Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

The coming decade in precision oncology: six riddles

Nature Reviews Cancer volume 23, pages 43–54 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

High-throughput methods to investigate tumour omic landscapes have quickly catapulted cancer specialists into the precision oncology era. The singular lesson of precision oncology might be that, for it to be precise, treatment must be personalized, as each cancer’s complex molecular and immune landscape differs from patient to patient. Transformative therapies include those that are targeted at the sequelae of molecular abnormalities or at immune mechanisms, and, increasingly, pathways previously thought to be undruggable have become druggable. Critical to applying precision medicine is the concept that the right combination of drugs must be chosen for each patient and used at the right stage of the disease. Multiple puzzles remain that complicate therapy choice, including evidence that deleterious mutations are common in normal tissues and non-malignant conditions. The host’s role is also likely to be key in determining treatment response, especially for immunotherapy. Indeed, maximizing the impact of immunotherapy will require omic analyses to match the right immune-targeted drugs to the individualized patient and tumour setting. In this Perspective, we discuss six key riddles that must be solved to optimize the application of precision oncology to otherwise lethal malignancies.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Is it about time?
Fig. 2: When is a deleterious mutation pathogenic?
Fig. 3: Do cancer mutations possess tissue tropism?
Fig. 4: Which tumour clone should be targeted?
Fig. 5: How well should oncologists know their patients?

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Christie, A. Peril at End House (Collins Crime Club, 1932).

  2. Strebhardt, K. & Ullrich, A. Paul Ehrlich’s magic bullet concept: 100 years of progress. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8, 473–480 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ehrlich, P. Experimental researches on specific therapeutics. Am. J. Med. Sci. 139, 432 (1910).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Venter, J. C. et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wetterstrand, K. A. DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). Genome.gov https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/DNA-Sequencing-Costs-Data (2019).

  7. Bower, H. et al. Life expectancy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia approaches the life expectancy of the general population. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 2851–2857 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Westin, J. R. & Kurzrock, R. It’s about time: lessons for solid tumors from chronic myelogenous leukemia therapy. Mol. Cancer Ther. 11, 2549–2555 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hungerford, D. A. & Nowell, P. C. A minute chromosome in human chronic granulocytic leukemia. Science 132, 1013–1035 (1960). This article describes, for the first time, the alteration coined as the ‘Philadelphia chromosome’, the prototype of genetic defects linked to cancer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rowley, J. D. A new consistent chromosomal abnormality in chronic myelogenous leukaemia identified by quinacrine fluorescence and Giemsa staining. Nature 243, 290–293 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kloetzer, W. et al. The human cellular abl gene product in the chronic myelogenous leukemia cell line K562 has an associated tyrosine protein kinase activity. Virology 140, 230–238 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shtivelman, E., Lifshitz, B., Gale, R. P. & Canaani, E. Fused transcript of abl and bcr genes in chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Nature 315, 550–554 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Druker, B. J. et al. Effects of a selective inhibitor of the Abl tyrosine kinase on the growth of Bcr-Abl positive cells. Nat. Med. 2, 561–566 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Druker, B. J. et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 1031–1037 (2001). This publication presents clinical phase I data for imatinib in CML.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Braun, T. P., Eide, C. A. & Druker, B. J. Response and resistance to BCR-ABL1-targeted therapies. Cancer Cell 37, 530–542 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Westin, J. R., Kantarjian, H. & Kurzrock, R. Treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia as a paradigm for solid tumors: how targeted agents in newly diagnosed disease transformed outcomes. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book https://doi.org/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.60 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cohen, P., Cross, D. & Jänne, P. A. Kinase drug discovery 20 years after imatinib: progress and future directions. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 20, 551–569 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Drilon, A. et al. Efficacy of selpercatinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 813–824 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Drilon, A. et al. Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 731–739 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Shaw, A. T. et al. First-line lorlatinib or crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2018–2029 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Soria, J.-C. et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 113–125 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shaw, A. T. et al. Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1189–1197 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sawyers, C. L. et al. Imatinib induces hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia in myeloid blast crisis: results of a phase II study. Blood 99, 3530–3539 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerstung, M. et al. The evolutionary history of 2658 cancers. Nature 578, 122–128 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Christie, A. And Then There Were None (Harper-Collins, 2008).

  26. Vogelstein, B. & Kinzler, K. W. The path to cancer — three strikes and you’re out. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1895–1898 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fearon, E. R. & Vogelstein, B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61, 759–767 (1990). This is a comprehensive review of the genetic model of colorectal tumorigenesis.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100, 57–70 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanahan, D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discov. 12, 31–46 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ding, L. et al. Perspective on oncogenic processes at the end of the beginning of cancer genomics. Cell 173, 305–320 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes Consortium. Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes. Nature 578, 82–93 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kato, S., Lippman, S. M., Flaherty, K. T. & Kurzrock, R. The conundrum of genetic “drivers” in benign conditions. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 108, djw036 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Adashek, J. J., Kato, S., Lippman, S. M. & Kurzrock, R. The paradox of cancer genes in non-malignant conditions: implications for precision medicine. Genome Med. 12, 16 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Anglesio, M. S. et al. Cancer-associated mutations in endometriosis without cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 1835–1848 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yamanishi, Y. et al. Regional analysis of p53 mutations in rheumatoid arthritis synovium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 10025–10030 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Angelo, L. S., Talpaz, M. & Kurzrock, R. Autocrine interleukin-6 production in renal cell carcinoma: evidence for the involvement of p53. Cancer Res. 62, 932–940 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, T. et al. p53 predominantly regulates IL-6 production and suppresses synovial inflammation in fibroblast-like synoviocytes and adjuvant-induced arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 18, 271 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hlevnjak, M. et al. CATCH: a prospective precision oncology trial in metastatic breast cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. 5, 676–686 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Horak, P. et al. Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis for guiding therapeutic decisions in patients with rare cancers. Cancer Discov. 11, 2780–2795 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. van Tilburg, C. M. et al. The pediatric precision oncology INFORM registry: clinical outcome and benefit for patients with very high-evidence targets. Cancer Discov. 11, 2764–2779 (2021). Along with Hlevnjak et al. (2021) and Horak et al. (2021), this study presents convincing prospective data for molecularly informed targeted therapies, showing that precision oncology generates a real-world benefit for patients with cancer.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Martincorena, I. & Campbell, P. J. Somatic mutation in cancer and normal cells. Science 349, 1483–1489 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Olafsson, S. et al. Somatic evolution in non-neoplastic IBD-affected colon. Cell 182, 672–684 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kumar, R., Angelini, S., Snellman, E. & Hemminki, K. BRAF mutations are common somatic events in melanocytic nevi. J. Invest. Dermatol. 122, 342–348 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Allred, D. C. et al. Overexpression of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prognostic factors change during the progression of in situ to invasive breast cancer. Hum. Pathol. 23, 974–979 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Rakovitch, E. et al. HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br. J. Cancer 106, 1160–1165 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Williams, K. E. et al. Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence. Ann. Oncol. 26, 1019–1025 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Cappellen, D. et al. Frequent activating mutations of FGFR3 in human bladder and cervix carcinomas. Nat. Genet. 23, 18–20 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma. Nature 507, 315–322 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee-Six, H. et al. The landscape of somatic mutation in normal colorectal epithelial cells. Nature 574, 532–537 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Martincorena, I. et al. Somatic mutant clones colonize the human esophagus with age. Science 362, 911–917 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Jaiswal, S. & Ebert, B. L. Clonal hematopoiesis in human aging and disease. Science 366, eaan4673 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Christie, A. The Man in the Mist (Illustrated London News Company, 1924).

