Even seasoned oncologists may find it difficult to interpret tumour tissue molecular test results and guide patients through treatment alternatives due to the complexity of precision oncology. According to a recent study, researchers found that a novel platform may aid gastrointestinal cancer doctors in this process with the aid of a multidisciplinary team to examine test findings and provide prompt suggestions on treatment alternatives. Precision cancer medicine, which involves identifying important molecular changes within tumours and targeting them with the right drugs, has transformed the treatment of many malignancies. Oncologists should ideally have a working knowledge of cancer genetics and a grasp of the complexities of genomic testing in order to make the best decisions for patients, but this information can be challenging to apply in a busy practise. By providing a team of specialists to help, our initiative relieves oncologists of part of that weight. A multidisciplinary team of gastrointestinal oncologists, pathologists, genomic scientists, and research coordinators was assembled for the GI TARGET (Gastrointestinal Treatment Assistance Regarding Genomic Evaluation of Tumors) initiative. By examining testing for genomic abnormalities in patients' gastrointestinal cancers and identifying clinical trials of drugs—as well as off- and on-label therapies—that addressed those abnormalities, the team established its capacity to act as a molecular tumour board. The majority of the patient tumour samples underwent analysis by the OncoPanel genetic irregularity test. The tumour board evaluated the findings and matched patients to targeted therapy trials based on the genetic changes found in their tumours using the computational tool MatchMiner. Weekly meetings of the tumour board resulted in recommendations for therapies and other therapeutic activities, which were entered directly into the patients' electronic medical records so that their oncologists and other healthcare professionals could examine them. An average of 8 days passed between the testing of tumour samples and the release of therapy suggestions. The researchers stressed that the programme mainly met expectations, identifying clinical trials relevant for the majority of the patients and providing expert treatment assistance for more than hundreds of patients throughout the course of the 6-month evaluation period. Test results have been evaluated overall by the team. The results suggested that the approach might serve as a template for other cancer treatment facilities.