XXXX Experience of the Molecular Tumor Board at the University of California, San Diego Moores Cancer Center.

@entity1 @entity0 @entity5 @entity4310
PURPOSE: Multiplex genomic tests are enabling oncologists to interrogate the DNA of their @entity1 . However, few oncologists are proficient with respect to the implications of complex molecular diagnostics. We initiated a Molecular Tumor Board that focused on individual @entity1 with advanced @entity5 whose @entity5 underwent genomic profiling, and here report our experience with @entity0 . METHODS: A multidisciplinary team that included physicians, scientists, geneticists, and bioinformatics/pathway specialists attended. All molecular tests were performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments environment (next-generation sequencing, 182 or 236 genes). RESULTS: Forty of 43 @entity1 (93%; mean age, 59 years) had at least one theoretically actionable aberration (mean, 4.79 anomalies/ @entity1 ). Median time from ordering to report was 27 days (median of approximately 11 days for specimen acquisition and approximately 14 days for diagnostic processing). Even if we considered distinct abnormalities in a gene as the same, there were only two @entity1 with an identical molecular profile. Seventy-three genes (206 abnormalities; 119 distinct) were aberrant. Seventeen of the 43 @entity1 (40%; median, seven previous therapies in the metastatic setting) were treated in a manner consistent with Molecular Tumor Board discussions; seven (16% of 43, or 41% of 17) achieved stable disease for 6 or more months (n = 2) or partial remission (n = 5). Lack of access to targeted medication was the most common reason that @entity1 could not be treated. CONCLUSION: @entity4310 boards may help to optimize the management of @entity1 with advanced, heavily pretreated @entity0 who have undergone genomic testing. Facilitating availability of appropriately targeted drugs and clinical trials is needed.
