A decalogue of Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) recommendations from the CAN.HEAL Consortium
- PMID: 40253820
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115433
A decalogue of Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) recommendations from the CAN.HEAL Consortium
Abstract
Introduction: The CAN.HEAL consortium, comprising 47 cancer centers and academic institutions across 17 EU countries, has developed a set of recommendations for Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) to address the lack of standardized guidelines in personalized cancer medicine.
Methods: Over the past 2 years, through extensive collaboration and seven dedicated online meetings, CAN.HEAL experts developed consensus-based recommendations across 10 critical domains.
Results: The consortium agreed that MTBs' primary role is to perform molecular and clinical assessments for patients requiring care beyond standard treatment. Core MTB composition should include medical oncologists, molecular biologists, pathologists, and bioinformaticians. Patient eligibility criteria should prioritize performance status, with flexibility for rare cases. Shared informed consent is crucial for sample collection, data use, and research. A two-tiered IT workflow, with minimal and maximal datasets, is recommended, along with a comprehensive decision support tool. These recommendations focus on genomic testing, acknowledging diversity of NGS assays and proposing general guidelines. MTB reports should be concise, with technical details provided in the molecular diagnostic report. Innovative approaches like the Drug Rediscovery Protocol support access to off-label therapies. Harmonized training for MTB members is essential to bridging knowledge gaps in this evolving field. Indicators are needed to assess MTB effectiveness over time. Expanding MTB benefits to underserved populations depends on creating a shared European MTB database.
Conclusion: Standardizing MTB practices represents a key step toward equitable access to personalized medicine and improved cancer care across Europe. Sustainable implementation requires coordinated EU efforts, and dynamic MTBs that continuously refine genomic-driven decisions within real-world contexts.
Keywords: Cancer genomics; EU4Health; NGS assays; Personalized medicine; Precision oncology.
Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Similar articles
-
ESMO Precision Oncology Working Group recommendations on the structure and quality indicators for molecular tumour boards in clinical practice.Ann Oncol. 2025 Jun;36(6):614-625. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2025.02.009. Epub 2025 Apr 6. Ann Oncol. 2025. PMID: 40194904
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.Oncologist. 2021 Aug;26(8):e1347-e1358. doi: 10.1002/onco.13580. Epub 2020 Nov 10. Oncologist. 2021. PMID: 33111480 Free PMC article.
-
Molecular Tumor Boards in Clinical Practice.Trends Cancer. 2020 Sep;6(9):738-744. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.05.008. Epub 2020 Jun 6. Trends Cancer. 2020. PMID: 32517959
-
A prospective study comparing highly qualified Molecular Tumor Boards with AI-powered software as a medical device.Int J Clin Oncol. 2025 Feb;30(2):172-179. doi: 10.1007/s10147-024-02684-z. Epub 2024 Dec 23. Int J Clin Oncol. 2025. PMID: 39714567 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous