Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33111480›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2021

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.

Bart Koopman, Harry J M Groen, Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg, Katrien Grünberg, Kim Monkhorst, Adrianus J de Langen, Mirjam C Boelens, Marthe S Paats, Jan H von der Thüsen, Winand N M Dinjens and 21 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Molecular tumor board and theranostics].Problemy endokrinologii · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

31 authors.

Bart KoopmanDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0873-9638
Harry J M GroenDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marjolijn J L LigtenbergDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katrien GrünbergDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kim MonkhorstDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Adrianus J de LangenDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mirjam C BoelensDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marthe S PaatsDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan H von der ThüsenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Winand N M DinjensDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nienke SolleveldDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Tom van WezelDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lizza E HendriksDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ernst-Jan M SpeelDepartment of Pathology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tom E TheunissenDepartment of Pathology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Leonie I KroezeDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Niven MehraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Berber PietDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anthonie J van der WekkenDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Arja Ter ElstDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Wim TimensDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Stefan M WillemsDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ruud W J MeijersDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wendy W J de LengDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anne S R van LindertDepartment of Pulmonology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Teodora RadonicDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sayed M S HashemiDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniëlle A M HeidemanDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Léon C van KempenDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0646-0705

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMolecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. MATERIALS AND

methodsMTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy.

resultsInterviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%).

conclusionMTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPhysiciansGenomicsHumansNetherlandsPathology, MolecularDecision makingMolecular diagnosticsMolecular tumor boardMultidisciplinaryRare mutations

Identifiers

PMID33111480
PMCPMC8342588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.