Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands:Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

Background Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. Materials and Methods MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Results Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). Conclusion MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Implications for Practice Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

Background: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. Materials and Methods: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Results: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type–specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). Conclusion: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a “Dutch MTB model” for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Implications for Practice: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing

Engraftment of Allotransplanted Tumor Cells in Adult rag2 Mutant Xenopus tropicalis

Modeling human genetic diseases and cancer in lab animals has been greatly aided by the emergence of genetic engineering tools such as TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9. We have previously demonstrated the ease with which genetically engineered Xenopus models (GEXM) can be generated via injection of early embryos with Cas9 recombinant protein loaded with sgRNAs targeting single or multiple tumor suppressor genes. What has been lacking so far is the possibility to propagate and characterize the induced cancers via transplantation. Here, we describe the generation of a rag2 knockout line in Xenopus tropicalis that is deficient in functional T and B cells. This line was validated by means of allografting experiments with primary tp53−/− and apc+/−/tp53−/− donor tumors. In addition, we optimized available protocols for the sub-lethal irradiation of wild-type X. tropicalis froglets. Irradiated animals also allowed the stable, albeit transient, engraftment of transplanted X. tropicalis tumor cells. The novel rag2−/− line and the irradiated wild-type froglets will further expand the experimental toolbox in the diploid amphibian X. tropicalis and help to establish it as a versatile and relevant model for exploring human cancer.</jats:p

Real-World Approach for Molecular Analysis of Acquired EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Resistance Mechanisms in NSCLC

Introduction: With the approval of first-line osimertinib treatment in stage IV EGFR-mutated NSCLC, detection of resistance mechanisms will become increasingly important—and complex. Clear guidelines for analyses of these resistance mechanisms are currently lacking. Here, we provide our recommendations for optimal molecular diagnostics in the post-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance setting. Methods: We compared molecular workup strategies from three hospitals of 161 first- or second-generation EGFR TKI–treated cases and 159 osimertinib-treated cases. Laboratories used combinations of DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS), RNA NGS, in situ hybridization (ISH), and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Resistance mechanisms were identified in 72 first-generation TKI cases (51%) and 85 osimertinib cases (57%). RNA NGS, when performed, revealed fusions or exon-skipping events in 4% of early TKI cases and 10% of osimertinib cases. Of the 30 MET and HER2 amplifications, 10 were exclusively detected by ISH or IHC, and not detected by DNA NGS, mostly owing to low tumor cell percentage (<30%) and possibly tumor heterogeneity. Conclusions: Our real-world data support a method for molecular diagnostics, consisting of a parallel combination of DNA NGS, RNA NGS, MET ISH, and either HER2 ISH or IHC. Combining RNA and DNA isolation into one step limits dropout rates. In case of financial or tissue limitations, a sequential approach is justifiable, in which RNA NGS is only performed in case no resistance mechanisms are identified. Yet, this is suboptimal as—although rare—multiple acquired resistance mechanisms may occur

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

Background: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. Materials and Methods: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Results: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type–specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). Conclusion: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a “Dutch MTB model” for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Implications for Practice: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing