Reviews:
Implementation and utilization of the molecular tumor board to guide precision medicine
PDF | HTML | Supplementary Files | How to cite
Metrics: PDF 2311 views | HTML 5355 views | ?
Abstract
Shuko Harada1,7, Rebecca Arend5,7, Qian Dai1, Jessica A. Levesque1, Thomas S. Winokur1, Rongjun Guo1, Martin J. Heslin2,7, Lisle Nabell3,7, L. Burt Nabors4,7, Nita A. Limdi4, Kevin A. Roth1, Edward E. Partridge7, Gene P. Siegal1 and Eddy S. Yang6,7
1Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
2Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
3Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
4Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
5Department of Obsterics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
6Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
7Department of The Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Correspondence to:
Eddy S. Yang, email: [email protected]
Keywords: precision medicine, targeted therapy, next generation sequencing, molecular tumor board
Received: March 09, 2017 Accepted: May 31, 2017 Published: June 14, 2017
ABSTRACT
Background: With rapid advances in genomic medicine, the complexity of delivering precision medicine to oncology patients across a university health system demanded the creation of a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) for patient selection and assessment of treatment options. The objective of this report is to analyze our progress to date and discuss the importance of the MTB in the implementation of personalized medicine.
Materials and Methods: Patients were reviewed in the MTB for appropriateness for comprehensive next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer gene set testing based on set criteria that were in place. Because profiling of stage IV lung cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma cancers were standard of care, these cancer types were excluded from this process. We subsequently analyzed the types of cases referred for testing and approved with regards to their results.
Results: 191 cases were discussed at the MTB and 132 cases were approved for testing. Forty-six cases (34.8%) had driver mutations that were associated with an active targeted therapeutic agent, including BRAF, PIK3CA, IDH1, KRAS, and BRCA1. An additional 56 cases (42.4%) had driver mutations previously reported in some type of cancer. Twenty-two cases (16.7%) did not have any clinically significant mutations. Eight cases did not yield adequate DNA. 15 cases were considered for targeted therapy, 13 of which received targeted therapy. One patient experienced a near complete response. Seven of 13 had stable disease or a partial response.
Conclusions: MTB at University of Alabama-Birmingham is unique because it reviews the appropriateness of NGS testing for patients with recurrent cancer and serves as a forum to educate our physicians about the pathways of precision medicine. Our results suggest that our detection of actionable mutations may be higher due to our careful selection. The application of precision medicine and molecular genetic testing for cancer patients remains a continuous educational process for physicians.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 18471