BACKGROUND: Technical advances in the field of molecular genetics permit precise genomic characterization of malignant tumors. This has not only improved our understanding of tumor biology but also paved the way for molecularly stratified treatment strategies in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A selective search of PubMed to identify literature on molecular pathology methods, their indications, the challenges associated with molecular findings, and future developments. RESULTS: Tumors can be characterized with the aid of immunohistochemistry, in-situ hybridization, and sequencing of DNA or RNA. The benefits of molecularly stratified tumor treatment have been demonstrated by randomized clinical trials on numerous tumor entities, e.g., non-small-cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. Therefore, initiation of specific treatment for these entities should be preceded by molecular pathology biomarker analyses, generally carried out on tumor tissue. Randomized controlled trials and non-controlled studies show that enhanced progression-free survival ensues if the pharmacological treatment is oriented on the findings of molecular pathology diagnostics. In next-generation sequencing, numerous relevant gene sequences or even whole genes can be sequenced in parallel, dispensing with complex staged diagnostics and reducing the use of biomaterials. These new methods also complement the currently relevant predictive biomarkers by permitting the investigation of genetic alterations presently of interest in the context of clinical studies. Prior to widespread routine clinical application, however, sequencing of large gene panels or whole genomes or exomes need to be even more stringently validated. CONCLUSION: Quality-assured molecular pathology assays are universally available for the determination of currently relevant predictive biomarkers. However, the integration of extensive genomic analyses into routine molecular pathology diagnostics represents a future challenge in precision oncology.
BACKGROUND: Technical advances in the field of molecular genetics permit precise genomic characterization of malignant tumors. This has not only improved our understanding of tumor biology but also paved the way for molecularly stratified treatment strategies in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A selective search of PubMed to identify literature on molecular pathology methods, their indications, the challenges associated with molecular findings, and future developments. RESULTS:Tumors can be characterized with the aid of immunohistochemistry, in-situ hybridization, and sequencing of DNA or RNA. The benefits of molecularly stratified tumor treatment have been demonstrated by randomized clinical trials on numerous tumor entities, e.g., non-small-cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. Therefore, initiation of specific treatment for these entities should be preceded by molecular pathology biomarker analyses, generally carried out on tumor tissue. Randomized controlled trials and non-controlled studies show that enhanced progression-free survival ensues if the pharmacological treatment is oriented on the findings of molecular pathology diagnostics. In next-generation sequencing, numerous relevant gene sequences or even whole genes can be sequenced in parallel, dispensing with complex staged diagnostics and reducing the use of biomaterials. These new methods also complement the currently relevant predictive biomarkers by permitting the investigation of genetic alterations presently of interest in the context of clinical studies. Prior to widespread routine clinical application, however, sequencing of large gene panels or whole genomes or exomes need to be even more stringently validated. CONCLUSION: Quality-assured molecular pathology assays are universally available for the determination of currently relevant predictive biomarkers. However, the integration of extensive genomic analyses into routine molecular pathology diagnostics represents a future challenge in precision oncology.
Authors: Sunil Verma; David Miles; Luca Gianni; Ian E Krop; Manfred Welslau; José Baselga; Mark Pegram; Do-Youn Oh; Véronique Diéras; Ellie Guardino; Liang Fang; Michael W Lu; Steven Olsen; Kim Blackwell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrea Sboner; Xinmeng Jasmine Mu; Dov Greenbaum; Raymond K Auerbach; Mark B Gerstein Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Tobias Raphael Overbeck; Dana Alina Cron; Katja Schmitz; Achim Rittmeyer; Wolfgang Körber; Sara Hugo; Juliane Schnalke; Laura Lukat; Tabea Hugo; Marc Hinterthaner; Kirsten Reuter-Jessen; Tessa Rosenthal; Joachim Moecks; Annalen Bleckmann; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2020-06
Authors: Alena Skálová; Göran Stenman; Roderick H W Simpson; Henrik Hellquist; David Slouka; Tomas Svoboda; Justin A Bishop; Jennifer L Hunt; Ken-Ichi Nibu; Alessandra Rinaldo; Vincent Vander Poorten; Kenneth O Devaney; Petr Steiner; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Maurice B Loughrey; Jason McGrath; Helen G Coleman; Peter Bankhead; Perry Maxwell; Claire McGready; Victoria Bingham; Matthew P Humphries; Stephanie G Craig; Stephen McQuaid; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Jacqueline A James Journal: Histopathology Date: 2020-10-11 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Sanne Huijberts; Axel Grothey; Rona Yaeger; Pieter-Jan Cuyle; Elena Elez; Marwan Fakih; Clara Montagut; Marc Peeters; Takayuki Yoshino; Harpreet Wasan; Jayesh Desai; Fortunato Ciardiello; Ashwin Gollerkeri; Janna Christy-Bittel; Kati Maharry; Victor Sandor; Jan H M Schellens; Scott Kopetz; Josep Tabernero Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jason K Sicklick; Shumei Kato; Ryosuke Okamura; Maria Schwaederle; Michael E Hahn; Casey B Williams; Pradip De; Amy Krie; David E Piccioni; Vincent A Miller; Jeffrey S Ross; Adam Benson; Jennifer Webster; Philip J Stephens; J Jack Lee; Paul T Fanta; Scott M Lippman; Brian Leyland-Jones; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Nat Med Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 53.440