ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Molecular Tumor Boards in Malignant Melanoma: Uncovering Challenges and Opportunities in a Bicenter Retrospective Analysis in Germany.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. 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.
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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite therapeutic advancements, approximately 50% of advanced melanoma patients succumb to metastatic disease. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) aim to identify targetable molecular alterations to guide individualized treatment strategies. Yet, real-world data on patient selection, referral timing, recommendation rates, implementation, and clinical impact remain limited. In this exploratory retrospective bicenter analysis, we evaluated 80 patients with advanced melanoma who presented at institutional MTBs of two comprehensive cancer centers. Clinical and molecular tumor data were analyzed using bioinformatic tools to characterize mutation profiles, treatment recommendations, and their real-world implementation. Most patients (88.3%) had stage IV melanoma at the time of presentation and had received a median of three prior systemic treatment lines. Actionable treatment recommendations were formulated in 77.9% of eligible cases, yet only 33.7% of recommendations were implemented. Non-implementation was most commonly attributable to early patient death or regulatory barriers. Importantly, when recommended therapies were applied, patients experienced significantly improved progression-free survival (7.85 vs. 4.34 months; PFS ratio 1.8) and overall survival (10.64 vs. 5.06 months) compared with patients in whom recommended treatments were not implemented. Among patients with implemented MTB recommendations (n = 26), the median intra-patient PFS ratio was 1.68, and 14 of 26 patients (53.8%) achieved a PFS ratio ≥ 1.3. These findings indicate that MTBs frequently generate clinically actionable recommendations for metastatic melanoma, but late-stage referral substantially limits their real-world implementation. When applied, molecularly guided treatment strategies may confer meaningful clinical benefit, underscoring the importance of earlier integration of MTBs into melanoma care pathways.
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.