% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{KrieghoffHenning:306594,
author = {E. Krieghoff-Henning$^*$ and T. Michaeli$^*$ and T.
Boch$^*$ and J. Kirchhof and V. Haselmann and M. Neumaier
and W.-K. Hofmann and J. Betge$^*$ and M. Ebert and A.
Teufel and V. Ast and C. Sauer and C. Cotarelo and R.
Lozynskyy$^*$ and M. Janning$^*$ and F. Marmé and M.
Sütterlin and A. Streuer and F. Siegel and C. Brochhausen
and M. Collienne$^*$ and D. Nowak and S. Loges$^*$},
title = {{C}linical benefit of additional whole-exome sequencing
over panel sequencing in an all-comer real-world molecular
tumor board.},
journal = {ESMO open},
volume = {10},
number = {12},
issn = {2059-7029},
address = {[London]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-02633},
pages = {105894},
year = {2025},
note = {DKFZ-ZMBH Alliance / #EA:A420#EA:B340#LA:A420#},
abstract = {Panel sequencing, whole-exome sequencing (WES) and
whole-genome sequencing (WGS) often uncover therapeutic
targets for cancer patients. However, it is still largely
unclear to what extent patients directly benefit from
broader analyses over panel sequencing alone.We analyzed the
molecular findings and recommendations issued by our
molecular tumor board (MTB) in a cohort of patients who had
received both a well-established diagnostic panel of medium
size (up to 203 genes) and in-house WES, focusing on the
number of recommendations that were issued on the basis of
WES results only.Our cohort consisted of 38 patients with
advanced cancers, of whom about two-thirds had common and
one-third had rare cancers. They received a total of 45
(range 0-4) treatment recommendations overall, of which 29
had a clinical level of evidence (LoE) and/or entailed a
feasible study enrollment and were thus considered highly
actionable. Sixteen recommendations, of which seven were
highly actionable, were issued only on the basis of WES
results (five own, two previous WES). Three out of those
seven recommendations and one additional recommendation
based on a previous large panel were related to complex
molecular biomarkers such as homologous recombination
deficiency or high tumor mutational burden, with poly
(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors or checkpoint inhibitors
as recommended treatment. As expected, a higher proportion
of the WES-only recommendations $(63\%$ versus $42\%$ of
recommendations overall) were based on non-clinical LoEs.
One of eight recommendations implemented so far was based on
biomarkers derived by WES only.In our MTB, WES enabled some
additional clinically highly actionable recommendations for
selected patients, suggesting that some patients do benefit
from additional WES. These recommendations were often
related to complex biomarkers, which may in principle also
be derived from larger panels. These findings should be
re-investigated prospectively in larger cohorts.},
keywords = {WES (Other) / biomarkers (Other) / molecular tumor board
(Other) / panel sequencing (Other) / whole-exome sequencing
(Other)},
cin = {A420 / B340 / A010 / B440 / HD01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)A420-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)B340-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)A010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)B440-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
pnm = {311 - Zellbiologie und Tumorbiologie (POF4-311)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-311},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:41297163},
doi = {10.1016/j.esmoop.2025.105894},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/306594},
}