Previous clinical trials indicate that 10%–25% of patients received genomically matched therapy after comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests. However, the clinical utility of CGP tests has not been assessed in clinical practice. We assessed the clinical utility of CGP tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor and determined the proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy among those with common and non‐common cancers. From August 2019 to July 2020, a total of 418 patients had undergone CGP tests, and the results were discussed through the molecular tumor board at our site. The median age of patients was 57 (range: 3–86) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common, with 47 (11%) patients. Actionable genomic alterations (median 3, range: 1–17) were identified in 368 (88.0%) of 418 patients. Druggable genomic alterations were determined in 196 (46.9%) of 418 patients through the molecular tumor board. Genomically matched therapy was administered as the subsequent line of therapy in 51 (12.2%) patients, which is comparable to the proportion we previously reported in a clinical trial (13.4%) (p = 0.6919). The proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy was significantly higher among those with common cancers (16.2%) than non‐common cancers (9.4%) (p = 0.0365). Genomically matched therapy after the CGP tests was administered to 12.2% of patients, which is similar to the proportion reported in the previous clinical trials. The clinical utility of CGP tests in patients with common cancers greatly exceeded that in patients with non‐common cancers.

Activating mutations in mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MAP2K1) are involved in a variety of cancers and may be classified according to their RAF dependence. Sensitivity to combined BRAF and MEK treatments is associated with co-mutations of MAP2K1 and BRAF; however, the significance of less frequent MAP2K1 mutations is largely unknown. The transforming potential and drug sensitivity of 100 MAP2K1 variants were evaluated using individual assays and the mixed-all-nominated-in-one method. In addition, A375, a melanoma cell line harboring the BRAF V600E mutation, was used to evaluate the function of the MAP2K1 variants in combination with active RAF signaling. Among a total of 67 variants of unknown significance, 16 were evaluated as oncogenic or likely oncogenic. The drug sensitivity of the individual variants did not vary with respect to BRAF inhibitors, MEK inhibitors (MEKi), or their combination. Sensitivity to BRAF inhibitors was associated with the RAF dependency of the MAP2K1 variants, whereas resistance was higher in RAF-regulated or independent variants compared with RAF-dependent variants. Thus, the synergistic effect of BRAF and MEKis may be observed in RAF-regulated and RAF-dependent variants. MAP2K1 variants exhibit differential sensitivity to BRAF and MEKis, suggesting the importance of individual functional analysis for the selection of optimal treatments for each patient. This comprehensive evaluation reveals precise functional information and provides optimal combination treatment for individual MAP2K1 variants.

In Japan, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests for refractory cancer patients have been approved since June 2019, under the requirement that all cases undergoing CGP tests are annotated by the molecular tumor board (MTB) at each government‐designated hospital. To investigate improvement in precision oncology, we evaluated and compared the proportion of cases receiving matched treatments according to CGP results and those recommended to receive genetic counseling at all core hospitals between the first period (11 hospitals, June 2019 to January 2020) and second period (12 hospitals, February 2020 to January 2021). A total of 754 and 2294 cases underwent CGP tests at core hospitals in the first and second periods, respectively; 28 (3.7%) and 176 (7.7%) patients received matched treatments (p < 0.001). Additionally, 25 (3.3%) and 237 (10.3%) cases were recommended to receive genetic counseling in the first and second periods, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion was associated with the type of CGP test: tumor‐only (N = 2391) vs. tumor‐normal paired (N = 657) analysis (10.0% vs. 3.5%). These results suggest that recommendations regarding available clinical trials in networked MTBs might contribute to increasing the numbers of matched treatments, and that tumor‐normal paired rather than tumor‐only tests can increase the efficiency of patient referrals for genetic counseling.

Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) is a rare and highly aggressive tumor with no efficient treatment. We examined genetic features of NECC and identified potential therapeutic targets. A total of 272 patients with cervical cancer (25 NECC, 180 squamous cell carcinoma, 53 adenocarcinoma, and 14 adenosquamous carcinoma) were enrolled. Somatic hotspot mutations in 50 cancer-related genes were detected using the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2. Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positivity was examined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based testing and in situ hybridization assays. Programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was examined using immunohistochemistry. Somatic mutation data for 320 cases of cervical cancer from the Project GENIE database were also analyzed. NECC showed similar (PIK3CA, 32%; TP53, 24%) and distinct (SMAD4, 20%; RET, 16%; EGFR, 12%; APC, 12%) alterations compared with other histological types. The GENIE cohort had similar profiles and RB1 mutations in 27.6% of NECC cases. Eleven (44%) cases had at least one actionable mutation linked to molecular targeted therapies and 14 (56%) cases showed more than one combined positive score for PD-L1 expression. HPV-positivity was observed in all NECC cases with a predominance of HPV-18. We report specific gene mutation profiles for NECC, which can provide a basis for the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

Comprehensive genome profiling (CGP) serves as a guide for suitable genomically matched therapies for patients with cancer. However, little is known about the impact of the timing and types of cancer on the therapeutic benefit of CGP. A single hospital-based pan-cancer prospective study (TOP-GEAR; UMIN000011141) was conducted to examine the benefit of CGP with respect to the timing and types of cancer. Patients with advanced solid tumors (>30 types) who either progressed with or without standard treatments were genotyped using a single CGP test. The subjects were followed up for a median duration of 590 days to examine therapeutic response, using progression-free survival (PFS), PFS ratio, and factors associated with therapeutic response. Among the 507 patients, 62 (12.2%) received matched therapies with an overall response rate (ORR) of 32.3%. The PFS ratios (≥1.3) were observed in 46.3% (19/41) of the evaluated patients. The proportion of subjects receiving such therapies in the rare cancer cohort was lower than that in the non-rare cancer cohort (9.6% and 17.4%, respectively; P = 0.010). However, ORR of the rare cancer patients was higher than that in the non-rare cancer cohort (43.8% and 20.0%, respectively; P = 0.046). Moreover, ORR of matched therapies in the first or second line after receiving the CGP test was higher than that in the third or later lines (62.5% and 21.7%, respectively; P = 0.003). Rare cancer and early-line treatment were significantly and independently associated with ORR of matched therapies in multivariable analysis (P = 0.017 and 0.004, respectively). Patients with rare cancer preferentially benefited from tumor mutation profiling by increasing the chances of therapeutic response to matched therapies. Early-line treatments after profiling increase the therapeutic benefit, irrespective of tumor types.

Comprehensive genomic profiling is increasingly used to facilitate precision oncology based on molecular stratification. In addition to conventional tissue comprehensive genomic profiling, comprehensive genomic profiling of circulating tumor DNA has become widely utilized in cancer care owing on its advantages, including less invasiveness, rapid turnaround time, and capturing heterogeneity. However, circulating tumor DNA comprehensive genomic profiling has some limitations, mainly false negatives due to low levels of plasma circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid and false positives caused by clonal hematopoiesis. Nevertheless, no guidelines and recommendations fully address these issues. Here, an expert panel committee involving representatives from 12 Designated Core Hospitals for Cancer Genomic Medicine in Japan was organized to develop expert consensus recommendations for the use of circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid‐based comprehensive genomic profiling. The aim was to generate guidelines for clinicians and allied healthcare professionals on the optimal use of the circulating tumor DNA assays in advanced solid tumors and to aid the design of future clinical trials that utilize and develop circulating tumor DNA assays to refine precision oncology. Fourteen clinical questions regarding circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid comprehensive genomic profiling including the timing of testing and considerations for interpreting results were established by searching and curating associated literatures, and corresponding recommendations were prepared based on the literature for each clinical question. Final consensus recommendations were developed by voting to determine the level of each recommendation by the Committee members.