Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28915716›Full record

ReviewOncotarget2017

Implementation and utilization of the molecular tumor board to guide precision medicine.

Shuko Harada, Rebecca Arend, Qian Dai, Jessica A Levesque, Thomas S Winokur, Rongjun Guo, Martin J Heslin, Lisle Nabell, L Burt Nabors, Nita A Limdi and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tumor Genomic Profiling andThe journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [The molecular tumor board].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shuko HaradaDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Rebecca ArendDepartment of Obsterics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Qian DaiDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Jessica A LevesqueDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Thomas S WinokurDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Rongjun GuoDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Martin J HeslinDepartment of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Lisle NabellDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
L Burt NaborsDepartment of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Nita A LimdiDepartment of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Kevin A RothDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Edward E PartridgeDepartment of The Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Gene P SiegalDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Eddy S YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith rapid advances in genomic medicine, the complexity of delivering precision medicine to oncology patients across a university health system demanded the creation of a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) for patient selection and assessment of treatment options. The objective of this report is to analyze our progress to date and discuss the importance of the MTB in the implementation of personalized medicine. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients were reviewed in the MTB for appropriateness for comprehensive next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer gene set testing based on set criteria that were in place. Because profiling of stage IV lung cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma cancers were standard of care, these cancer types were excluded from this process. We subsequently analyzed the types of cases referred for testing and approved with regards to their results.

results191 cases were discussed at the MTB and 132 cases were approved for testing. Forty-six cases (34.8%) had driver mutations that were associated with an active targeted therapeutic agent, including

conclusionsMTB at University of Alabama-Birmingham is unique because it reviews the appropriateness of NGS testing for patients with recurrent cancer and serves as a forum to educate our physicians about the pathways of precision medicine. Our results suggest that our detection of actionable mutations may be higher due to our careful selection. The application of precision medicine and molecular genetic testing for cancer patients remains a continuous educational process for physicians.

Indexed as

molecular tumor boardnext generation sequencingprecision medicinetargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID28915716
PMCPMC5593688
OpenAlexW2681535791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.