Trial reportJCO precision oncology2024
Concordance in Molecular Tumor Board Case Reviews in the ASCO TAPUR Study.
Trial report in JCO precision 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith the advent of precision medicine, molecular tumor boards (MTBs) were established to interpret genomic results and guide decision making for targeted therapy in oncology patients. There are currently no universal guidelines for how MTBs should operate and thus variance can be seen depending on which MTB is reviewing the case. This study assesses the concordance of MTB recommendations when a participant case is reviewed by two different MTBs, establishes potential reasons for discordance, and advocates for the establishment of standard MTB operating guidelines. PATIENTS AND
methodsParticipants with advanced cancer, who had exhausted all standard treatment options were screened for the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study. Cases were submitted for MTB review if the treatment proposal was outside the protocol genomic matching rules, or if multiple treatment options were identified. Of the 306 cases submitted for review by the TAPUR MTB from 2016 to 2018, 107 were randomly selected for secondary review by a different MTB group. Recommendations from the original review were not disclosed. Concordance between MTB group recommendations was assessed. Concordance was defined as agreement between MTB reviews on the genomic alteration and study drug match proposed by the clinical site. Thematic qualitative analysis was conducted for the discordant cases to assess reasons for discordance.
resultsComplete or partial concordance was observed in 79% of cases (95% CI, 70 to 86; one-sided
conclusionWhen presented with identical participant cases, different MTB review groups make the same or similar treatment recommendations approximately 80% of the time.
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.