ArticleESMO open2019
Prospective analysis of 895 patients on a UK Genomics Review Board.
Article in ESMO open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic ultrasound molecular evaluation of pancreatic cancer trial to profile molecular landscape of inoperable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Real-world experience of Molecular Tumour Boards for clinical decision-making for cancer patients.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Molecular tumor board in patients with metastatic breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Blending space and time to talk about cancer in extended reality.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Human resources for administrative work to carry out a comprehensive genomic profiling test in Japan.Cancer science · 2023Article
- Challenges and Obstacles in Applying Therapeutical Indications Formulated in Molecular Tumor Boards.Cancers · 2022Review
- Delivering precision oncology to patients with cancer.Nature medicine · 2022Review
- Impact of molecular tumour board discussion on targeted therapy allocation in advanced prostate cancer.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Real-World Data From a Molecular Tumor Board: Improved Outcomes in Breast and Gynecologic Cancers Patients With Precision Medicine.JCO precision oncology · 2022Article
- Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Transitioning the Molecular Tumor Board from Proof of Concept to Clinical Routine: A German Single-Center Analysis.Cancers · 2021Article
- Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with a precision N-of-One strategy.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Traditional Diagnostics versus Disruptive Technology: The Role of the Pathologist in the Era of Liquid Biopsy.Cancer research · 2020Article
- Collaborative, Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Cancer Variants Through Virtual Molecular Tumor Boards Informs Local Clinical Practices.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Review
- Advancing molecular tumour boards: highly needed to maximise the impact of precision medicine.ESMO open · 2019Article
- The EUS molecular evaluation of pancreatic cancer: A prospective multicenter cohort trial.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing frequency and complexity of cancer genomic profiling represents a challenge for the oncology community. Results from next-generation sequencing-based clinical tests require expert review to determine their clinical relevance and to ensure patients are stratified appropriately to established therapies or clinical trials.
methodsThe Sarah Cannon Research Institute UK/UCL Genomics Review Board (GRB) was established in 2014 and represents a multidisciplinary team with expertise in molecular oncology, clinical trials, clinical cancer genetics and molecular pathology. Prospective data from this board were collated.
resultsTo date, 895 patients have been reviewed by the GRB, of whom 180 (20%) were referred for clinical trial screening and 62 (7%) received trial therapy. For a further 106, a clinical trial recommendation was given.
conclusionsNumerous challenges are faced in implementing a GRB, including the identification of potential germline variants, the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance and consideration of the technical limitations of pathology material when interpreting results. These challenges are likely to be encountered with increasing frequency in routine practice. This GRB experience provides a model for the multidisciplinary review of molecular profiling data and for the linking of molecular analysis to clinical trial networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.