  54. Adashek, J. J., Subbiah, V. & Kurzrock, R. From tissue-agnostic to N-of-one therapies: (r)evolution of the precision paradigm. Trends Cancer Res. 7, 15–28 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Turski, M. L. et al. Genomically driven tumors and actionability across histologies: BRAF-mutant cancers as a paradigm. Mol. Cancer Ther. 15, 533–547 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Flaherty, K. T. et al. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 809–819 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Tiacci, E. et al. Targeting mutant BRAF in relapsed or refractory hairy-cell leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1733–1747 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Falchook, G. S. et al. Dabrafenib in patients with melanoma, untreated brain metastases, and other solid tumours: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet 379, 1893–1901 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Kopetz, S. et al. PLX4032 in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with mutant BRAF tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 28 (Suppl. 15), 3534 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Prahallad, A. et al. Unresponsiveness of colon cancer to BRAFV600E inhibition through feedback activation of EGFR. Nature 483, 100–103 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Corcoran, R. B. et al. EGFR-mediated re-activation of MAPK signaling contributes to insensitivity of BRAF mutant colorectal cancers to RAF inhibition with vemurafenib. Cancer Discov. 2, 227–235 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Kopetz, S. et al. Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 1632–1643 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Kurzrock, R. et al. A novel c-abl protein product in Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Nature 325, 631–635 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Christie, A. The Mysterious Affair At Styles (John Lane Company, 1921).

  65. Bailey, C. et al. Tracking cancer evolution through the disease course. Cancer Discov. 11, 916–932 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Ortmann, C. A. et al. Effect of mutation order on myeloproliferative neoplasms. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 601–612 (2015). This seminal work sheds light on the effects of mutation order on clinical course and therapy response in myeloproliferative neoplasms, providing evidence that clonal evolution has to be considered as a decision-shaping factor in molecular oncology.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bozic, I. & Wu, C. J. Delineating the evolutionary dynamics of cancer from theory to reality. Nat. Cancer 1, 580–588 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. TRACERx Renal consortium. TRACERx renal: tracking renal cancer evolution through therapy. Nat. Rev. Urol. 14, 575–576 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jamal-Hanjani, M. et al. Tracking the evolution of non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 2109–2121 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Gerlinger, M. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 883–892 (2012). This study describes spatial intratumoural heterogeneity, implicating a string of consequences for precision oncology approaches.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Chen, J. et al. Genomic landscape of lung adenocarcinoma in East Asians. Nat. Genet. 52, 177–186 (2020). This work presents data showcasing groundbreaking differences in the genomic and transcriptomic analyses of East Asian patients with lung cancer compared with European patients with lung cancer, serving as an example for the impact of ethnicity in cancer research and therapy.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Dearden, S., Stevens, J., Wu, Y.-L. & Blowers, D. Mutation incidence and coincidence in non small-cell lung cancer: meta-analyses by ethnicity and histology (mutMap). Ann. Oncol. 24, 2371–2376 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Agboola, A. J. et al. Molecular characteristics and prognostic features of breast cancer in Nigerian compared with UK women. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 135, 555–569 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Bollig-Fischer, A. et al. Racial diversity of actionable mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 10, 250–255 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Mao, X. et al. Distinct genomic alterations in prostate cancers in Chinese and Western populations suggest alternative pathways of prostate carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 70, 5207–5212 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Kadakia, K. C. & Salem, M. E. Role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in understudied populations. JCO Oncol. Pract. 17, 246–248 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. zur Hausen, H. Papillomaviruses and cancer: from basic studies to clinical application. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2, 342–350 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Marur, S., D’Souza, G., Westra, W. H. & Forastiere, A. A. HPV-associated head and neck cancer: a virus-related cancer epidemic. Lancet Oncol. 11, 781–789 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Moody, S. et al. Mutational signatures in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from eight countries with varying incidence. Nat. Genet. 53, 1553–1563 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Shigematsu, H. et al. Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 339–346 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Knerr, S., Wayman, D. & Bonham, V. L. Inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in genetic research: advance the spirit by changing the rules? J. Law Med. Ethics 39, 502–512 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Spratt, D. E. et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in genomic sequencing. JAMA Oncol. 2, 1070–1074 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Li, C. H., Haider, S., Shiah, Y.-J., Thai, K. & Boutros, P. C. Sex differences in cancer driver genes and biomarkers. Cancer Res. 78, 5527–5537 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Conforti, F. et al. Cancer immunotherapy efficacy and patients’ sex: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 19, 737–746 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Wang, S., Zhang, J., He, Z., Wu, K. & Liu, X.-S. The predictive power of tumor mutational burden in lung cancer immunotherapy response is influenced by patients’ sex. Int. J. Cancer 145, 2840–2849 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Li, C. H. et al. Sex differences in oncogenic mutational processes. Nat. Commun. 11, 4330 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Cullin, N., Azevedo Antunes, C., Straussman, R., Stein-Thoeringer, C. K. & Elinav, E. Microbiome and cancer. Cancer Cell 39, 1317–1341 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Fan, Y. & Pedersen, O. Gut microbiota in human metabolic health and disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19, 55–71 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Nejman, D. et al. The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type-specific intracellular bacteria. Science 368, 973–980 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Sepich-Poore, G. D. et al. The microbiome and human cancer. Science 371, eabc4552 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Pernigoni, N. et al. Commensal bacteria promote endocrine resistance in prostate cancer through androgen biosynthesis. Science 374, 216–224 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Kadosh, E. et al. The gut microbiome switches mutant p53 from tumour-suppressive to oncogenic. Nature 586, 133–138 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Greathouse, K. L. et al. Interaction between the microbiome and TP53 in human lung cancer. Genome Biol. 19, 123 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hayase, E. & Jenq, R. R. Role of the intestinal microbiome and microbial-derived metabolites in immune checkpoint blockade immunotherapy of cancer. Genome Med. 13, 107 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Abid, M. B., Shah, N. N., Maatman, T. C. & Hari, P. N. Gut microbiome and CAR-T therapy. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 8, 31 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lee, K. A. et al. Cross-cohort gut microbiome associations with immune checkpoint inhibitor response in advanced melanoma. Nat. Med. 28, 535–544 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Routy, B. et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science 359, 91–97 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Gopalakrishnan, V. et al. Gut microbiome modulates response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients. Science 359, 97–103 (2018). Along with Routy et al. (Science, 2018), this study that shows how the composition of the microbiota is able to modulate the response to checkpoint therapy.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Routy, B. et al. The gut microbiota influences anticancer immunosurveillance and general health. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 382–396 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Baruch, E. N. et al. Fecal microbiota transplant promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients. Science 371, 602–609 (2021). This seminal work shows the reversal of therapy refractiveness using faecal microbiota transplant.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Davar, D. et al. Fecal microbiota transplant overcomes resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients. Science 371, 595–602 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Elkrief, A. & Routy, B. First clinical proof-of-concept that FMT can overcome resistance to ICIs. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 18, 325–326 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Christie, A. Murder on the Orient Express (Collins Crime Club, 1934).

  104. Coley, W. B. The treatment of malignat tumors by repeated inoculations of erysipelas. Am. J. Med. Sci. 105, 487–510 (1893).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Hernández-Ramírez, R. U., Shiels, M. S., Dubrow, R. & Engels, E. A. Cancer risk in HIV-infected people in the USA from 1996 to 2012: a population-based, registry-linkage study. Lancet HIV 4, e495–e504 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Galanina, N., Goodman, A. M., Cohen, P. R., Frampton, G. M. & Kurzrock, R. Successful treatment of HIV-associated Kaposi Sarcoma with immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Immunol. Res. 6, 1129–1135 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Mortaz, E. et al. Cancers related to immunodeficiencies: update and perspectives. Front. Immunol. 7, 365 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Marcus, L., Lemery, S. J., Keegan, P. & Pazdur, R. FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for the treatment of microsatellite instability-high solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 25, 3753–3758 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. André, T. et al. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite-instability-high advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2207–2218 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Jardim, D. L., Goodman, A., de Melo Gagliato, D. & Kurzrock, R. The challenges of tumor mutational burden as an immunotherapy biomarker. Cancer Cell 39, 154–173 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Kato, S. et al. Expression of TIM3/VISTA checkpoints and the CD68 macrophage-associated marker correlates with anti-PD1/PDL1 resistance: implications of immunogram heterogeneity. Oncoimmunology 9, 1708065 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Adashek, J. J., Goloubev, A., Kato, S. & Kurzrock, R. Missing the target in cancer therapy. Nat. Cancer 2, 369–371 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Boichard, A. et al. APOBEC-related mutagenesis and neo-peptide hydrophobicity: implications for response to immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology 8, 1550341 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Pham, T. V. et al. Role of ultraviolet mutational signature versus tumor mutation burden in predicting response to immunotherapy. Mol. Oncol. 14, 1680–1694 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Goodman, A. M. et al. MHC-I genotype and tumor mutational burden predict response to immunotherapy. Genome Med. 12, 45 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Zamora, A. E., Crawford, J. C. & Thomas, P. G. Hitting the target: how T cells detect and eliminate tumors. J. Immunol. 200, 392–399 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Valpione, S. et al. The T cell receptor repertoire of tumor infiltrating T cells is predictive and prognostic for cancer survival. Nat. Commun. 12, 4098 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Bassani-Sternberg, M. et al. Direct identification of clinically relevant neoepitopes presented on native human melanoma tissue by mass spectrometry. Nat. Commun. 7, 13404 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Gibbons, D. L. et al. 57O Efficacy, safety and tolerability of MEDI4736 (durvalumab [D]), a human IgG1 anti-programmed cell death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, combined with gefitinib (G): a phase I expansion in TKI-naïve patients (pts) with EGFR mutant NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 11, S79 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Felip, E. et al. Ceritinib plus nivolumab (NIVO) in patients (pts) with anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Clin. Oncol. 35 (Suppl. 15), 2502 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Nasser, N. J., Gorenberg, M. & Agbarya, A. First line Immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmaceuticals 13, 373 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Cercek, A. et al. PD-1 blockade in mismatch repair-deficient, locally advanced rectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 386, 2363–2376 (2022). In this study, the use of PD1 inhibition alone is sufficient to provoke durable responses in locally advanced rectal cancer, illustrating the potential use of checkpoint inhibition as a stand-alone therapy.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Christie, A. & Fraser, H. The A.B.C. Murders (Harper-Collins, 1936).

