ArticleNPJ precision oncology2022
Pan-cancer molecular tumor board experience with biomarker-driven precision immunotherapy.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating tumor DNA monitoring and blood tumor mutational burden in patients with metastatic solid tumors treated with atezolizumab.Molecular oncology · 2025Trial
- Optimizing Precision Oncology: Structural Frameworks for Local MTB Integration and Outcome Assessment.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of molecular tumor board on clinical outcomes in patients with refractory solid tumors: a real-world study.The oncologist · 2026Article
- NPLOC4 Constructs Tumor Immunosuppressive Microenvironment in Pan-cancer and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Comprehensive genomic landscape of ERBB2 in Chinese GI tumors: mutation-centered landscapes and precision treatment opportunities.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- The Multifaceted Roles of STAT6: Implications for Precision Immunotherapeutics.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Toll-like receptor 3: a double-edged sword.Biomarker research · 2025Review
- Molecular Tumor Board for Unicorns: Outcomes for rare and ultra-rare cancers using an N-of-One personalized treatment strategy.iScience · 2024Article
- Multimodal machine learning models identify chemotherapy drugs with prospective clinical efficacy in dogs with relapsed B-cell lymphoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Construction of the Interaction Network of Hub Genes in the Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Despite remarkable responses to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in some advanced cancers, most patients do not benefit, perhaps due to the complexity of tumor/immune/genome interactions. We implemented a multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) that reviewed multi-omic cancer characteristics to develop N-of-One therapies for patients in the pan-cancer, advanced, refractory setting. This study evaluates the experience of 80 patients who were presented to the MTB and received a treatment regimen that included ICB. Overall, 60/80 patients (75%) who received ICB following MTB discussion had a high degree of matching between tumor molecular characteristics, including ICB biomarkers (reflected by a high Matching Score (≥50%)) and therapy administered. Patients with high versus low Matching Score experienced significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.4 vs. 3.0 months; p = 0.011) and median overall survival (15.3 vs. 4.7 months; p = 0.014) and higher clinical benefit rates (stable disease ≥6 months/partial response/complete response) (53% vs. 21%, p = 0.019). Although most patients (52/80 (65%)) received a personalized combination therapy (e.g., targeted, hormonal, chemotherapy, or a second immunotherapy agent), administering >1 drug was not associated with outcome. Only degree of matching and age, but no other variables, including individual biomarkers (e.g., microsatellite status, tumor mutational burden, or PD-L1 status), were independently correlated with outcome. In the pan-cancer setting, the MTB facilitated a precision medicine strategy to match therapeutic regimens that included ICB alone or combined with matched targeted drugs to patients with advanced malignancy, which was associated with improved clinical outcomes.
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.