Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32215806›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2020

Implementation of a molecular tumor board at a regional level to improve access to targeted therapy.

Héloïse Bourien, Alexandra Lespagnol, Boris Campillo-Gimenez, Ingrid Felten-Vinot, Jean-Philippe Metges, Romain Corre, Thierry Lesimple, Cédric le Marechal, Lise Boussemart, Solène-Florence Kammerer-Jacquet and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Héloïse BourienCentre Eugene Marquis, Unicancer, Rennes, France. h.bourien@rennes.unicancer.fr.
Alexandra LespagnolCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Boris Campillo-GimenezCentre Eugene Marquis, Unicancer, Rennes, France.
Ingrid Felten-VinotPôle Régionale de Cancérologie de Bretagne, Rennes, France.
Jean-Philippe MetgesPôle Régionale de Cancérologie de Bretagne, Rennes, France.
Romain CorreCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Thierry LesimpleCentre Eugene Marquis, Unicancer, Rennes, France.
Cédric le MarechalCHU Brest, Brest, France.
Lise BoussemartCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Solène-Florence Kammerer-JacquetCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Edouard le GallPôle Régionale de Cancérologie de Bretagne, Rennes, France.
Florent DenoualCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Marie de TayracCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Marie-Dominique GalibertCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Jean MosserCHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Julien EdelineCentre Eugene Marquis, Unicancer, Rennes, France.
Hôpital Pontchaillou · FRCentre Eugène Marquis · FRCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRInstitut de génétique et de développement de Rennes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Molecular Targeted TherapyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildDrug Resistance, NeoplasmFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineMolecular targeted therapyMolecular tumor boardNext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32215806
OpenAlexW3014041788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.