  124. Hong, D. S. et al. KRASG12C inhibition with sotorasib in advanced solid tumors. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 1207–1217 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Rodon, J. et al. Genomic and transcriptomic profiling expands precision cancer medicine: the WINTHER trial. Nat. Med. 25, 751–758 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Schettini, F. et al. Identification of cell surface targets for CAR-T cell therapies and antibody-drug conjugates in breast cancer. ESMO Open 6, 100102 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Wang, J., Dean, D. C., Hornicek, F. J., Shi, H. & Duan, Z. RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) and its application in ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 152, 194–201 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Rogawski, D. S., Vitanza, N. A., Gauthier, A. C., Ramaswamy, V. & Koschmann, C. Integrating RNA sequencing into neuro-oncology practice. Transl Res. 189, 93–104 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Sicklick, J. K. et al. Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study. Nat. Med. 25, 744–750 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Kato, S. et al. Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with a precision N-of-one strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 4965 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Sicklick, J. K. et al. Molecular profiling of advanced malignancies guides first-line N-of-1 treatments in the I-PREDICT treatment-naïve study. Genome Med. 13, 155 (2021). The I-PREDICT trial is the first precision medicine trial to provide matched individualized (N-of-1) combination therapies to patients; a higher degree of matching correlated with improvement in all outcome parameters.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Jänne, P. A. et al. Adagrasib in non-small-cell lung cancer harboring a KRASG12C mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 387, 120–131 (2022). Together with Hong et al. (2020), this is important clinical work showing the response of the first KRASG12C inhibitors, a target long thought to be part of the ‘undruggable’ realm.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Pang, Y. et al. Report of canonical BCR-ABL1 fusion in glioblastoma. JCO Precis. Oncol. 5, 1348–1353 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Schwaederle, M. et al. Impact of precision medicine in diverse cancers: a meta-analysis of phase II clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 3817–3825 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Schneider, G., Schmidt-Supprian, M., Rad, R. & Saur, D. Tissue-specific tumorigenesis: context matters. Nat. Rev. Cancer 17, 239–253 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Sharma, P. et al. The next decade of immune checkpoint therapy. Cancer Discov. 11, 838–857 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Nakamura, Y. et al. Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA sequencing in advanced gastrointestinal cancer: SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA studies. Nat. Med. 26, 1859–1864 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Tie, J. et al. Circulating tumor DNA analysis guiding adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 386, 2261–2272 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Malhotra, H., Radich, J. & Garcia-Gonzalez, P. Meeting the needs of CML patients in resource-poor countries. Hematol. Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program. 2019, 433–442 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Henke, O., Mapendo, P. J., Mkwizu, E. W. & le Coutre, P. Early molecular response in East African Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukaemia patients treated with Imatinib and barriers to access treatment. Ecancermedicalscience 14, 1089 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Nasser, A. et al. Molecular response to imatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in Tanzania. Blood Adv. 5, 1403–1411 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors apologize to all their esteemed colleagues whose work could not be included owing to space constraints. This Perspective was inspired by D. R. Green’s work “The coming decade of cell death research: five riddles” (Cell 177, 1094–1107 (2019)). A.W. and L.B. are supported by the Claudia von Schilling foundation. A.W. was supported by the Torsten-Haferlach Leukaemia Diagnostics Foundation. P.L. and S.F. are supported by the Molecular Precision Oncology Program of the National Center for Tumour Diseases in Heidelberg. S.F. is supported by the German Cancer Consortium. The authors are grateful for critical discussions with D. R. Green, P. Vandenabeele, J. C. A. Melms, M. Bostock, M. Hlevnjak and J. P. Suppelna. The National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg is a partnership between the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Heidelberg University Hospital.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Adam Wahida, Lars Buschhorn.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Metabolism and Cell Death, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany

