Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 9:5:PO.20.00495.
doi: 10.1200/PO.20.00495. eCollection 2021 Jul.

Clinical Outcomes of Molecular Tumor Boards: A Systematic Review

Kara L Larson  1 , Bin Huang  1   2 , Heidi L Weiss  1 , Pam Hull  1 , Philip M Westgate  3 , Rachel W Miller  1   4 , Susanne M Arnold  1   5 , Jill M Kolesar  1   6
Affiliations

Clinical Outcomes of Molecular Tumor Boards: A Systematic Review

Kara L Larson et al. JCO Precis Oncol. .

Abstract

We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with molecular tumor board (MTB) review in patients with cancer.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes in patients with cancer who were reviewed by an MTB. To be included, studies had to report clinical outcomes, including clinical benefit, response, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed quality with the Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group or the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies depending on the type of study being reviewed.

Results: Fourteen studies were included with a total of 3,328 patients with cancer. All studies included patients without standard-of-care treatment options and usually with multiple prior lines of therapy. In studies reporting response rates, patients receiving MTB-recommended therapy had overall response rates ranging from 0% to 67%. In the only trial powered on clinical outcome and including a control group, the group receiving MTB-recommended therapy had significantly improved rate of progression-free survival compared with those receiving conventional therapy.

Conclusion: Although data quality is limited by a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials, MTBs appear to improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Future research should concentrate on prospective trials and standardization of approach and outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jill M. Kolesar Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Helix Diagnostics No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Jill M. Kolesar Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Helix Diagnostics No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Study schema.
FIG A1.
FIG A1.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lee C, Davies L, Wu Y, et al. : Gefitinib or erlotinib vs chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung cancer: Individual patient data meta-analysis of overall survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 109, 2017 - PubMed
    1. F1CDx technical specifications, in Foundation Medicine (ed), 2020. https://info.foundationmedicine.com/hubfs/FMI%20Dossiers/FMI_Commercial_...
    1. Lynch J, Berse B, Chun D, et al. : Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and erlotinib treatment among veterans diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Clin Lung Cancer 18:401-409, 2017 - PubMed
    1. Lynch J, Berse B, Dotson W, et al. : Utilization of genetic tests: Analysis of gene-specific billing in Medicare claims data. Genet Med 19:890-899, 2017 - PubMed
    1. Berger MF, Mardis ER: The emerging clinical relevance of genomics in cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15:353-365, 2018 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms