Explore the vast range of titles available.

With the addition of molecular testing to the oncologist’s diagnostic toolbox, patients have benefitted from the successes of gene- and immune-directed therapies. These therapies are often most effective when administered to the subset of malignancies harboring the target identified by molecular testing. An important advance in the application of molecular testing is the liquid biopsy, wherein circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is analyzed for point mutations, copy number alterations, and amplifications by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or next-generation sequencing (NGS). The advantages of evaluating ctDNA over tissue DNA include (i) ctDNA requires only a tube of blood, rather than an invasive biopsy, (ii) ctDNA can plausibly reflect DNA shedding from multiple metastatic sites while tissue DNA reflects only the piece of tissue biopsied, and (iii) dynamic changes in ctDNA during therapy can be easily followed with repeat blood draws. Tissue biopsies allow comprehensive assessment of DNA, RNA, and protein expression in the tumor and its microenvironment as well as functional assays; however, tumor tissue acquisition is costly with a risk of complications. Herein, we review the ways in which ctDNA assessment can be leveraged to understand the dynamic changes of molecular landscape in 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. A molecular tumor board (MTB) is often used as a platform that integrates clinical and molecular parameters for clinical decision making. Here, the authors review the outcome of 715 cancer patients presented at their institution’s MTB, and demonstrate that patients who received a MTB-recommended regimen received therapy that was better matched to their alterations and achieved better clinical outcomes.

(1) Background: The oncology field has drastically changed with the advent of precision medicine, led by the discovery of druggable genes or immune targets assessed through next-generation sequencing. Biomarker-based treatments are increasingly emerging, and currently, six tissue-agnostic therapies are FDA-approved. (2) Methods: We performed a review of the literature and reported the trials that led to the approval of tissue-agnostic treatments and ongoing clinical trials currently investigating novel biomarker-based approaches. (3) Results: We discussed the approval of agnostic treatments: pembrolizumab and dostarlimab for MMRd/MSI-H, pembrolizumab for TMB-H, larotrectinib and entrectinib for NTRK-fusions, dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF V600E mutation, and selpercatinib for RET fusions. In addition, we reported novel clinical trials of biomarker-based approaches, including ALK, HER2, FGFR, and NRG1. (4) Conclusions: Precision medicine is constantly evolving, and with the improvement of diagnostic tools that allow a wider genomic definition of the tumor, tissue-agnostic targeted therapies are a promising treatment strategy tailored to the specific tumor genomic profile, leading to improved survival outcomes.

In the past two decades, molecular targeted therapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of several malignancies. Lethal malignancies such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have become a model for precision-matched immune- and gene-targeted therapies. Multiple small subgroups of NSCLC defined by their genomic aberrations are now recognized; remarkably, taken together, almost 70% of NSCLCs now have a druggable anomaly. Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare tumor with a poor prognosis. Novel molecular alterations have been recently identified in patients with CCA, and the potential for targeted therapy is being realized. In 2019, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) inhibitor, pemigatinib, was the first approved targeted therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic intrahepatic CCA who had FGFR2 gene fusions or rearrangement. More regulatory approvals for matched targeted therapies as second-line or subsequent treatments in advanced CCA followed, including additional drugs that target FGFR2 gene fusion/rearrangement. Recent tumor-agnostic approvals include (but are not limited to) drugs that target mutations/rearrangements in the following genes and are hence applicable to CCA: isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1); neurotrophic tropomyosin-receptor kinase (NTRK); the V600E mutation of the BRAF gene (BRAFV600E); and high tumor mutational burden, high microsatellite instability, and gene mismatch repair-deficient (TMB-H/MSI-H/dMMR) tumors. Ongoing trials investigate HER2, RET, and non-BRAFV600E mutations in CCA and improvements in the efficacy and safety of new targeted treatments. This review aims to present the current status of molecularly matched targeted therapy for advanced CCA.

