Search

Purpose: Rapidly evolving genomics technologies, in particular comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS), have led to exponential growth in the understanding of cancer biology, shifting oncology toward personalized treatment strategies. However, comprehensive NGS approaches, such as whole-exome sequencing, have limitations that are related to the technology itself as well as to the input source. Hence, clinical implementation of comprehensive NGS in a quality-controlled diagnostic workflow requires both the standardization of sequencing procedures and continuous validation of sequencing results by orthogonal methods in an ongoing program to enable the determination of key test parameters and continuous improvement of NGS and bioinformatics pipelines., Patients and Methods: We present validation data on 220 patients who were enrolled between 2013 and 2016 in a multi-institutional, genomics-guided precision oncology program (Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication Research) of the National Center for Tumor Diseases Heidelberg and the German Cancer Consortium., Results: More than 90% of clinically actionable genomic alterations identified by combined whole-exome sequencing and transcriptome sequencing were successfully validated, with varying frequencies of discordant results across different types of alterations (fusions, 3.7%; single-nucleotide variants, 2.6%; amplifications, 1.1%; overexpression, 0.9%; deletions, 0.6%). The implementation of new computational methods for NGS data analysis led to a substantial improvement of gene fusion calling over time., Conclusion: Collectively, these data demonstrate the value of a rigorous validation program that partners with comprehensive NGS to successfully implement and continuously improve cancer precision medicine in a clinical setting.

Purpose: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.