Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34406439›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2021

[The molecular tumor board].

Pavlos Missios, Janina Beha, Michael Bitzer, Nisar P Malek

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Pavlos Missios
Janina Beha
Michael Bitzer
Nisar P MalekAbteilung Innere Medizin I, Medizinische Universitätsklinik, Otfried-Müller-Str. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland. Nisar.Malek@med.uni-tuebingen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew diagnostic tools in the field of oncology that became available with introduction of the next generation sequencing call for adjustments in the current clinical workflow. To ensure correct interpretation, newly collected data need to be processed and categorized properly. Thus, current experts in oncology need to be trained and new experts from other fields need to be recruited.

objectivesThe molecular tumor board was introduced to bring experts from various specialties together. The goal is to discuss and assess complex oncological cases in the context of new molecular diagnostics and give recommendations regarding individualized therapy.

resultsAfter the introduction of the molecular tumor board 2 years ago, the number of cases processed within the molecular tumor board has increased steadily. Of these patients, 70% exhibit molecular alterations that are relevant to therapy. Preliminary results indicate positive responses to the applied therapies and clear improvements in the progression-free and overall survival of patients who would have been considered "untreatable" in the classical clinical setting.

conclusionThe introduction of new molecular diagnostics makes the establishment of advanced clinical structures mandatory. In this regard, the molecular tumor board continues to gain in importance. Preliminary results point towards a significant impact on the therapy of advanced malignancies. The advancements in sequencing and newly established insights into the interpretation of sequencing results will lead to new therapeutic routes. Inevitably, this will make the molecular tumor board indispensable in the future.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPrecision MedicineHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMedical OncologyPathology, MolecularMedical oncologyMolecular diagnosticsMolecular targeted therapyNext-generation sequencingPersonalized medicine

Identifiers

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.