Next-generation sequencing has enabled patient selection for targeted drugs, some of which have shown remarkable efficacy in cancers that have the cognate molecular signatures. Intriguingly, rapidly emerging data indicate that altered genes representing oncogenic drivers can also be found in sporadic non-malignant conditions, some of which have negligible and/or low potential for transformation to cancer. For instance, activating KRAS mutations are discerned in endometriosis and in brain arteriovenous malformations, inactivating TP53 tumor suppressor mutations in rheumatoid arthritis synovium, and AKT , MAPK , and AMPK pathway gene alterations in the brains of Alzheimer’s disease patients. Furthermore, these types of alterations may also characterize hereditary conditions that result in diverse disabilities and that are associated with a range of lifetime susceptibility to the development of cancer, varying from near universal to no elevated risk. Very recently, the repurposing of targeted cancer drugs for non-malignant conditions that are associated with these genomic alterations has yielded therapeutic successes. For instance, the phenotypic manifestations of CLOVES syndrome, which is characterized by tissue overgrowth and complex vascular anomalies that result from the activation of PIK3CA mutations, can be ameliorated by the PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib, which was developed and approved for breast cancer. In this review, we discuss the profound implications of finding molecular alterations in non-malignant conditions that are indistinguishable from those driving cancers, with respect to our understanding of the genomic basis of medicine, the potential confounding effects in early cancer detection that relies on sensitive blood tests for oncogenic mutations, and the possibility of reverse repurposing drugs that are used in oncology in order to ameliorate non-malignant illnesses and/or to prevent the emergence of cancer.

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are at the forefront of the drug development revolution occurring in oncology. Formed from three main components—an antibody, a linker molecule, and a cytotoxic agent (“payload”), ADCs have the unique ability to deliver cytotoxic agents to cells expressing a specific antigen, a great leap forward from traditional chemotherapeutic approaches that cause widespread effects without specificity. A variety of payloads can be used, including most frequently microtubular inhibitors (auristatins and maytansinoids), as well as topoisomerase inhibitors and alkylating agents. Finally, linkers play a critical role in the ADCs’ effect, as cleavable moieties that serve as linkers impact site-specific activation as well as bystander killing effects, an upshot that is especially important in solid tumors that often express a variety of antigens. While ADCs were initially used in hematologic malignancies, their utility has been demonstrated in multiple solid tumor malignancies, including breast, gastrointestinal, lung, cervical, ovarian, and urothelial cancers. Currently, six ADCs are FDA-approved for the treatment of solid tumors: ado-trastuzumab emtansine and trastuzumab deruxtecan, both anti-HER2; enfortumab-vedotin, targeting nectin-4; sacituzuzmab govitecan, targeting Trop2; tisotumab vedotin, targeting tissue factor; and mirvetuximab soravtansine, targeting folate receptor-alpha. Although they demonstrate utility and tolerable safety profiles, ADCs may become ineffective as tumor cells undergo evolution to avoid expressing the specific antigen being targeted. Furthermore, the current cost of ADCs can be limiting their reach. Here, we review the structure and functions of ADCs, as well as ongoing clinical investigations into novel ADCs and their potential as treatments of solid malignancies.

In oncology clinical trials, many patients spend their final months at a central clinical trial facility far from home for “mandatory” protocol visits/diagnostic testing. Studies suggest that the travel strain may be greatest among patients living in low‐income areas and/or participating in early-phase studies. In this regard, rare cancers constitute a special unmet need with limited therapeutic options and few trials. Though individually uncommon, rare cancers as a group constitute ~22% of the cancer burden; the portion of cancer burden may even be greater if biomarker-defined rare subsets of either a single cancer type or a tissue-agnostic subgroup are included. Exacerbating the access issue is the fact that, in addition to the paucity of trials, many centers will not activate existing single-arm trials, often due to accrual concerns, which may further disadvantage this patient group and also jeopardize trial completion. Decentralized clinical trials may resolve some of these challenges by allowing patients to participate from close to home. Decentralized clinical trials can take the form of being site-less, with the coordinating body working remotely and care provided by the home oncologist, or by taking the tack of National Cancer Institute/cooperative groups (e.g., NCI-MATCH genomics matching trial or SWOG1609 [NCI] DART immunotherapy rare cancer trial) using a platform design with multiple cohorts and opening at >1000 sites. Decentralized trials now also have supportive FDA guidance. Importantly, home-run trials permit clinical trial access to underserved groups, including those in rural areas and patients financially unable to travel to a central facility.

