Dataset Information

Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: The Impact on Treatment Decisions for 35 Patients Evaluated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

ABSTRACT: Although genetic profiling of tumors is a potentially powerful tool to predict drug sensitivity and resistance, its routine use has been limited because clinicians are often unfamiliar with interpretation and incorporation of the information into practice. We established a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) to interpret individual patients' tumor genetic profiles and provide treatment recommendations.DNA from tumor specimens was sequenced in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory to identify coding mutations in a 50-gene panel (n = 34) or a 255-gene panel (n = 1). Cases were evaluated by a multidisciplinary MTB that included pathologists, oncologists, hematologists, basic scientists, and genetic counselors.During the first year, 35 cases were evaluated by the MTB, with 32 presented for recommendations on targeted therapies, and 3 referred for potential germline mutations. In 56.3% of cases, MTB recommended treatment with a targeted agent based on evaluation of tumor genetic profile and treatment history. Four patients (12.5%) were subsequently treated with a MTB-recommended targeted therapy; 3 of the 4 patients remain on therapy, 2 of whom experienced clinical benefit lasting >10 months.For the majority of cases evaluated, the MTB was able to provide treatment recommendations based on targetable genetic alterations. The most common reasons that MTB-recommended therapy was not administered stemmed from patient preferences and genetic profiling at either very early or very late stages of disease; lack of drug access was rarely encountered. Increasing awareness of molecular profiling and targeted therapies by both clinicians and patients will improve acceptance and adherence to treatments that could significantly improve outcomes.Case evaluation by a multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) is critical to benefit from individualized genetic data and maximize clinical impact. MTB recommendations shaped treatment options for the majority of cases evaluated. In the few patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy, disease outcomes were positive and support genetically informed treatment.

SUBMITTER: Tafe LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4571816 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: The Impact on Treatment Decisions for 35 Patients Evaluated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

Tafe Laura J LJ Gorlov Ivan P IP de Abreu Francine B FB Lefferts Joel A JA Liu Xiaoying X Pettus Jason R JR Marotti Jonathan D JD Bloch Kasia J KJ Memoli Vincent A VA Suriawinata Arief A AA Dragnev Konstantin H KH Fadul Camilo E CE Schwartz Gary N GN Morgan Clinton R CR Holderness Britt M BM Peterson Jason D JD Tsongalis Gregory J GJ Miller Todd W TW Chamberlin Mary D MD

The oncologist 20150723 9

<h4>Background</h4>Although genetic profiling of tumors is a potentially powerful tool to predict drug sensitivity and resistance, its routine use has been limited because clinicians are often unfamiliar with interpretation and incorporation of the information into practice. We established a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) to interpret individual patients' tumor genetic profiles and provide treatment recommendations.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>DNA from tumor specimens was sequenced in a Clinical La ...[more]

PMID: 26205736

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose:Dramatic advances in our understanding of the molecular pathophysiology of cancer, along with a rapidly expanding portfolio of molecular targeted drugs, have led to a paradigm shift toward personalized, biomarker-driven cancer treatment. Here, we report the 2-year experience of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Freiburg Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), one of the first interdisciplinary molecular tumor conferences established in Europe. The role of the MTB is to recommend personalized therapy for patients with cancer beyond standard-of-care treatment. Methods:This retrospective case series includes 198 patients discussed from March 2015 through February 2017. The MTB guided individual molecular diagnostics, assessed evidence of actionability of molecular alterations, and provided therapy recommendations, including approved and off-label treatments as well as available matched clinical trials. Results:The majority of patients had metastatic solid tumors (73.7%), mostly progressive (77.3%) after a mean of 2.0 lines of standard treatment. Diagnostic recommendations resulted in 867 molecular diagnostic tests for 172 patients (five per case), including exome analysis in 36 cases (18.2%). With a median turnaround time of 28 days, treatment recommendations were given to 104 patients (52.5%). These included single-agent targeted therapies (42.3%), checkpoint inhibitors (37.5%), and combination therapies (18.3%). Treatment recommendations were implemented in 33 of 104 patients (31.7%), of whom 19 (57.6%) showed stable disease or partial response, including 14 patients (7.1% of the entire population) receiving off-label treatments. Conclusion:Personalized extended molecular-guided patient care is effective for a small but clinically meaningful proportion of patients in challenging clinical situations. Limited access to targeted drugs, lack of trials, and submission at late disease stage prevents broader applicability, whereas genome-wide analyses are not a strict requirement for predictive molecular testing.

Project description:BackgroundWith rapid advances in genomic medicine, the complexity of delivering precision medicine to oncology patients across a university health system demanded the creation of a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) for patient selection and assessment of treatment options. The objective of this report is to analyze our progress to date and discuss the importance of the MTB in the implementation of personalized medicine.Materials and methodsPatients were reviewed in the MTB for appropriateness for comprehensive next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer gene set testing based on set criteria that were in place. Because profiling of stage IV lung cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma cancers were standard of care, these cancer types were excluded from this process. We subsequently analyzed the types of cases referred for testing and approved with regards to their results.Results191 cases were discussed at the MTB and 132 cases were approved for testing. Forty-six cases (34.8%) had driver mutations that were associated with an active targeted therapeutic agent, including BRAF, PIK3CA, IDH1, KRAS, and BRCA1. An additional 56 cases (42.4%) had driver mutations previously reported in some type of cancer. Twenty-two cases (16.7%) did not have any clinically significant mutations. Eight cases did not yield adequate DNA. 15 cases were considered for targeted therapy, 13 of which received targeted therapy. One patient experienced a near complete response. Seven of 13 had stable disease or a partial response.ConclusionsMTB at University of Alabama-Birmingham is unique because it reviews the appropriateness of NGS testing for patients with recurrent cancer and serves as a forum to educate our physicians about the pathways of precision medicine. Our results suggest that our detection of actionable mutations may be higher due to our careful selection. The application of precision medicine and molecular genetic testing for cancer patients remains a continuous educational process for physicians.

Project description:PurposeTumor boards serve as established platforms for interdisciplinary expert discussions and therapeutic recommendations tailored to individual patient characteristics. Despite their significance, medical students often lack exposure to such interdisciplinary discussions as tumor boards are currently not integrated into medical curricula. To address this, we aimed to enhance future physicians' interdisciplinary communication skills and subject-specific knowledge by introducing an interactive series of five linked tumor board seminars within the domain of neuro-oncology.MethodsWe developed a neuro-oncological student tumor board using a flipped-classroom format. The primary objectives of this case-centered approach included fostering an understanding of the tumor board process, active participation in multidisciplinary case discussions, honing appropriate communication strategies, and creating personalized therapy plans that consider inputs from all relevant disciplines, individual patient factors, and ethical considerations. To gauge the effectiveness of the seminar series, we administered structured pre- and post-course questionnaires.ResultsFourteen medical students in third to fifth year participated in the pilot series. Despite its organizational complexity, the interdisciplinary seminars were feasible. Students demonstrated significant growth in competence, aligned with predefined learning objectives. Notably, they appreciated the supportive learning environment and interactive teaching format, which kindled their interest in interdisciplinary oncology.ConclusionActive participation in a student tumor board can empower students to tackle the diverse challenges of caring for cancer patients within an interdisciplinary team during the early stages of their careers. The student tumor board represents an innovative, learner-centered approach to teach interdisciplinary cancer treatment, communication strategies, and ethical aspects of medical practice.

Project description:Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months (95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43%(95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.

Dataset Information

Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: The Impact on Treatment Decisions for 35 Patients Evaluated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

Publications

Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: The Impact on Treatment Decisions for 35 Patients Evaluated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets