The Molecular Tumor Board of the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute: from accrual to treatment in real-world
Patrizio Giacomini,Fabio Valenti,Matteo Allegretti,Matteo Pallocca,Francesca De Nicola,Ludovica Ciuffreda,Maurizio Fanciulli,Stefano Scalera,Simonetta Buglioni,Elisa Melucci,Beatrice Casini,Mariantonia Carosi,Edoardo Pescarmona,Elena Giordani,Francesca Sperati,Nicoletta Jannitti,Martina Betti,Marcello Maugeri-Saccà,Fabiana Letizia Cecere,Veronica Villani,Andrea Pace,Marialuisa Appetecchia,Patrizia Vici,Antonella Savarese,Eriseld Krasniqi,Virginia Ferraresi,Michelangelo Russillo,Alessandra Fabi,Lorenza Landi,Gabriele Minuti,Federico Cappuzzo,Massimo Zeuli,Gennaro Ciliberto
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-023-04595-5
2023-10-16
Abstract:Background: Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB) operating in real-world have generated limited consensus on good practices for accrual, actionable alteration mapping, and outcome metrics. These topics are addressed herein in 124 MTB patients, all real-world accrued at progression, and lacking approved therapy options. Methods: Actionable genomic alterations identified by tumor DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling were mapped by customized OncoKB criteria to reflect diagnostic/therapeutic indications as approved in Europe. Alterations were considered non-SoC when mapped at either OncoKB level 3, regardless of tDNA/ctDNA origin, or at OncoKB levels 1/2, provided they were undetectable in matched tDNA, and had not been exploited in previous therapy lines. Results: Altogether, actionable alterations were detected in 54/124 (43.5%) MTB patients, but only in 39 cases (31%) were these alterations (25 from tDNA, 14 from ctDNA) actionable/unexploited, e.g. they had not resulted in the assignment of pre-MTB treatments. Interestingly, actionable and actionable/unexploited alterations both decreased (37.5% and 22.7% respectively) in a subset of 88 MTB patients profiled by tDNA-only, but increased considerably (77.7% and 66.7%) in 18 distinct patients undergoing combined tDNA/ctDNA testing, approaching the potential treatment opportunities (76.9%) in 147 treatment-naïve patients undergoing routine tDNA profiling for the first time. Non-SoC therapy was MTB-recommended to all 39 patients with actionable/unexploited alterations, but only 22 (56%) accessed the applicable drug, mainly due to clinical deterioration, lengthy drug-gathering procedures, and geographical distance from recruiting clinical trials. Partial response and stable disease were recorded in 8 and 7 of 19 evaluable patients, respectively. The time to progression (TTP) ratio (MTB-recommended treatment vs last pre-MTB treatment) exceeded the conventional Von Hoff 1.3 cut-off in 9/19 cases, high absolute TTP and Von Hoff values coinciding in 3 cases. Retrospectively, 8 patients receiving post-MTB treatment(s) as per physician's choice were noted to have a much longer overall survival from MTB accrual than 11 patients who had received no further treatment (35.09 vs 6.67 months, p = 0.006). Conclusions: MTB-recommended/non-SoC treatments are effective, including those assigned by ctDNA-only alterations. However, real-world MTBs may inadvertently recruit patients electively susceptible to diverse and/or multiple treatments.