Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.
Decision making
Molecular diagnostics
Molecular tumor board
Multidisciplinary
Rare mutations
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
26
05
2020
accepted:
25
09
2020
pubmed:
29
10
2020
medline:
29
9
2021
entrez:
28
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy.
RESULTS
Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%).
CONCLUSION
MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33111480
doi: 10.1002/onco.13580
pmc: PMC8342588
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1347-e1358Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.
Références
Oncologist. 2014 Jun;19(6):631-6
pubmed: 24797821
Virchows Arch. 2017 Jan;470(1):5-20
pubmed: 27678269
Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Jan 1;29(1):308-11
pubmed: 11125122
Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;29(9):1895-1902
pubmed: 30137196
Oncologist. 2017 Feb;22(2):144-151
pubmed: 28179575
J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 20;31(15):1806-14
pubmed: 23589557
J Mol Diagn. 2017 Jan;19(1):4-23
pubmed: 27993330
Hum Genomics. 2016 Jan 16;10:4
pubmed: 26772741
Ann Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;28(12):3070-3075
pubmed: 29045504
Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7776):127-131
pubmed: 31570881
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007 Jan 19;352(3):728-32
pubmed: 17150185
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016 Aug;63(8):1368-74
pubmed: 27082517
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D745-D751
pubmed: 30407521
Ann Oncol. 2019 May 1;30(5):757-765
pubmed: 30865223
JCO Precis Oncol. 2017 Jul;2017:
pubmed: 28890946
ESMO Open. 2018 Apr 6;3(3):e000339
pubmed: 29636991
Oncotarget. 2016 Apr 26;7(17):24860-70
pubmed: 27027238
Intern Med J. 2018 Jul;48(7):786-794
pubmed: 29607586
ESMO Open. 2019 Mar 21;4(2):e000469
pubmed: 31245058
Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 14;8(34):57845-57854
pubmed: 28915716
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D777-D783
pubmed: 27899578
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 18;8(16):27145-27154
pubmed: 28423702
Nature. 2015 Oct 1;526(7571):68-74
pubmed: 26432245
Sci Signal. 2013 Apr 02;6(269):pl1
pubmed: 23550210
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jan;42(Database issue):D980-5
pubmed: 24234437
Br J Cancer. 2010 Feb 16;102(4):693-703
pubmed: 20147967
Front Pediatr. 2017 Dec 12;5:265
pubmed: 29312904
Br J Cancer. 2019 Jul;121(1):34-36
pubmed: 31130724
Oncologist. 2015 Sep;20(9):1011-8
pubmed: 26205736
JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;2017:
pubmed: 30003184
ESMO Open. 2018 Jul 23;3(5):e000398
pubmed: 30094075
Int J Cancer. 2019 Dec 1;145(11):2996-3010
pubmed: 31008532