAM-D) aims to drive peer-to-peer exchange to connect experts in the field.
METHODS: During the first virtual TEAM-D meeting, participants from 16 German universities and 5 nonacademic institutions discussed five cases with PIK3CA hotspot mutations. Furthermore, an illustrative case vignette was presented.
RESULTS: Overall, German caregivers show restraint in administering off-label PIK3CA inhibitor and favor clinical trials in this setting.
CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of precision oncology, TEAM-D enables virtual case discussion across the different sectors of the German healthcare system. Based on the example of PIK3CA hotspot mutations, TEAM-D demonstrated the value of integrating knowledge from different healthcare professionals.

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: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine offers targeted therapy options for cancer treatment. However, the decision whether to include a patient into next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing is not standardized. This may result in some patients receiving unnecessary testing while others who could benefit from it are not tested. Typically, patients who have exhausted conventional treatment options are of interest for consideration in molecularly targeted therapy. To assist clinicians in decision-making, we developed a decision support tool using routine data from a precision oncology program.
METHODS: We trained a machine learning model on clinical data to determine whether molecular profiling should be performed for a patient. To validate the model, the model\'s predictions were compared with decisions made by a molecular tumor board (MTB) using multiple patient case vignettes with their characteristics.
RESULTS: The prediction model included 440 patients with molecular profiling and 13,587 patients without testing. High area under the curve (AUC) scores indicated the importance of engineered features in deciding on molecular profiling. Patient age, physical condition, tumor type, metastases, and previous therapies were the most important features. During the validation MTB experts made the same decision of recommending a patient for molecular profiling only in 10 out of 15 of their previous cases but there was agreement between the experts and the model in 9 out of 15 cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a historical cohort, our predictive model has the potential to assist clinicians in deciding whether to perform molecular profiling.

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.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to determine the added value of comprehensive molecular profile by whole-exome and RNA sequencing (WES/RNA-Seq) in advanced and refractory cancer patients who had no molecular-based treatment recommendation (MBTR) based on a more limited targeted gene panel (TGP) plus array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).
METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we selected 50 patients previously included in the PROFILER trial (NCT01774409) for which no MBT could be recommended based on a targeted 90-gene panel and aCGH. For each patient, the frozen tumor sample mirroring the FFPE sample used for TGP/aCGH analysis were processed for WES and RNA-Seq. Data from TGP/aCGH were reanalyzed, and together with WES/RNA-Seq, findings were simultaneously discussed at a new molecular tumor board (MTB).
RESULTS: After exclusion of variants of unknown significance, a total of 167 somatic molecular alterations were identified in 50 patients (median: 3 [1-10]). Out of these 167 relevant molecular alterations, 51 (31%) were common to both TGP/aCGH and WES/RNA-Seq, 19 (11%) were identified by the TGP/aCGH only and 97 (58%) were identified by WES/RNA-Seq only, including two fusion transcripts in two patients. A MBTR was provided in 4/50 (8%) patients using the information from TGP/aCGH versus 9/50 (18%) patients using WES/RNA-Seq findings. Three patients had similar recommendations based on TGP/aCGH and WES/RNA-Seq.
CONCLUSIONS: In advanced and refractory cancer patients in whom no MBTR was recommended from TGP/aCGH, WES/RNA-Seq allowed to identify more alterations which may in turn, in a limited fraction of patients, lead to new MBTR.

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.