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a difficult‐to‐manage malignancy. Multi‐omic profiles and treatment outcome vs. degree of precision matching were assessed. Tumours underwent next‐generation sequencing (NGS) [tissue and/or blood‐derived cell‐free DNA (cfDNA)]. Selected patients had transcriptome‐based immune profiling and/or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD‐L1) immunohistochemistry analysis. Patients could be reviewed by a Molecular Tumor Board, but physicians chose the therapy. Of 6497 patients in the precision database, 97 had CUP. The median number of pathogenic tissue genomic alterations was 4 (range, 0–25), and for cfDNA, was 2 (range, 0–9). Each patient had a distinct molecular landscape. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved biomarkers included the following: PD‐L1+ ≥ 1%, 30.9% of CUPs tested; microsatellite instability, 3.6%; tumour mutational burden ≥ 10 mutations·Mb−1, 23%; and neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusions, 0%. RNA‐based immunograms showed theoretically druggable targets: lymphocyte activation gene 3 protein (LAG‐3), macrophage colony‐stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R), adenosine receptor A2 (ADORA2) and indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase 1 (IDO1). Overall, 56% of patients had ≥ 1 actionable biomarker (OncoKB database). To quantify the degree of matching (tumours to drugs), a Matching Score (MS; roughly equivalent to number of alterations targeted/total number of deleterious alterations) was calculated post hoc. Comparing evaluable treated patients [MS high, > 50% (N = 15) vs. low ≤ 50% (N = 47)], median progression‐free survival was 10.4 vs. 2.8 months (95% CI 0.11–0.64; HR 0.27; P = 0.002); survival, 15.8 vs. 6.9 months (95% CI 0.17–1.16; HR 0.45; P = 0.09); and clinical benefit rate (stable disease ≥ 6 months/partial/complete response), 71% vs. 24% (P = 0.003). Higher MS was the only factor that predicted improvement in outcome variables after multivariate analysis. In conclusion, CUPs are molecularly complex. Treatments with high degrees of matching to molecular alterations (generally achieved by individualized combinations) correlated with improved outcomes. To improve outcomes in patients with carcinomas of unknown primary, a multiomic approach is needed including genomic, transcriptomic, immunomic and proteomic insights.

The discovery of Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and their role in dendritic cells earned the Nobel Prize for 2011 because TLRs profoundly enhanced our understanding of the immune system. Specifically, TLR3 is located within the endosomal compartments of dendritic cells and plays a crucial role in the immune response by acting as a pattern recognition receptor that detects both exogenous (viral) and endogenous (mammalian) double-stranded RNA. However, TLR3 activation is a double-edged sword in various immune-mediated diseases. On one hand, it can enhance anti-viral defenses and promote pathogen clearance, contributing to host protection. On the other hand, excessive or dysregulated TLR3 signaling can lead to chronic inflammation and tissue damage, exacerbating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, chronic viral infections, and cancer. In cancer, TLR3 expression has been linked to both favorable and poor prognoses, though the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Recent clinical and preclinical advances have explored the use of TLR3 agonists in cancer immunotherapy, attempting to capitalize on their potential to enhance anti-tumor responses. The dual role of TLR3 highlights its complexity as a therapeutic target, necessitating careful modulation to maximize its protective effects while minimizing potential pathological consequences. In this review, we explore the intricate roles of TLR3 in immune responses across different disease contexts, including cancer, infections, autoimmune disorders, and allergies, highlighting both its protective and detrimental effects in these disorders, as well as progress in developing TLR3 agonists as part of the immunotherapy landscape.

Background Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) is implicated in both cancer and neurologic diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); however, to date, there has been little cross-field discussion between neurology and oncology in regard to these genes and their functions. Main body Approximately 0.15–0.5% of cancers harbor NRG1 fusions that upregulate NRG1 activity and hence that of the cognate ERBB3/ERBB4 (HER3/HER4) receptors; abrogating this activity with small molecule inhibitors/antibodies shows preliminary tissue-agnostic anti-cancer activity. Notably, ERBB/HER pharmacologic suppression is devoid of neurologic toxicity. Even so, in ALS, attenuated ERBB4/HER4 receptor activity (due to loss-of-function germline mutations or other mechanisms in sporadic disease) is implicated; indeed, ERBB4/HER4 is designated ALS19. Further, secreted-type NRG1 isoforms may be upregulated (perhaps via a feedback loop) and could contribute to ALS pathogenesis through aberrant glial cell stimulation via enhanced activity of other (e.g., ERBB1-3/HER1-3) receptors and downstream pathways. Hence, pan-ERBB inhibitors, already in use for cancer, may be agents worthy of testing in ALS. Conclusion Common signaling cascades between cancer and ALS may represent novel therapeutic targets for both diseases.