Cancer Medicine (Mar 2023)

Clinical decisions by the molecular tumor board on comprehensive genomic profiling tests in Japan: A retrospective observational study

  • Hidekazu Shirota,
  • Keigo Komine,
  • Masanobu Takahashi,
  • Shin Takahashi,
  • Eisaku Miyauchi,
  • Hidetaka Niizuma,
  • Hiroshi Tada,
  • Muneaki Shimada,
  • Tetsuya Niihori,
  • Yoko Aoki,
  • Ikuko Sugiyama,
  • Maako Kawamura,
  • Jun Yasuda,
  • Shuhei Suzuki,
  • Takeshi Iwaya,
  • Motonobu Saito,
  • Tsuyoshi Saito,
  • Hiroyuki Shibata,
  • Toru Furukawa,
  • Chikashi Ishioka

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5349
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 5
pp. 6170 – 6181

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background A paradigm shift has occurred in cancer chemotherapy from tumor‐specific treatment with cytotoxic agents to personalized medicine with molecular‐targeted drugs. Thus, it is essential to identify genomic alterations and molecular features to recommend effective targeted molecular medicines regardless of the tumor site. Nevertheless, it takes considerable expertise to identify treatment targets from primary‐sequencing data in order to provide drug recommendations. The Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) denotes a platform that integrates clinical and molecular features for clinical decisions. Methods This study retrospectively analyses all the cases of discussion and decision at the MTB in Tohoku University Hospital and summarizes genetic alterations and treatment recommendations. Results The MTB discussed 1003 comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests conducted in patients with solid cancer, and the resulting rate of assessing treatment recommendations was approximately 19%. Among hundreds of genes in the CGP test, only 30 genetic alterations or biomarkers were used to make treatment recommendations. The leading biomarkers that led to treatment recommendations were tumor mutational burden‐high (TMB‐H) (n = 32), ERBB2 amplification (n = 24), BRAF V600E (n = 16), and BRCA1/2 alterations (n = 32). Thyroid cancer accounted for most cancer cases for which treatment recommendation was provided (81.3%), followed by non‐small cell lung cancer (42.4%) and urologic cancer (31.3%). The number of tests performed for gastrointestinal cancers was high (n = 359); however, the treatment recommendations for the same were below average (13%). Conclusion The results of this study may be used to simplify treatment recommendations from the CGP reports and help select patients for testing, thereby increasing the accuracy of personalized medicine.

Keywords