Chen, James

PURPOSE The cancer research community is constantly evolving to better understand tumor biology, disease etiology, risk stratification, and pathways to novel treatments. Yet the clinical cancer genomics field has been hindered by redundant efforts to meaningfully collect and interpret disparate data types from multiple high-throughput modalities and integrate into clinical care processes. Bespoke data models, knowledgebases, and one-off customized resources for data analysis often lack adequate governance and quality control needed for these resources to be clinical grade. Many informatics efforts focused on genomic interpretation resources for neoplasms are underway to support data collection, deposition, curation, harmonization, integration, and analytics to support case review and treatment planning. METHODS In this review, we evaluate and summarize the landscape of available tools, resources, and evidence used in the evaluation of somatic and germline tumor variants within the context of molecular tumor boards. RESULTS Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are collaborative efforts of multidisciplinary cancer experts equipped with genomic interpretation resources to aid in the delivery of accurate and timely clinical interpretations of complex genomic results for each patient, within an institution or hospital network. Virtual MTBs (VMTBs) provide an online forum for collaborative governance, provenance, and information sharing between experts outside a given hospital network with the potential to enhance MTB discussions. Knowledge sharing in VMTBs and communication with guideline-developing organizations can lead to progress evidenced by data harmonization across resources, crowd-sourced and expert-curated genomic assertions, and a more informed and explainable usage of artificial intelligence. CONCLUSION Advances in cancer genomics interpretation aid in better patient and disease classification, more streamlined identification of relevant literature, and a more thorough review of available treatments and predicted patient outcomes.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) can reverse chemoresistance, enhance chemotherapy-induced cytotoxicity, and reduce sarcoma proliferation in cell lines and animal models. We sought to determine the safety and toxicity of mocetinostat and its ability to reverse chemoresistance when administered with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic leiomyosarcoma resistant to prior gemcitabine-containing therapy. Participants with metastatic leiomyosarcoma received mocetinostat orally, 70 mg per day, three days per week, increasing to 90 mg after three weeks if well tolerated. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously at 10 mg/m2/minute on days five and 12 of every 21-day cycle. Disease response was evaluated with CT or MRI. Twenty participants with leiomyosarcoma were evaluated for toxicity. Median time to disease progression was 2.0 months (95% CI 1.54–3.12). Eighteen participants were evaluated for radiologic response by RECIST 1.1. Best responses included one PR and 12 SD. Tumor size reduced in 3 patients. Most common toxicities were fatigue, thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, and anorexia. One patient experienced a significant pericardial adverse event. No study-related deaths were observed. Rechallenging with gemcitabine by adding mocetinostat was feasible and demonstrated modest activity in patients with leiomyosarcoma. Further studies are needed to better define the role of HDAC inhibitors in patients with metastatic leiomyosarcoma.