Molecular Tumour Boards - Current and Future Considerations for Precision Oncology

Overview

Journal Nat Rev Clin Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2023 Oct 16

PMID 37845306

Authors

Apostolia M Tsimberidou

Michael Kahle

Henry Hiep Vo

Mehmet A Baysal

Amber Johnson

Funda Meric-Bernstam

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Head and neck tumor organoid biobank for modelling individual responses to radiation therapy according to the TP53/HPV status.

Issing C, Menche C, Richter M, Mosa M, von der Grun J, Fleischmann M J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2025; 44(1):85.

PMID: 40045309 PMC: 11881459. DOI: 10.1186/s13046-025-03345-3.

A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board.

Gueguen L, Olgiati L, Brutti-Mairesse C, Sans A, Le Texier V, Verlingue L NPJ Precis Oncol. 2025; 9(1):28.

PMID: 39870746 PMC: 11772588. DOI: 10.1038/s41698-025-00806-y.

The Safety and Suitability of DNA Sequencing of Tissue Biopsies Performed on Patients Referred to a Phase I Unit.

Esposito A, Crimini E, Criscitiello C, Belli C, Scafetta R, Scalia R Cancers (Basel). 2025; 16(24.

PMID: 39766151 PMC: 11674575. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16244252.

Current trends in sensitizing immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment.

Wei J, Li W, Zhang P, Guo F, Liu M Mol Cancer. 2024; 23(1):279.

PMID: 39725966 PMC: 11670468. DOI: 10.1186/s12943-024-02179-5.

Genomic predictors of radiation response: recent progress towards personalized radiotherapy for brain metastases.

Harary P, Rajaram S, Chen M, Hori Y, Park D, Chang S Cell Death Discov. 2024; 10(1):501.

PMID: 39695143 PMC: 11655559. DOI: 10.1038/s41420-024-02270-2.

References

Christofyllakis K, Bittenbring J, Thurner L, Ahlgrimm M, Stilgenbauer S, Bewarder M . 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. 2021; 16(1):21. PMC: 8655747. DOI: 10.3892/mco.2021.2453. View

Tsimberidou A, Iskander N, Hong D, Wheler J, Falchook G, Fu S . Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: the MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(22):6373-83. PMC: 4454458. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1627. View

Tsimberidou A, Wen S, Hong D, Wheler J, Falchook G, Fu S . Personalized medicine for patients with advanced cancer in the phase I program at MD Anderson: validation and landmark analyses. Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20(18):4827-36. PMC: 4518867. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0603. View

Tsimberidou A, Hong D, Wheler J, Falchook G, Janku F, Naing A . Long-term overall survival and prognostic score predicting survival: the IMPACT study in precision medicine. J Hematol Oncol. 2020; 12(1):145. PMC: 6937824. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-019-0835-1. View

Luthra R, Patel K, Routbort M, Broaddus R, Yau J, Simien C . A Targeted High-Throughput Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Clinical Screening of Mutations, Gene Amplifications, and Fusions in Solid Tumors. J Mol Diagn. 2016; 19(2):255-264. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.09.011. View

Lih C, Harrington R, Sims D, Harper K, Bouk C, Datta V . 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. 2017; 19(2):313-327. PMC: 5397672. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.007. View

Goswami R, Luthra R, Singh R, Patel K, Routbort M, Aldape K . Identification of Factors Affecting the Success of Next-Generation Sequencing Testing in Solid Tumors. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016; 145(2):222-37. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqv023. View

Ramani N, Patel K, Routbort M, Alvarez H, Broaddus R, Chen H . Factors Impacting Clinically Relevant RNA Fusion Assays Using Next-Generation Sequencing. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021; 145(11):1405-1412. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0415-OA. View

Jennings L, Arcila M, Corless C, Kamel-Reid S, Lubin I, Pfeifer J . 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. 2017; 19(3):341-365. PMC: 6941185. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.01.011. View

10.

Li M, Datto M, Duncavage E, Kulkarni S, Lindeman N, Roy S . 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. 2016; 19(1):4-23. PMC: 5707196. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.002. View

11.

Malone E, Oliva M, Sabatini P, Stockley T, Siu L . Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies. Genome Med. 2020; 12(1):8. PMC: 6961404. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-019-0703-1. View

12.

Galuppini F, Dal Pozzo C, Deckert J, Loupakis F, Fassan M, Baffa R . Tumor mutation burden: from comprehensive mutational screening to the clinic. Cancer Cell Int. 2019; 19:209. PMC: 6686509. DOI: 10.1186/s12935-019-0929-4. View

13.

Havel J, Chowell D, Chan T . The evolving landscape of biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019; 19(3):133-150. PMC: 6705396. DOI: 10.1038/s41568-019-0116-x. View

14.

Marabelle A, Fakih M, Lopez J, Shah M, Shapira-Frommer R, Nakagawa K . 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. 2020; 21(10):1353-1365. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30445-9. View

15.

Gelsomino F, Barbolini M, Spallanzani A, Pugliese G, Cascinu S . The evolving role of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: A review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016; 51:19-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.10.005. View

16.

Boland C, Goel A . Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010; 138(6):2073-2087.e3. PMC: 3037515. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.12.064. View

17.

Le D, Kim T, Van Cutsem E, Geva R, Jager D, Hara H . Phase II Open-Label Study of Pembrolizumab in Treatment-Refractory, Microsatellite Instability-High/Mismatch Repair-Deficient Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: KEYNOTE-164. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 38(1):11-19. PMC: 7031958. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.02107. View

18.

Le D, Diaz Jr L, Kim T, Van Cutsem E, Geva R, Jager D . Pembrolizumab for previously treated, microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient advanced colorectal cancer: final analysis of KEYNOTE-164. Eur J Cancer. 2023; 186:185-195. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.02.016. View

19.

OMalley D, Bariani G, Cassier P, Marabelle A, Hansen A, Acosta A . Pembrolizumab in Patients With Microsatellite Instability-High Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Results From the KEYNOTE-158 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40(7):752-761. PMC: 8887941. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.01874. View

20.

Maio M, Ascierto P, Manzyuk L, Motola-Kuba D, Penel N, Cassier P . Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33(9):929-938. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.519. View