Cancer treatment has entered an era where one-size-fits-all therapy is no longer sufficient. Advances in genomic sequencing have revealed a fundamental truth about advanced cancers: most tumors are molecularly complex, highly individualized, and rarely fit neatly into traditional tumor type categories. While precision oncology has made important strides by matching single drugs to single biomarkers, real-world outcomes suggest that this approach often falls short for patients with advanced or metastatic disease.
A landmark precision oncology study known as I-PREDICT has challenged conventional thinking. Instead of matching patients to one targeted therapy, the trial explored whether customized combinations of FDA-approved drugs, individually dosed and matched to multiple molecular alterations, could improve outcomes while remaining safe.
The findings represent a major conceptual shift in cancer care and may serve as a blueprint for the next generation of personalized oncology.
Precision oncology initially gained traction by targeting well-defined genetic drivers. Examples include ALK inhibitors in ALK-positive lung cancer or HER2-targeted therapy in HER2-amplified breast cancer. These approaches delivered dramatic benefits for selected patient populations.
However, next-generation sequencing has revealed that most advanced cancers harbor multiple pathogenic alterations, often spanning different signaling pathways. In many cases, targeting only one mutation leaves other oncogenic drivers untouched, allowing tumors to adapt and progress.
Large precision oncology programs such as NCI-MATCH and MOSCATO-01 demonstrated feasibility but also highlighted a key limitation. Matching a tumor to a single actionable mutation frequently results in modest response rates and limited durability. Cancer biology is simply more complex than single-target solutions.
The Investigation of Profile-Related Evidence Determining Individualized Cancer Therapy, or I-PREDICT, was a prospective, pan-cancer precision oncology trial designed to address this complexity head-on.
Instead of focusing on tumor type or single biomarkers, the study asked a different question:
Can outcomes improve if treatment is customized to target as many actionable molecular alterations as possible, using personalized drug combinations and individualized dosing?
To answer this, researchers enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic cancers who had exhausted standard treatment options. Each patient underwent comprehensive genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing of tumor tissue, blood, or both.
A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed each case and recommended tailored drug regimens designed to target multiple pathogenic alterations simultaneously.
A central innovation of the I-PREDICT trial was the development of a matching score. This score quantified how well a patient’s treatment regimen aligned with their tumor’s molecular profile.
In simple terms, the matching score reflected the proportion of identified pathogenic alterations that were directly targeted by the administered drugs.
This metric allowed researchers to move beyond binary classifications of matched versus unmatched therapy and instead assess treatment precision along a continuum.
Among 456 consented patients, 210 were evaluable and received at least one FDA-approved drug after molecular profiling. These patients had aggressive, advanced cancers and had often undergone multiple prior therapies.
Key patient characteristics included:
The sheer diversity of molecular landscapes underscored the challenge of applying standardized treatment approaches to advanced cancer.
Because each tumor profile was distinct, treatment regimens were highly individualized. In total, 157 different drug combinations were used across 210 patients.
Notably:
This N-of-1 approach reflected real-world precision medicine at its most personalized level.
One of the most significant barriers to combination cancer therapy has historically been safety. Traditional oncology relies on phase I trials to establish maximum tolerated doses using interpatient dose escalation. This approach is impractical when millions of potential drug combinations exist.
I-PREDICT introduced a different strategy: intrapatient dose optimization.
Key features included:
Patients receiving more drugs generally started at lower doses, but dosing was continuously adjusted to balance safety and efficacy.
One of the most surprising findings from the study was that customized multi-drug regimens were not associated with increased toxicity.
Only 6.5 percent of patients receiving previously unstudied combinations experienced severe treatment-related adverse events. This rate was lower than in patients who received established regimens.
Importantly:
These findings challenge the assumption that complex drug combinations are inherently more dangerous when managed thoughtfully.
The most compelling results from I-PREDICT came from survival and disease control analyses.
Patients with higher matching scores experienced:
Crucially, outcomes did not correlate with:
Instead, how well treatments matched the tumor’s molecular drivers was the dominant predictor of benefit.
Even more striking, the relationship between matching score and outcomes was linear. As molecular matching improved, so did survival and response rates.
I-PREDICT challenges several deeply ingrained oncology practices.
First, it moves beyond tumor-type classification toward molecular reclassification of cancer.
Second, it questions the necessity of traditional phase I trials for every possible drug combination, especially when using approved agents.
Third, it reframes precision oncology as a multi-target, individualized strategy rather than a single-mutation solution.
Finally, it demonstrates that careful personalized dosing can enable safe exploration of novel therapeutic combinations in real patients with urgent clinical needs.
Despite its promise, I-PREDICT was a nonrandomized study. As such, it cannot definitively prove causation. The association between higher matching scores and improved outcomes must be validated in randomized controlled trials.
Other limitations include:
To address these gaps, the investigators have proposed a randomized follow-up trial, often referred to as I-PREDICT 2.0, to directly compare individualized matched therapy with standard of care.
If validated in randomized studies, the I-PREDICT framework could redefine how oncologists approach advanced cancer treatment.
Potential future implications include:
Ultimately, this approach aligns with the biological reality of cancer as a highly individualized disease.
The I-PREDICT study provides compelling evidence that precision oncology must evolve beyond single-biomarker targeting. Advanced cancers are molecularly complex, and effective treatment may require personalized combinations of therapies, carefully dosed and matched to each patient’s unique tumor profile.
By demonstrating that such an approach can be both safe and clinically meaningful, I-PREDICT lays the groundwork for a new precision oncology paradigm. While randomized validation is still required, the study offers a powerful vision of what truly personalized cancer care could look like.
Sicklick JK et al. Investigation of Profile-Related Evidence DeterminingIndividualized Cancer Therapy (I-PREDICT) N-of-1 Precision Oncology Study, Journal of Clinical Oncology, January 2026,DOI: 10.1200/JCO-25-01453, American Society of Clinical Oncology
This blog is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Cancer treatment decisions should always be made in consultation with a qualified healthcare professional who can consider individual patient circumstances. The therapies discussed may involve off-label drug use and are not appropriate for all patients. Readers should not alter or initiate treatment based on this content without professional medical guidance.