    Adam Wahida

  2. Medical Department III for Hematology and Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Adam Wahida

  3. Division of Molecular Genetics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany

    Adam Wahida, Lars Buschhorn & Peter Lichter

  4. Division of Gynecological Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Adam Wahida, Lars Buschhorn & Andreas Schneeweiss

  5. Division of Translational Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Stefan Fröhling

  6. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany

    Stefan Fröhling

  7. Division of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

    Philipp J. Jost

  8. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany

    Peter Lichter

  9. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Peter Lichter

  10. WIN Consortium, Paris, France

    Razelle Kurzrock

  11. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Razelle Kurzrock

Authors
  1. Adam Wahida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lars Buschhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Fröhling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philipp J. Jost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Schneeweiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Lichter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Razelle Kurzrock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.W., L.B. and R.K. conceived and wrote the manuscript. S.F., P.J.J., A.S. and P.L. provided conceptual support and critically reviewed the manuscript draft.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Adam Wahida, Lars Buschhorn or Razelle Kurzrock.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.W., L.B. and P.L. declare no competing interests. S.F. has received consulting or advisory honoraria from Bayer, Illumina and Roche, honoraria from Eli Lilly, PharmaMar and Roche, research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Roche, and travel or accommodation expenses from Eli Lilly, Illumina, PharmaMar and Roche. P.J.J. has had a consulting or advisory role for and has received honoraria, research funding and/or travel/accommodation expenses from Ariad, Abbvie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, Roche, Celgene (Bristol Myers Squibb), Pierre Fabre, Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) and MSD. A.S. has received research grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, Gilead Sciences, Bayer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, streamedup!, promedicis, onkowissen.de, Metaplan and Connect Media, and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. R.K. has received research funding from Biological Dynamics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Debiopharm, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Grifols, Guardant Health, Incyte, Konica Minolta, Medimmune (AstraZeneca), Merck Serono, Omniseq, Pfizer, Sequenom, Takeda and TopAlliance, has received consultant and/or speaker fees and/or has been an advisory board member for Actuate Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bicara Therapeutics, Biological Dynamics, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, EOM Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, Merck, NeoGenomics, NEOMED, Pfizer, Prosperdtx, Roche, TD2/Volastra, Turning Point Therapeutics and X-Biotech, has an equity interest in CureMatch, CureMetrix and IDbyDNA, serves on the board of CureMatch and CureMetrix, and co-founded CureMatch.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Cancer thanks David Solit and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wahida, A., Buschhorn, L., Fröhling, S. et al. The coming decade in precision oncology: six riddles. Nat Rev Cancer 23, 43–54 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-022-00529-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-022-00529-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

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