24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with a precision N-of-One strategy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can identify novel cancer targets. However, interpreting the molecular findings and accessing drugs/clinical trials is challenging. Furthermore, many tumors show resistance to monotherapies. To implement a precision strategy, we initiated a multidisciplinary (basic/translational/clinical investigators, bioinformaticians, geneticists, and physicians from multiple specialties) molecular tumor board (MTB), which included a project manager to facilitate obtaining clinical-grade biomarkers (blood/tissue NGS, specific immunohistochemistry/RNA expression including for immune-biomarkers, per physician discretion) and medication-acquisition specialists/clinical trial coordinators/navigators to assist with medication access. The MTB comprehensively reviewed patient characteristics to develop N-of-One treatments implemented by the treating physician’s direction under the auspices of a master protocol. Overall, 265/429 therapy-evaluable patients (62%) were matched to ≥1 recommended drug. Eighty-six patients (20%) matched to all drugs recommended by MTB, including combinatorial approaches, while 38% received physician’s choice regimen, generally with unmatched approach/low degree of matching. Our results show that patients who receive MTB-recommended regimens (versus physician choice) have significantly longer progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and are better matched to therapy. High (≥50%) versus low (<50%) Matching Score therapy (roughly reflecting therapy matched to ≥50% versus <50% of alterations) independently correlates with longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.80; P < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50–0.90; P = 0.007) and higher stable disease ≥6 months/partial/complete remission rate (52.1% versus 30.4% P < 0.001) (all multivariate). In conclusion, patients who receive MTB-based therapy are better matched to their genomic alterations, and the degree of matching is an independent predictor of improved oncologic outcomes including survival.

          Abstract

          A molecular tumor board (MTB) is often used as a platform that integrates clinical and molecular parameters for clinical decision making. Here, the authors review the outcome of 715 cancer patients presented at their institution’s MTB, and demonstrate that patients who received a MTB-recommended regimen received therapy that was better matched to their alterations and achieved better clinical outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee.

          The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study

              Cancer treatments have evolved from indiscriminate cytotoxic agents to selective genome- and immune-targeted drugs that have transformed outcomes for some malignancies. 1 Tumor complexity and heterogeneity suggest that the “precision medicine” paradigm of cancer therapy requires treatment to be personalized to the individual patient. 2–6 To date, precision oncology trials have been based upon molecular matching with predetermined monotherapies. 7–14 Several of these trials have been hindered by very low matching rates, often in the 5–10% range, 15 and low response rates. Low matching rates may be due to the use of limited gene panels, restrictive molecular matching algorithms, lack of drug availability or the deterioration and death of end-stage patients before therapy can be implemented. We hypothesized that personalized treatment with combination therapies would improve outcomes in patients with refractory malignancies. As a first test of this concept, we implemented a cross-institutional, prospective study (I-PREDICT, NCT02534675) that used tumor DNA sequencing and timely recommendations for individualized treatment with combination therapies. We found that administration of customized multi-drug regimens was feasible, with 49% of consented patients receiving personalized treatment. Targeting of a larger fraction of identified molecular alterations, yielding a higher “matching score,” was correlated with significantly improved disease control rates, as well as longer progression-free and overall survival rates, as compared to when fewer somatic alterations were targeted. Our findings suggest that the current clinical trial paradigm for precision oncology, which pairs one driver mutation with one drug, may be optimized by treating molecularly complex and heterogeneous cancers with combinations of customized agents.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                smkato@ucsd.edu
                floresta405@gmail.com
                Journal
                Nat Commun
                Nature Communications
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2041-1723
                2 October 2020
                2 October 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 4965
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy and Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.412479.d, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, ; Seoul, Republic of Korea
                [3 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                [4 ]GRID grid.266100.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, Department of Radiology, , UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, ; La Jolla, CA USA
                [5 ]Division of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.266100.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, , UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, ; La Jolla, CA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.250671.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0662 7144, Integrative Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, ; La Jolla, CA USA
                [8 ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL USA
                [9 ]Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy and Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1193-1815
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4154-0057
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3783-7336
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4272-312X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7352-8621
                Article
                18613
                10.1038/s41467-020-18613-3
                7532150
                33009371
                f3bae503-9df4-4aaa-b3ce-ad6759d48d2c
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 March 2020
                : 25 August 2020
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Uncategorized
                cancer,cancer genomics,cancer therapy,biomarkers
                Uncategorized
                cancer, cancer genomics, cancer therapy, biomarkers

                Comments

                Comment on this article