ArticleBritish journal of cancer2023
Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Molecular Tumor Boards clinical impact on patient care and structural features: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
- From Recommendation to Implementation: Clinical Outcomes of a Single-Center Molecular Tumor Board.Targeted oncology · 2026Article
- Supplementary biomarker testing in molecular tumor boards increases actionable therapy recommendations: a prospective real-world study of 658 patients.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Limited association between HRR gene alterations and HRD in molecular tumor board cancer samples: Who should be tested for HRD?International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Utility of Germline, Somatic and ctDNA Testing in Adults With Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
- Real-World Outcomes of Molecular Tumor Board Treatment Recommendations.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Empowering personalized oncology: evolution of digital support and visualization tools for molecular tumor boards.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Unveiling the Digital Evolution of Molecular Tumor Boards.Targeted oncology · 2025Review
- [Molecular tumor boards in uro-oncology-prostate cancer].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- [Precision oncology and molecular tumor boards].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- [Personalized medicine in oncology].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- [Precision medicine in oncology].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, molecular tumour boards (MTBs) have been integrated into the clinical routine. Since their benefit remains debated, we assessed MTB outcomes in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ostbayern (CCCO) from 2019 to 2021. METHODS AND
resultsIn total, 251 patients were included. Targeted sequencing was performed with PCR MSI-evaluation and immunohistochemistry for PD-L1, Her2, and mismatch repair enzymes. 125 treatment recommendations were given (49.8%). High-recommendation rates were achieved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20/30, 66.7%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (10/16, 62.5%) as opposed to colorectal cancer (9/36, 25.0%) and pancreatic cancer (3/18, 16.7%). MTB therapies were administered in 47 (18.7%) patients, while 53 (21.1%) received alternative treatment regimens. Thus 37.6% of recommended MTB therapies were implemented (47/125 recommendations). The clinical benefit rate (complete + partial + mixed response + stable disease) was 50.0% for MTB and 63.8% for alternative treatments. PFS2/1 ratios were 34.6% and 16.1%, respectively. Significantly improved PFS could be achieved for m1A-tier-evidence-based MTB therapies (median 6.30 months) compared to alternative treatments (median 2.83 months; P = 0.0278).
conclusionThe CCCO MTB yielded a considerable recommendation rate, particularly in cholangiocarcinoma patients. The discrepancy between the low-recommendation rates in colorectal and pancreatic cancer suggests the necessity of a weighted prioritisation of entities. High-tier recommendations should be implemented predominantly.
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.