PURPOSE Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide physicians with a treatment recommendation for complex tumor-specific genomic alterations. National and international consensus to reach a recommendation is lacking. In this article, we analyze the effectiveness of an MTB decision-making methodology for patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare or complex mutational profiles as implemented in the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). METHODS The UMCG-MTB comprises (pulmonary) oncologists, pathologists, clinical scientists in molecular pathology, and structural biologists. Recommendations are based on reported actionability of variants and molecular interpretation of pathways affected by the variant and supported by molecular modeling. A retrospective analysis of 110 NSCLC cases (representing 106 patients) with suggested treatment of complex genomic alterations and corresponding treatment outcomes for targeted therapy was performed. RESULTS The MTB recommended targeted therapy for 59 of 110 NSCLC cases with complex molecular profiles: 24 within a clinical trial, 15 in accordance with guidelines (on label) and 20 off label. All but 16 recommendations involved patients with an EGFR or ALK mutation. Treatment outcome was analyzed for patients with available follow-up (10 on label and 16 off label). Adherence to the MTB recommendation (21 of 26; 81%) resulted in an objective response rate of 67% (14 of 21), with a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (interquartile range, 3.2-10.6 months) and an overall survival of 10.4 months (interquartile range, 6.3-14.6 months). CONCLUSION Targeted therapy recommendations resulting from the UMCG-MTB workflow for complex molecular profiles were highly adhered to and resulted in a positive clinical response in the majority of patients with metastatic NSCLC.

Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

Introduction: Previous studies have reported an acquiredBRAF V600E mutation as a potential resistance mechanism to osimertinib treatment in advanced NSCLC patients with an activating mutation in EGFR. However, the therapeutic effect of combining dabrafenib and trametinib with osimertinib remains unclear. Here we report treatment efficacy in two cases with acquired BRAF V600E mutations. Methods: Two patients with anEGFR exon 19 deletion and a T790 M mutation, both treated with osimertinib, acquired a BRAF V600E mutation at disease progression. Following the recommendation of the molecular tumor board, a concurrent combination of dabrafenib and trametinib plus osimertinib was administered. Results: Because of toxicity, one patient ultimately received a reduced dose of dabrafenib and trametinib combined with a normal dose of osimertinib. Clinical response in this patient lasted for 13.4 months. Re-biopsy upon tumor progression revealed loss ofBRAF V600E and emergence of EGFR C797S. The other patient, treated with full doses of the combined therapy, had progression with metastases in lung and brain one month after starting therapy. Conclusion: BRAF V600E may be a resistance mechanism induced by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Combined treatment using dabrafenib/trametinib concurrently with osimertinib needs to be explored for osimertinib-induced BRAF V600E mutation.