Background: Precision oncology treatments are being applied more commonly in breast and gynecological oncology through the implementation of Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), but real-world clinical outcome data remain limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted in patients with breast cancer (BC) and gynecological malignancies referred to our center’s MTB from 2018 to 2023. The analysis covered patient characteristics, next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, MTB recommendations, therapy received, and clinical outcomes. Results: Sixty-three patients (77.8%) had metastatic disease, and forty-four patients (54.3%) had previously undergone three or more lines of systemic treatment. Personalized treatment recommendations were provided to 50 patients (63.3%), while 29 (36.7%) had no actionable target. Ultimately, 23 patients (29.1%) underwent molecular-matched treatment (MMT). Commonly altered genes in patients with pan-gyn tumors (BC and gynecological malignancies) included TP53 (n = 42/81, 51.9%), PIK3CA (n = 18/81, 22.2%), BRCA1/2 (n = 10/81, 12.3%), and ARID1A (n = 9/81, 11.1%). Patients treated with MMT showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median PFS 5.5 vs. 3.5 months, p = 0.0014). Of all patients who underwent molecular profiling, 13.6% experienced a major clinical benefit (PFSr ≥ 1.3 and PR/SD ≥ 6 months) through precision oncology. Conclusions: NGS-guided precision oncology demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in a subgroup of patients with gynecological and breast cancers.

Background: Increasing knowledge of cancer biology and an expanding spectrum of molecularly targeted therapies provide the basis for precision oncology. Despite extensive gene diagnostics, previous reports indicate that less than 10% of patients benefit from this concept. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients referred to our center’s Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) from 2018 to 2021. Molecular testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) included a 67-gene panel for the detection of short-sequence variants and copy-number alterations, a 53- or 137-gene fusion panel and an ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing for the detection of additional copy-number alterations outside the panel’s target regions. Immunohistochemistry for microsatellite instability and PD-L1 expression complemented NGS. Results: A total of 109 patients were referred to the MTB. In all, 78 patients received therapeutic proposals (70 based on NGS) and 33 were treated accordingly. Evaluable patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy (n = 30) had significantly longer progression-free survival than patients treated with other therapies (n = 17) (4.3 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.0094). Seven patients treated with off-label regimens experienced major clinical benefits. Conclusion: The combined focused sequencing assays detected targetable alterations in the majority of patients. Patient benefits appeared to lie in the same range as with large-scale sequencing approaches.

Personalized medicine is guided by an expanding array of molecular targets. This study investigates whether larger next-generation sequencing (NGS) gene panels (> 1 Mb) yield more clinically relevant therapy options in molecular tumor boards (MTB) compared to smaller panels. We analyzed 281 consecutive patients using a 430-gene DNA panel (1.3 Mb) combined with a RNA-fusion panel and compared the findings to a 185-gene DNA panel (618 kb). Molecular alterations were detected in 97.2 % of tumors with either oncogenic variants and/or gene fusions. Among these, 170 (60.5 %) received a molecular-stratified therapy recommendation from the local MTB. Only 8.8 % depended on the expanded 430-gene DNA panel, and additionally identified actionable variants in five additional genes. High TMB alone enabled 4.1 % of MTB recommendations. Our findings indicate that sufficient genomic coverage in DNA panels is essential for reliable TMB calculation, defining a minimal standard for genomic cancer care.