Background.: Although genetic profiling of tumors is a potentially powerful tool to predict drug sensitivity and resistance, its routine use has been limited because clinicians are often unfamiliar with interpretation and incorporation of the information into practice. We established a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) to interpret individual patients’ tumor genetic profiles and provide treatment recommendations. Patients and Methods.: DNA from tumor specimens was sequenced in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory to identify coding mutations in a 50-gene panel (n = 34) or a 255-gene panel (n = 1). Cases were evaluated by a multidisciplinary MTB that included pathologists, oncologists, hematologists, basic scientists, and genetic counselors. Results.: During the first year, 35 cases were evaluated by the MTB, with 32 presented for recommendations on targeted therapies, and 3 referred for potential germline mutations. In 56.3% of cases, MTB recommended treatment with a targeted agent based on evaluation of tumor genetic profile and treatment history. Four patients (12.5%) were subsequently treated with a MTB-recommended targeted therapy; 3 of the 4 patients remain on therapy, 2 of whom experienced clinical benefit lasting >10 months. Conclusion.: For the majority of cases evaluated, the MTB was able to provide treatment recommendations based on targetable genetic alterations. The most common reasons that MTB-recommended therapy was not administered stemmed from patient preferences and genetic profiling at either very early or very late stages of disease; lack of drug access was rarely encountered. Increasing awareness of molecular profiling and targeted therapies by both clinicians and patients will improve acceptance and adherence to treatments that could significantly improve outcomes. Implications for Practice: Case evaluation by a multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) is critical to benefit from individualized genetic data and maximize clinical impact. MTB recommendations shaped treatment options for the majority of cases evaluated. In the few patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy, disease outcomes were positive and support genetically informed treatment.

Background Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are potentially prognostic indicators in patients with glioblastoma. If differences in frequency of Tregs in tumor or blood account for substantial variation in patient survival, then reliably measuring Tregs may enhance treatment selection and improve outcomes. Methods We measured Tregs and CD3+ T cells in tumors and blood from 25 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Tumor-infiltrating Tregs and CD3+ T cells, measured by quantitative DNA demethylation analysis (epigenetic qPCR) and by immunohistochemistry, and peripheral blood Treg proportions measured by flow cytometry were correlated with patient survival. Additionally, we analyzed data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to correlate the expression of Treg markers with patient survival and glioblastoma subtypes. Results Tregs, as measured in tumor tissue and peripheral blood, did not correlate with patient survival. Although there was a correlation between tumor-infiltrating Tregs expression by epigenetic qPCR and immunohistochemistry, epigenetic qPCR was more sensitive and specific. Using data from TCGA, mRNA expression of Forkhead box protein 3 (FoxP3) and Helios and FoxP3 methylation level did not predict survival. While the classical glioblastoma subtype corresponded to lower expression of Treg markers, these markers did not predict survival in any of the glioblastoma subtypes. Conclusions Although immunosuppression is a hallmark of glioblastoma, Tregs as measured in tissue by gene expression, immunohistochemistry, or demethylation and Tregs in peripheral blood measured by flow cytometry do not predict survival of patients. Quantitative DNA demethylation analysis provides an objective, sensitive, and specific way of identifying Tregs and CD3+ T cells in glioblastoma.

Background: Digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) is an accurate and sensitive molecular method that can be used in clinical diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive tests. The key component of the dPCR method is the partitioning of a single reaction into many thousands of droplets, nanochannels or other nano- or picoliter-sized reactions. This results in high enough sensitivity to detect rare nucleic acid targets and provides an absolute quantification of target sequences or alleles compared to other PCR-based methods. Content: An increasing number of dPCR platforms have been introduced commercially in recent years and more are being developed. These platforms differ in the method of partitioning, degree of automation, and multiplexing capabilities but all can be used in similar ways for sensitive and highly accurate quantification of a variety of nucleic acid targets. Currently, clinical applications of dPCR include oncology, microbiology and infectious disease, genetics, and prenatal/newborn screening. Commercially available tests for clinical applications are being developed for variants with diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic significance in specific disease types. Summary: The power of dPCR technology relies on the partitioning of the reactions and results in increased sensitivity and accuracy compared to qPCR. More recently, the sensitivity of dPCR has been applied to the detection of known variants in cell-free DNA and circulating tumor DNA. Future clinical applications of dPCR include liquid biopsy, treatment resistance detection, screening for minimal residual disease, and monitoring allograft engraftment in transplanted patients.

Lynch syndrome accounts for approximately 3% of newly diagnosed colorectal cancers and is caused by germline defects in DNA mismatch repair genes. Screening of patients for Lynch syndrome can be done by immunohistochemical staining for a panel of mismatch repair proteins and/or DNA testing for microsatellite instability. We describe a unique "null" immunophenotype in a Lynch syndrome associated colon cancer in a 71-year-old woman who also had a personal history of ureteral cancer and a strong family history of various malignancies. Immunohistochemical stains for MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, and MSH6 were completely negative in the tumor cells, with positive staining in stromal and inflammatory cells. Mutation analysis using peripheral blood showed a germline G587R mutation in the MSH2 gene. Further testing revealed the tumor to be positive for MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. Normal colonic mucosa adjacent to the tumor was negative for MLH1 promoter methylation. The lack of immunostaining for any of the 4 DNA mismatch repair proteins in this extremely unusual case was, therefore, related to a germline MSH2 mutation and somatic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation.