ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2020
Implementation of a molecular tumor board at a regional level to improve access to targeted therapy.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.JCO precision oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Optimizing Precision Oncology: Structural Frameworks for Local MTB Integration and Outcome Assessment.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Supporting the decision to perform molecular profiling for cancer patients based on routinely collected data through the use of machine learning.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2024Article
- Implementation of Precision Oncology in the National Healthcare System: A Statement Proposal Endorsed by Italian Scientific Societies.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- The impact of the multi-disciplinary molecular tumour board and integrative next generation sequencing on clinical outcomes in advanced solid tumours.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Impact of molecular tumour board discussion on targeted therapy allocation in advanced prostate cancer.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Accessing Targeted Therapies: A Potential Roadblock to Implementing Precision Oncology?JCO oncology practice · 2021Article
- Assessing the utility and attitudes toward molecular testing in neuro-oncology: a survey of the Society for Neuro-Oncology members.Neuro-oncology practice · 2021Article
- NGS-guided precision oncology in metastatic breast and gynecological cancer: first experiences at the CCC Munich LMU.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the development of precision oncology, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB) are developing in many institutions. However, the implementation of MTB in routine clinical practice has still not been thoroughly studied. MATERIAL AND
methodsSince the first drugs approved for targeted therapies, patient tumor samples were centralized to genomic testing platforms. In our institution, all tumor samples have been analyzed since 2014 by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). In 2015, we established a regional MTB to discuss patient cases with 1 or more alterations identified by NGS, in genes different from those related to drug approval. We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis to study whether our MTB increased the prescriptions of Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTT) and the inclusions of patients in clinical trials with MTT, in comparison with patients with available NGS data but no MTB discussion.
resultsIn 2014, 86 patients had UGA, but the results were not available to clinicians and not discussed in MTB. During the years 2015 and 2016, 113 patients with an UGA (unreferenced genomic alteration) were discussed in MTB. No patients with an UGA were included in 2014 in a clinical trial, versus 2 (2%) in 2015-2016. 13 patients with an UGA (12%) were treated in 2015-2016 with a MTT whereas in 2014, no patient (p = 0.001).
conclusionsIn this retrospective analysis, we showed that the association of large-scale genomic testing and MTB was feasible, and could increase the prescription of MTT. However, in routine clinical practice, the majority of patients with UGA still do not have access to MTT.
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.