Background: Recently, molecular tumour boards (MTBs) have been integrated into the clinical routine. Since their benefit remains debated, we assessed MTB outcomes in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ostbayern (CCCO) from 2019 to 2021. Methods and results: In total, 251 patients were included. Targeted sequencing was performed with PCR MSI-evaluation and immunohistochemistry for PD-L1, Her2, and mismatch repair enzymes. 125 treatment recommendations were given (49.8%). High-recommendation rates were achieved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20/30, 66.7%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (10/16, 62.5%) as opposed to colorectal cancer (9/36, 25.0%) and pancreatic cancer (3/18, 16.7%). MTB therapies were administered in 47 (18.7%) patients, while 53 (21.1%) received alternative treatment regimens. Thus 37.6% of recommended MTB therapies were implemented (47/125 recommendations). The clinical benefit rate (complete + partial + mixed response + stable disease) was 50.0% for MTB and 63.8% for alternative treatments. PFS2/1 ratios were 34.6% and 16.1%, respectively. Significantly improved PFS could be achieved for m1A-tier-evidence-based MTB therapies (median 6.30 months) compared to alternative treatments (median 2.83 months; P = 0.0278). Conclusion: The CCCO MTB yielded a considerable recommendation rate, particularly in cholangiocarcinoma patients. The discrepancy between the low-recommendation rates in colorectal and pancreatic cancer suggests the necessity of a weighted prioritisation of entities. High-tier recommendations should be implemented predominantly.

Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre / Scheiter, A.; Hierl, F.; Luke, F.; Keil, F.; Heudobler, D.; Einhell, S.; Klier-Richter, M.; Konstandin, N. P.; Weber, F.; Scheiter, A.; Kandulski, A.; Schlosser, S.; Cosma, L. -S.; Tews, H.; Weiss, A. R. R.; Grube, M.; Bumes, E.; Hau, P.; Proescholdt, M.; Steger, F.; Troeger, A.; Haferkamp, S.; Reibenspies, L. E.; Schnabel, M. J.; Schulz, C.; Drexler, K.; Hatzipanagiotou, M. E.; Seitz, S.; Klinkhammer-Schalke, M.; Unberath, P.; Calvisi, D. F.; Pukrop, T.; Dietmaier, W.; Evert, M.; Utpatel, K.. - In: BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0007-0920. - 128:6(2023), pp. 1134-1147. [10.1038/s41416-022-02120-x]

Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre

Calvisi D. F.
Data Curation
;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Background: Recently, molecular tumour boards (MTBs) have been integrated into the clinical routine. Since their benefit remains debated, we assessed MTB outcomes in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ostbayern (CCCO) from 2019 to 2021. Methods and results: In total, 251 patients were included. Targeted sequencing was performed with PCR MSI-evaluation and immunohistochemistry for PD-L1, Her2, and mismatch repair enzymes. 125 treatment recommendations were given (49.8%). High-recommendation rates were achieved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20/30, 66.7%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (10/16, 62.5%) as opposed to colorectal cancer (9/36, 25.0%) and pancreatic cancer (3/18, 16.7%). MTB therapies were administered in 47 (18.7%) patients, while 53 (21.1%) received alternative treatment regimens. Thus 37.6% of recommended MTB therapies were implemented (47/125 recommendations). The clinical benefit rate (complete + partial + mixed response + stable disease) was 50.0% for MTB and 63.8% for alternative treatments. PFS2/1 ratios were 34.6% and 16.1%, respectively. Significantly improved PFS could be achieved for m1A-tier-evidence-based MTB therapies (median 6.30 months) compared to alternative treatments (median 2.83 months; P = 0.0278). Conclusion: The CCCO MTB yielded a considerable recommendation rate, particularly in cholangiocarcinoma patients. The discrepancy between the low-recommendation rates in colorectal and pancreatic cancer suggests the necessity of a weighted prioritisation of entities. High-tier recommendations should be implemented predominantly.
2023
Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre / Scheiter, A.; Hierl, F.; Luke, F.; Keil, F.; Heudobler, D.; Einhell, S.; Klier-Richter, M.; Konstandin, N. P.; Weber, F.; Scheiter, A.; Kandulski, A.; Schlosser, S.; Cosma, L. -S.; Tews, H.; Weiss, A. R. R.; Grube, M.; Bumes, E.; Hau, P.; Proescholdt, M.; Steger, F.; Troeger, A.; Haferkamp, S.; Reibenspies, L. E.; Schnabel, M. J.; Schulz, C.; Drexler, K.; Hatzipanagiotou, M. E.; Seitz, S.; Klinkhammer-Schalke, M.; Unberath, P.; Calvisi, D. F.; Pukrop, T.; Dietmaier, W.; Evert, M.; Utpatel, K.. - In: BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0007-0920. - 128:6(2023), pp. 1134-1147. [10.1038/s41416-022-02120-x]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11388/306957
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact