ArticleThe oncologist2021
Framework for Implementing and Tracking a Molecular Tumor Board at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Optimizing Precision Oncology: Structural Frameworks for Local MTB Integration and Outcome Assessment.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Precision cancer medicine in Europe: a mixed-methods study on infrastructure for extended molecular diagnostics.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Chatbot assistance in precision oncology treatment decision-making.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Quality Measures for Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and Their Role in Improving Cancer Care.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2024Review
- Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- [Molecular tumor board and theranostics].Problemy endokrinologii · 2023Article
- MTPpilot: An Interactive Software for Visualization of Next-Generation Sequencing Results in Molecular Tumor Boards.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2022Article
- Circulating tumor DNA: current challenges for clinical utility.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- A clinician's handbook for using ctDNA throughout the patient journey.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the past few years, tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels have evolved in complexity and have changed from selected gene panels with a handful of genes to larger panels with hundreds of genes, sometimes in combination with paired germline filtering and/or testing. With this move toward increasingly large NGS panels, we have rapidly outgrown the available literature supporting the utility of treatments targeting many reported gene alterations, making it challenging for oncology providers to interpret NGS results and make a therapy recommendation for their patients.
methodsTo support the oncologists at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) in interpreting NGS reports for patient care, we initiated two molecular tumor boards (MTBs)-a VICC-specific institutional board for our patients and a global community MTB open to the larger oncology patient population. Core attendees include oncologists, hematologist, molecular pathologists, cancer geneticists, and cancer genetic counselors. Recommendations generated from MTB were documented in a formal report that was uploaded to our electronic health record system.
resultsAs of December 2020, we have discussed over 170 patient cases from 77 unique oncology providers from VICC and its affiliate sites, and a total of 58 international patient cases by 25 unique providers from six different countries across the globe. Breast cancer and lung cancer were the most presented diagnoses.
conclusionIn this article, we share our learning from the MTB experience and document best practices at our institution. We aim to lay a framework that allows other institutions to recreate MTBs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the rapid pace of molecularly driven therapies entering the oncology care spectrum, there is a need to create resources that support timely and accurate interpretation of next-generation sequencing reports to guide treatment decision for patients. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) have been created as a response to this knowledge gap. This report shares implementation strategies and best practices from the Vanderbilt experience of creating an institutional MTB and a virtual global MTB for the larger oncology community. This report describe a reproducible framework that can be adopted to initiate MTBs at other institutions.
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.