4.8 Article

The NCI-MATCH trial: lessons for precision oncology

Journal

NATURE MEDICINE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02379-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The NCI-MATCH trial is a genomically driven, signal-seeking precision medicine platform trial that mainly focuses on patients with treatment-refractory, malignant solid tumors. It is one of the largest tumor-agnostic, precision oncology trials to date, having been launched in 2015 and completed in 2023. A total of nearly 6,000 patients underwent screening and molecular testing, with 1,593 patients being assigned to one of the 38 substudies. Out of the initial 27 substudies, 7 (25.9%) showed positive results, meeting the trial's signal-seeking objective. Key aspects of the trial's design and operational conduct are discussed, highlighting important lessons for future precision medicine studies.
The NCI-MATCH (Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) trial () was launched in 2015 as a genomically driven, signal-seeking precision medicine platform trial-largely for patients with treatment-refractory, malignant solid tumors. Having completed in 2023, it remains one of the largest tumor-agnostic, precision oncology trials undertaken to date. Nearly 6,000 patients underwent screening and molecular testing, with a total of 1,593 patients (inclusive of continued accrual from standard next-generation sequencing) being assigned to one of 38 substudies. Each substudy was a phase 2 trial of a therapy matched to a genomic alteration, with a primary endpoint of objective tumor response by RECIST criteria. In this Perspective, we summarize the outcomes of the initial 27 substudies in NCI-MATCH, which met its signal-seeking objective with 7/27 positive substudies (25.9%). We discuss key aspects of the design and operational conduct of the trial, highlighting important lessons for future precision medicine studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available