Purpose

Next-generation sequencing is increasingly used in gynecologic and breast cancers. Multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) may guide matched therapy; however, outcome data are limited. We evaluate the effect of the degree of matching of tumors to treatment as well as compliance to MTB recommendations on outcomes.

Methods

Overall, 164 patients with consecutive gynecologic and breast cancers presented at MTB were assessed for clinicopathologic data, next-generation sequencing results, MTB recommendations, therapy received, and outcomes. Matching score (MS), defined as percentage of alterations targeted by treatment over total pathogenic alterations, and compliance to MTB recommendations were analyzed in context of oncologic outcomes.

Results

Altogether, 113 women were evaluable for treatment after MTB; 54% received matched therapy. Patients with MS ≥ 40% had higher overall response rate (30.8% v 7.1%; P = .001), progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.85; P = .002), and a trend toward improved overall survival (HR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.25; P = .082) in univariate analysis. The PFS advantage remained significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8; P = .006). Higher MTB recommendation compliance was significantly associated with improved median PFS (9.0 months for complete; 6.0 months for partial; 4.0 months for no compliance; P = .004) and overall survival (17.1 months complete; 17.8 months partial; 10.8 months none; P = .046). Completely MTB-compliant patients had higher MS (P < .001). In multivariate analysis comparing all versus none MTB compliance, overall response (HR 9.5; 95% CI, 2.6 to 35.0; P = .001) and clinical benefit (HR 8.8; 95% CI, 2.4 to 33.2; P = .001) rates were significantly improved with higher compliance.

Conclusion

Compliance to MTB recommendations resulted in higher degrees of matched therapy and correlates with improved outcomes in patients with gynecologic and breast cancers.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can identify novel cancer targets. However, interpreting the molecular findings and accessing drugs/clinical trials is challenging. Furthermore, many tumors show resistance to monotherapies. To implement a precision strategy, we initiated a multidisciplinary (basic/translational/clinical investigators, bioinformaticians, geneticists, and physicians from multiple specialties) molecular tumor board (MTB), which included a project manager to facilitate obtaining clinical-grade biomarkers (blood/tissue NGS, specific immunohistochemistry/RNA expression including for immune-biomarkers, per physician discretion) and medication-acquisition specialists/clinical trial coordinators/navigators to assist with medication access. The MTB comprehensively reviewed patient characteristics to develop N-of-One treatments implemented by the treating physician's direction under the auspices of a master protocol. Overall, 265/429 therapy-evaluable patients (62%) were matched to ≥1 recommended drug. Eighty-six patients (20%) matched to all drugs recommended by MTB, including combinatorial approaches, while 38% received physician's choice regimen, generally with unmatched approach/low degree of matching. Our results show that patients who receive MTB-recommended regimens (versus physician choice) have significantly longer progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and are better matched to therapy. High (≥50%) versus low (<50%) Matching Score therapy (roughly reflecting therapy matched to ≥50% versus <50% of alterations) independently correlates with longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.80; P < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P = 0.007) and higher stable disease ≥6 months/partial/complete remission rate (52.1% versus 30.4% P < 0.001) (all multivariate). In conclusion, patients who receive MTB-based therapy are better matched to their genomic alterations, and the degree of matching is an independent predictor of improved oncologic outcomes including survival.