Background The increasing practicality of genomic sequencing technology has led to its incorporation into routine clinical practice. Successful identification and targeting of driver genomic alterations that provide proliferative and survival advantages to tumor cells have led to approval and ongoing development of several targeted cancer therapies. Within many major cancer centers, molecular tumor boards are constituted to shepherd precision medicine into clinical practice. Materials and Methods In July 2014, the Clinical Genomics Action Committee (CGAC) was established as the molecular tumor board companion to the Personalized Medicine Clinical Service (PMCS) at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. The processes and outcomes of the program were assessed in order to help others move into the practice of precision medicine. Results Through the establishment and initial 1,400 patients of the PMCS and its associated molecular tumor board at a major cancer center, five practical lessons of broad applicability have been learned: transdisciplinary engagement, the use of the molecular report as an aid to clinical management, clinical actionability, getting therapeutic options to patients, and financial considerations. Value to patients includes access to cutting‐edge practice merged with individualized preferences in treatment and care. Conclusions Genomic‐driven cancer medicine is increasingly becoming a part of routine clinical practice. For successful implementation of precision cancer medicine, strategically organized molecular tumor boards are critical to provide objective evidence‐based translation of observed molecular alterations into patient‐centered clinical action. Molecular tumor board implementation models along with clinical and economic outcomes will define future treatment standards. Implications for Practice It is clear that the increasing practicality of genetic tumor sequencing technology has led to its incorporation as part of routine clinical practice. Subsequently, many cancer centers are seeking to develop a personalized medicine services and/or molecular tumor board to shepherd precision medicine into clinical practice. This article discusses the key lessons learned through the establishment and development of a molecular tumor board and personalized medicine clinical service. This article highlights practical issues and can serve as an important guide to other centers as they conceive and develop their own personalized medicine services and molecular tumor boards.

Abnormal intracellular signaling has been implicated in the development of many different types of cancer. Therapies targeting these abnormal pathways have revolutionized the treatment of many malignancies leading to significantly improved outcomes and survival. Despite these advances, cardiovascular toxicity is a frequently reported complication. Angiogenesis is the physiologic process of new blood vessel development and can be dysregulated in some forms of cancer. VEGF inhibitors are the pharmaceutical agents targeting this pathway; however hypertension is a commonly observed toxicity which can have significant adverse consequences including premature cessation of therapy if adequate blood pressure control cannot be achieved. This review will provide a comprehensive discussion about hypertension due to VEGF inhibition, focusing on pathophysiology, frequently used agents, and available treatment options for VEGF-induced hypertension.

One of the initial steps for implementing pharmacogenomics into routine patient care is selecting an appropriate clinical laboratory to perform the testing. With the rapid advances in genotyping technologies, many clinical laboratories are now performing pharmacogenomic testing. Selection of a reference laboratory depends on whether a particular genotype assay is already performed by an internal health care organization laboratory or only available externally. Other factors for consideration are coverage of genomic variants important for the patient population, technical support, and cost. In some instances, the decision to select a particular reference laboratory may be the responsibility of the clinician who is recommending genomic interrogation. Only limited guidance is available that describes the laboratory characteristics to consider when selecting a reference laboratory. We provide practical considerations for selecting a clinical laboratory for pharmacogenomic testing broadly categorized into four domains: pharmacogene and variant selection; logistics; reporting of results; and test costs along with reimbursement.

Although thiopurine S‐methyltransferase (TPMT) genotyping to guide thiopurine dosing is common in the pediatric cancer population, limited data exist on TPMT testing implementation in diverse, multidisciplinary settings. We established TPMT testing (genotype and enzyme) with clinical decision support, provider/patient education, and pharmacist consultations in a tertiary medical center and collected data over 3 years. During this time, 834 patients underwent 873 TPMT tests (147 (17%) genotype, 726 (83%) enzyme). TPMT tests were most commonly ordered for gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology, and hematology/oncology patients (661 of 834 patients (79.2%); 580 outpatient vs. 293 inpatient; P < 0.0001). Thirty‐nine patients had both genotype and enzyme tests (n = 2 discordant results). We observed significant differences between TPMT test use and characteristics in a diverse, multispecialty environment vs. a pediatric cancer setting, which led to unique implementation needs. As pharmacogenetic implementations expand, disseminating lessons learned in diverse, real‐world environments will be important to support routine adoption.