Background Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and... Show moreBackground 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. Show less
Since several years targeted therapy has been part of treatment in NSCLC in subsets of patients with specific genetic alterations. One of these alterations involves HER2, a member of the ERBB... Show moreSince several years targeted therapy has been part of treatment in NSCLC in subsets of patients with specific genetic alterations. One of these alterations involves HER2, a member of the ERBB family of tyrosine kinase receptors. Despite that HER2 alterations in NSCLC have been studied for years, there is still no consensus about subgroup definitions. In this review HER2 alterations in NSCLC are discussed, including diagnostic challenges and treatment strategies.Three principal mechanisms of HER2 alterations can be identified: HER2 protein overexpression, HER2 gene amplification and HER2 gene mutations. There are several methods for the detection of HER2 "positivity" in NSCLC, but no gold standard has been established. Laboratory methods for assessment of HER2 positivity in NSCLC include immunohistochemistry (IHC) for protein overexpression and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and next generation sequencing (NGS) for genetic alterations.Many trials testing HER2 targeted therapy in HER2 altered NSCLC has not lead to a renewed standard of care for this group of patients. Therefore, today the (re)search on how to analyse, define and treat HER2 alterations in NSCLC continues. Still there is no consensus about HER2 subgroup definitions and results of the many trials studying possible treatment strategies are inconclusive. Future research should focus on the most important missing link, whether all HER2 alterations are relevant oncogenic drivers and whether it should be considered as a therapeutic target in NSCLC. Show less
