Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Implementing personalized cancer care


Implementing personalized cancer care requires a sound understanding of cancer genomics, familiarity with the analytical methods used to study cancer, knowledge of the mechanisms of action of targeted drugs, and ways to assimilate and understand complex data sets. Perhaps the greatest challenge is obtaining the drugs predicted to be beneficial based on the genomic profile of a patient's tumour. A potential solution is creation of a national facilitated access programme and registry for off-label use of targeted anti-cancer drugs. Within such a programme, patients could receive the targeted agent matched to the genomic profile of their tumour. Physicians would receive guidance in interpretation of complex genomic tests and access to drugs. Pharmaceutical companies, payers and regulators would receive data on off-label drug and test use and clinical outcomes to inform their research and development plans and coverage decisions and to track real-world safety. Although recently launched prospective clinical trials will determine the true benefit of matching drugs to genomic alterations, the approach proposed here will facilitate delivery of personalized medicine services to participating patients while at the same time making observations that allow us to learn from each patient to inform clinical care and future research initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Facilitated access programme and registry.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Garraway, L. A. Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1806–1814 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. MacConaill, L. E. & Garraway, L. A. Clinical implications of the cancer genome. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 5219–5228 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsimberidou, A. M. et al. Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Initiative. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 6373–6383 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnedos, M. et al. Array CGH and PIK3CA/AKT1 mutations to drive patients to specific targeted agents: A clinical experience in 108 patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 2293–2299 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andre, F. et al. Comparative genomic hybridization array and DNA sequencing to direct treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, prospective study (SAFIR01/UNICANCER). Lancet Oncol. 15, 267–274 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hollebeque, A. et al. Molecular screening for cancer treatment optimization (MOSCATO 01): A prospective molecular triage trial—Interim results [abstract]. J. Clin. Oncol. 31 (Suppl.), a2512 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Iyer, G. et al. Genome sequencing identifies a basis for everolimus sensitivity. Science 338, 221 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. National Cancer Institute. Best Practices for biospecimen resources [online], (2007).

  9. Deverka, P., Messner, D. & Dutta, T. Effectiveness guidance document: Evaluation of clinical validity and clinical utility of actionable molecular diagnostic tests in adult oncology [online], (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Teutsch, S. M. et al. The evaluation of genomicapplications in practice and prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet. Med. 11, 3–14 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hammond, M. E. H. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 2784–2795 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolff, A. C. et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 3997–4013 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindeman, N. I. et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Association of Molecular Pathology. J. Thorac. Oncol. 8, 823–859 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Micheel, C. M., Nass, S. J. & Omenn, G. S. (Eds) Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward (The National Academies Press, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. McShane, L. M. et al. Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials. Nature 502, 317–320 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Meric-Bernstam, F., Farhangfar, C., Mendelsohn, J. & Mills, G. B. Building a personalized medicine infrastructure at a major cancer center. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1849–1857 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Allen, E. M., Wagle, N. & Levy, M. A. Clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genome data. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1825–1833 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. My Cancer Genome. Anticancer agents [online], (2014).

  19. Von Hoff, D. D. et al. Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients' tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 4877–4883 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. MacConaill, L. E. et al. Profiling critical cancer gene mutations in clinical tumor samples. PLoS ONE 4, e7887 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Iyer, G. et al. Prevalence and co-occurrence of actionable genomic alterations in high-grade bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 3133–3140 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tran, B. et al. Cancer genomics: technology, discovery and translation. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 647–660 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hillner, B. E. et al. Impact of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2155–2161 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Proposed decision memo for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for solid tumors (CAG-00181R4) [online], (2013).

  25. Conley, B. A. Precision cancer medicine exceptional responders NCI-MATCH [online], (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Simon, R. Optimal two stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 10, 1–10 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. US National Library of Medicine. [online], (2014).

  28. Friends of Cancer Research. Lung cancer master protocol activation announcement [online], (2013).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Schilsky.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schilsky, R. Implementing personalized cancer care. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11, 432–438 (2014).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer