Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with a precision N-of-One strategy

TLDR

Next‑generation sequencing can identify novel cancer targets, yet interpreting these findings and accessing targeted therapies or trials remains difficult, and many tumors resist single‑agent treatments. The study aimed to implement a precision N‑of‑One strategy by establishing a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board to match patients to targeted therapies. The board reviewed each patient’s clinical and genomic data, devised individualized treatment plans under a master protocol, and coordinated biomarker acquisition and drug access through a project manager and clinical navigators. Among 429 evaluable patients, 62% were matched to at least one recommended drug, 20% received all suggested regimens, and MTB‑guided therapy was associated with significantly longer progression‑free and overall survival, with higher matching scores independently predicting better outcomes.

Abstract

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.