Comparison of Treatment Recommendations by Molecular Tumor Boards Worldwide.

Precision oncology holds the promise of improving patient outcome. It is based on the idea that the testing of genomic biomarkers can lead to the recommendation of a treatment option tailored to the specific patient. To derive treatment recommendations from molecular profiles, interdisciplinary molecular tumor boards (MTBs) have been established recently in many academic institutions. The recommendation process in MTBs, however, has not been well defined, which limits applicability to larger clinical trials and patient populations. We created four fictional patients on the basis of recent real cases with genomic information on mutations, fusions, copy numbers, and gene expression. We identified 29 tumor boards from nine countries worldwide and asked them to provide treatment recommendations for the sample patients. In addition, a questionnaire regarding the setup and methods used by MTBs was circulated. Five MTBs from four countries provided treatment recommendations and answered the questionnaire. For one patient, three tumor board treatment recommendations were identical, and two tumor boards had identical treatment strategies for the other three patients. There was heterogeneity in the interpretation of tumor and germline aberrations as well as in standards of prioritization. Differences in the interpretation and recommendation process contribute to heterogeneity in MTB recommendations. Additional comparative analyses of recommendations could help improve rational decision making and lead to standardization.

[1]  Benjamin M. Good,et al.  Organizing knowledge to enable personalization of medicine in cancer , 2014, Genome Biology.

[2]  Amber M. Johnson,et al.  A decision support framework for genomically informed investigational cancer therapy. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  BRCA locus-specific loss of heterozygosity in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers , 2017, Nature Communications.

[4]  Theresa Zhang,et al.  Personalized genomic analyses for cancer mutation discovery and interpretation , 2015, Science Translational Medicine.

[5]  E. Mardis,et al.  Prioritizing targets for precision cancer medicine. , 2014, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  Razelle Kurzrock,et al.  Association of Biomarker-Based Treatment Strategies With Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Malignant Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[7]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. , 2016, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  P. Jänne,et al.  SELECT-2: a phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of selumetinib plus docetaxel as a second-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer , 2017, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[9]  V. Prasad,et al.  Characteristics of Exceptional or Super Responders to Cancer Drugs. , 2015, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[10]  Subha Madhavan,et al.  Somatic cancer variant curation and harmonization through consensus minimum variant level data , 2016, Genome Medicine.

[11]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  CIViC is a community knowledgebase for expert crowdsourcing the clinical interpretation of variants in cancer , 2017, Nature Genetics.