ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Real-world experience of Molecular Tumour Boards for clinical decision-making for cancer patients.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical management of pineal region tumors in Italy: a SINch (SINch®) National Survey with systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Life Years Gained and Healthcare Dollars Saved: National Economic Evidence Supporting Comprehensive Genomic Profiling as Standard of Care for Canadian Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Advancing the adoption of oncology decision support tools in Europe: insights from CAN.HEAL.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- From Slide to Insight: The Emerging Alliance of Digital Pathology and AI in Melanoma Diagnostics.Cancers · 2025Review
- Clinical outcome of biomarker-guided therapies in adult neuro-oncology patients: An update from the Tübingen molecular tumor board cohort.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular Tumour Boards (MTBs) play a crucial role in interpreting genomic results and providing treatment recommendations. We investigated the real-world impact of MTBs on clinical decision-making by surveying health care professionals (HCPs) across the UK; 44 participants from 11 MTBs took part in the study. 97.7% of respondents felt that MTBs increased awareness of available clinical trials matched to genomic alterations, 84% reported more confidence in interpreting genomic data, and 95.4% valued MTBs as educational. Hurdles to the discussion at MTBs included frequency and capacity of MTBs (ctDNA), sample collection and laboratory turnaround time (Tissue samples). One-third of respondents encountered challenges attending MTBs regularly due to workload. The survey highlighted areas for optimisation, such as meeting efficiency, rapid molecular analysis turnaround time, reliable trial matching tools, and ensuring MTBs are included in HCP's job plans.
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.