• Damian T Rieke, Till de Bortoli, Peter Horak, Mario Lamping, Manuela Benary, Ivan Jelas, Gina Rüter, Johannes Berger, Marit Zettwitz, Niklas Kagelmann, Andreas Kind, Falk Fabian, Dieter Beule, Hanno Glimm, Benedikt Brors, Albrecht Stenzinger, Stefan Fröhling, and Ulrich Keilholz.
• Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Chariteplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. damian.rieke@charite.de.
• Bmc Med. 2022 Oct 24; 20 (1): 367.

BackgroundStructured and harmonized implementation of molecular tumor boards (MTB) for the clinical interpretation of molecular data presents a current challenge for precision oncology. Heterogeneity in the interpretation of molecular data was shown for patients even with a limited number of molecular alterations. Integration of high-dimensional molecular data, including RNA- (RNA-Seq) and whole-exome sequencing (WES), is expected to further complicate clinical application. To analyze challenges for MTB harmonization based on complex molecular datasets, we retrospectively compared clinical interpretation of WES and RNA-Seq data by two independent molecular tumor boards.MethodsHigh-dimensional molecular cancer profiling including WES and RNA-Seq was performed for patients with advanced solid tumors, no available standard therapy, ECOG performance status of 0-1, and available fresh-frozen tissue within the DKTK-MASTER Program from 2016 to 2018. Identical molecular profiling data of 40 patients were independently discussed by two molecular tumor boards (MTB) after prior annotation by specialized physicians, following independent, but similar workflows. Identified biomarkers and resulting treatment options were compared between the MTBs and patients were followed up clinically.ResultsA median of 309 molecular aberrations from WES and RNA-Seq (n = 38) and 82 molecular aberrations from WES only (n = 3) were considered for clinical interpretation for 40 patients (one patient sequenced twice). A median of 3 and 2 targeted treatment options were identified per patient, respectively. Most treatment options were identified for receptor tyrosine kinase, PARP, and mTOR inhibitors, as well as immunotherapy. The mean overlap coefficient between both MTB was 66%. Highest agreement rates were observed with the interpretation of single nucleotide variants, clinical evidence levels 1 and 2, and monotherapy whereas the interpretation of gene expression changes, preclinical evidence levels 3 and 4, and combination therapy yielded lower agreement rates. Patients receiving treatment following concordant MTB recommendations had significantly longer overall survival than patients receiving treatment following discrepant recommendations or physician's choice.ConclusionsReproducible clinical interpretation of high-dimensional molecular data is feasible and agreement rates are encouraging, when compared to previous reports. The interpretation of molecular aberrations beyond single nucleotide variants and preclinically validated biomarkers as well as combination therapies were identified as additional difficulties for ongoing harmonization efforts.© 2022. The Author(s).

21 keywords...

hide…