Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38484196›Full record

ArticleJCO global oncology2024

Discordance in Recommendation Between Next-Generation Sequencing Test Reports and Molecular Tumor Boards in India.

Aju Mathew, Sissmol Davis, Jeffrey Mathew Boby, Anu R I, Moushumi Suryavanshi, Shaheenah S Dawood, Pankaj Kumar Panda, Shona Milon Nag, Arunangshu Das, Nitesh Rohatgi and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO global oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

21 authors.

Aju MathewKerala Cancer Care, Ernakulam Medical Centre and MOSC Medical College, Ernakulam, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5482-5708
Sissmol DavisKerala Cancer Care, Kochi, Kerala, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5805-3293
Jeffrey Mathew BobyGovernment Medical College, Kozhikode, India.
Anu R IMediclinic City Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Moushumi SuryavanshiApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6548-9201
Shaheenah S DawoodMediclinic City Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Pankaj Kumar PandaApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2804-8033
Shona Milon NagSahyadri Hospital, Pune, India.
Arunangshu DasSquare Hospitals Ltd, New Market, Bangladesh.
Nitesh RohatgiFortis Cancer Institute, New Delhi, India.
Sanjay PopatDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden Hospital-NHS Foundation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2087-4963
Riyaz N H ShahKent Oncology Centre, Kent, United Kingdom.
Cherian ThampyNMC, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Aparna Raj ParikhDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-5245-7841
Siddhartha YadavMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0003-4630-9903
Prashant MehtaApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-8151-4331
Randeep SinghNarayana Health, Gurugram, India.
Deborah MukherjiAmerican University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-0192-5828
Ramila ShilpakarNational Academy of Medical Sciences, Bir Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-8594-6975
Sujith Kumar MullapallyApollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2932-2663
Bhawna SirohiBALCO Medical Center, Raipur, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8093-1531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate understanding of the genomic and transcriptomic data provided by next-generation sequencing (NGS) is essential for the effective utilization of precision oncology. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) aim to translate the complex data in NGS reports into effective clinical interventions. Often, MTB treatment recommendations differ from those in the NGS reports. In this study, we analyze the discordance between these recommendations and the rationales behind the discordances, in a non-high-income setting, with international input to evaluate the necessity of MTB in clinical practice.

methodsWe collated data from MTB that were virtually hosted in Chennai, India. We included patients with malignancies who had NGS reports on solid tissue or liquid biopsies, and excluded those with incomplete data. MTB forms and NGS reports of each clinical case were analyzed and evaluated for recommendation concordance. Concordance was defined as an agreement between the first recommendation in the MTB forms and the therapeutic recommendations suggested in the NGS report. Discordance was the absence of the said agreement. The rationales for discordance were identified and documented.

resultsSeventy MTB reports were analyzed with 49 cases meeting the inclusion criteria. The recommendation discordance was 49% (24 of 49). Discordant recommendations were mainly due to low level of evidence for the drug (75% of cases).

conclusionThe discordance between MTB and NGS vendor recommendations highlights the clinical utility of MTB. The educational experiences provided by this initiative are an example of how virtual academic collaborations can enhance patient care and provider education across geographic borders.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansIndiaMedical OncologyPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID38484196
PMCPMC10954076

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.