Apparent Lack of BRAFV600E Derived HLA Class I Presented Neoantigens Hampers Neoplastic Cell Targeting by CD8+ T Cells in Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) is a neoplastic disorder of hematopoietic origin characterized by inflammatory lesions containing clonal histiocytes (LCH-cells) intermixed with various immune cells, including T cells. In 50-60% of LCH-patients, the somatic BRAFV600E driver mutation, which is common in many cancers, is detected in these LCH-cells in an otherwise quiet genomic landscape. Non-synonymous mutations like BRAFV600E can be a source of neoantigens capable of eliciting effective antitumor CD8+ T cell responses. This requires neopeptides to be stably presented by Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) class I molecules and sufficient numbers of CD8+ T cells at tumor sites. Here, we demonstrate substantial heterogeneity in CD8+ T cell density in n = 101 LCH-lesions, with BRAFV600E mutated lesions displaying significantly lower CD8+ T cell:CD1a+ LCH-cell ratios (p = 0.01) than BRAF wildtype lesions. Because LCH-lesional CD8+ T cell density had no significant impact on event-free survival, we investigated whether the intracellularly expressed BRAFV600E protein is degraded into neopeptides that are naturally processed and presented by cell surface HLA class I molecules. Epitope prediction tools revealed a single HLA class I binding BRAFV600E derived neopeptide (KIGDFGLATEK), which indeed displayed strong to intermediate binding capacity to HLA-A*03:01 and HLA-A*11:01 in an in vitro peptide-HLA binding assay. Mass spectrometry-based targeted peptidomics was used to investigate the presence of this neopeptide in HLA class I presented peptides isolated from several BRAFV600E expressing cell lines with various HLA genotypes. While the HLA-A*02:01 binding BRAF wildtype peptide KIGDFGLATV was traced in peptides isolated from a

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