Effectiveness of a Molecular Tumor Board in Making Personalized Treatment Recommendations for Patients with Advanced Cancer
Rose, A.; Basik, M.; ferrario, c.; fallah, p.; friedmann, j.; batist, g.; spatz, a.; kavan, p.; lau, s.; Aguilar-Mahecha, A.; Mamo, A.; papadakis, a.; Panet, F.; labidi, s.; lafleur, J.; Harrigan, D.; VINCENT RAJADURAI, C.; elkholi, i.
Show abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and the development of targeted therapies have revolutionized cancer treatment. Molecular Tumour Boards (MTB) serve as collaborative platforms to integrate individual clinical and molecular information to make recommendations for personalized treatment. METHOD: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients presented at the Jewish General Hospital (JGH) MTB between July 2018 and Dec 2022. Clinical, molecular/pathologic data, MTB recommendations, and treatment details were collected. Treatment response was determined by radiological evaluation and physician clinical assessment. Fishers exact test and Log-rank tests were used to assess differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients were presented to the MTB, including 23 with repeat presentations, resulting in 355 case reviews. Tumour-agnostic biomarkers were detected in 18.9% of cases, most commonly high tumour mutational burden (TMB, 9.5%) and HER2 amplification (4.3%). The most frequent actionable mutations were PIK3CA (19.8%) and PTEN (13.1%), often leading to recommendations for mTOR inhibitor therapy (26.0%). Overall, therapeutic recommendations were issued in 84.5% (300/355) of cases, and implemented in 43.3% (130/300). Patients who received MTB-recommended therapies achieved significantly higher objective response rates (ORR) (14.2% vs. 4.2%; P = 0.047), longer real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) (5.6 vs. 3.5 months; HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.390 - 0.828; P = 0.003), and improved median overall survival (OS) (12.8 vs. 5.2 months; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.452 - 0.793; P < 0.001) compared with those treated without MTB guidance. CONCLUSION: MTB is effective in identifying biomarker-matched therapeutic recommendations for advanced malignancies where limited standard-of-care treatment option is available.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Added-value of whole exome and RNA Sequencing in advanced and refractory cancer patients with no molecular-based treatment recommendation based on a 90-gene panel 94%
- COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients with Cancer: Findings from the University of California Health System Database 91%
- A Video Intervention to Improve Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing in Patients with Cancer 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical activity of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) inhibitors in patients with MAP2K1 (MEK1)-mutated metastatic cancers 93%
- Clinical activity of MAPK targeted therapies in patients with non-V600 BRAF mutant tumors 92%
- Germline testing data validate inferences of mutational status for variants detected from tumor-only sequencing 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Criteria-based curation of a therapy-focused compendium to support treatment recommendations in precision oncology 94%
- Benefits of local consolidative treatment in oligometastases of solid cancers: a stepwise-hierarchical pooled analysis and systematic review 92%
- Real-World Benchmarking and Validation of Foundation Model Transformers for Endometrial Cancer Subtyping from Histopathology 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Phase 1b dose expansion and translational analyses of olaparib in combination with the oral AKT inhibitor capivasertib in recurrent endometrial, triple negative breast, and ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer 92%
- Co-occurring genetic alterations in the RAS pathway promote resistance to MET inhibitor treatment in non-small cell lung cancer with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation 90%
- Multiomic characterisation of high grade serous ovarian carcinoma enables high resolution patient stratification 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.