Cargando…

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

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. Targete...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scheiter, Alexander, Hierl, Frederik, Lüke, Florian, Keil, Felix, Heudobler, Daniel, Einhell, Sabine, Klier-Richter, Margit, Konstandin, Nikola P., Weber, Florian, Scheiter, Andrea, Kandulski, Arne, Schlosser, Sophie, Cosma, Lidia-Sabina, Tews, Hauke, Weiss, Andreas R. R., Grube, Matthias, Bumes, Elisabeth, Hau, Peter, Proescholdt, Martin, Steger, Felix, Troeger, Anja, Haferkamp, Sebastian, Reibenspies, Lucas E., Schnabel, Marco J., Schulz, Christian, Drexler, Konstantin, Hatzipanagiotou, Maria E., Seitz, Stephan, Klinkhammer-Schalke, Monika, Unberath, Philipp, Calvisi, Diego F., Pukrop, Tobias, Dietmaier, Wolfgang, Evert, Matthias, Utpatel, Kirsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10006213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36572733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-02120-x
_version_ 1784905263876145152
author Scheiter, Alexander
Hierl, Frederik
Lüke, Florian
Keil, Felix
Heudobler, Daniel
Einhell, Sabine
Klier-Richter, Margit
Konstandin, Nikola P.
Weber, Florian
Scheiter, Andrea
Kandulski, Arne
Schlosser, Sophie
Cosma, Lidia-Sabina
Tews, Hauke
Weiss, Andreas R. R.
Grube, Matthias
Bumes, Elisabeth
Hau, Peter
Proescholdt, Martin
Steger, Felix
Troeger, Anja
Haferkamp, Sebastian
Reibenspies, Lucas E.
Schnabel, Marco J.
Schulz, Christian
Drexler, Konstantin
Hatzipanagiotou, Maria E.
Seitz, Stephan
Klinkhammer-Schalke, Monika
Unberath, Philipp
Calvisi, Diego F.
Pukrop, Tobias
Dietmaier, Wolfgang
Evert, Matthias
Utpatel, Kirsten
author_facet Scheiter, Alexander
Hierl, Frederik
Lüke, Florian
Keil, Felix
Heudobler, Daniel
Einhell, Sabine
Klier-Richter, Margit
Konstandin, Nikola P.
Weber, Florian
Scheiter, Andrea
Kandulski, Arne
Schlosser, Sophie
Cosma, Lidia-Sabina
Tews, Hauke
Weiss, Andreas R. R.
Grube, Matthias
Bumes, Elisabeth
Hau, Peter
Proescholdt, Martin
Steger, Felix
Troeger, Anja
Haferkamp, Sebastian
Reibenspies, Lucas E.
Schnabel, Marco J.
Schulz, Christian
Drexler, Konstantin
Hatzipanagiotou, Maria E.
Seitz, Stephan
Klinkhammer-Schalke, Monika
Unberath, Philipp
Calvisi, Diego F.
Pukrop, Tobias
Dietmaier, Wolfgang
Evert, Matthias
Utpatel, Kirsten
author_sort Scheiter, Alexander
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10006213
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100062132023-03-12 Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Scheiter, Alexander Hierl, Frederik Lüke, Florian Keil, Felix Heudobler, Daniel Einhell, Sabine Klier-Richter, Margit Konstandin, Nikola P. Weber, Florian Scheiter, Andrea Kandulski, Arne Schlosser, Sophie Cosma, Lidia-Sabina Tews, Hauke Weiss, Andreas R. R. Grube, Matthias Bumes, Elisabeth Hau, Peter Proescholdt, Martin Steger, Felix Troeger, Anja Haferkamp, Sebastian Reibenspies, Lucas E. Schnabel, Marco J. Schulz, Christian Drexler, Konstantin Hatzipanagiotou, Maria E. Seitz, Stephan Klinkhammer-Schalke, Monika Unberath, Philipp Calvisi, Diego F. Pukrop, Tobias Dietmaier, Wolfgang Evert, Matthias Utpatel, Kirsten Br J Cancer Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-12-26 2023-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10006213/ /pubmed/36572733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-02120-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Scheiter, Alexander
Hierl, Frederik
Lüke, Florian
Keil, Felix
Heudobler, Daniel
Einhell, Sabine
Klier-Richter, Margit
Konstandin, Nikola P.
Weber, Florian
Scheiter, Andrea
Kandulski, Arne
Schlosser, Sophie
Cosma, Lidia-Sabina
Tews, Hauke
Weiss, Andreas R. R.
Grube, Matthias
Bumes, Elisabeth
Hau, Peter
Proescholdt, Martin
Steger, Felix
Troeger, Anja
Haferkamp, Sebastian
Reibenspies, Lucas E.
Schnabel, Marco J.
Schulz, Christian
Drexler, Konstantin
Hatzipanagiotou, Maria E.
Seitz, Stephan
Klinkhammer-Schalke, Monika
Unberath, Philipp
Calvisi, Diego F.
Pukrop, Tobias
Dietmaier, Wolfgang
Evert, Matthias
Utpatel, Kirsten
Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre
title Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre
title_full Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre
title_fullStr Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre
title_full_unstemmed Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre
title_short Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre
title_sort critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a comprehensive cancer centre
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10006213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36572733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-02120-x
work_keys_str_mv AT scheiteralexander criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT hierlfrederik criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT lukeflorian criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT keilfelix criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT heudoblerdaniel criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT einhellsabine criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT klierrichtermargit criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT konstandinnikolap criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT weberflorian criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT scheiterandrea criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT kandulskiarne criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT schlossersophie criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT cosmalidiasabina criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT tewshauke criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT weissandreasrr criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT grubematthias criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT bumeselisabeth criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT haupeter criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT proescholdtmartin criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT stegerfelix criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT troegeranja criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT haferkampsebastian criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT reibenspieslucase criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT schnabelmarcoj criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT schulzchristian criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT drexlerkonstantin criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT hatzipanagiotoumariae criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT seitzstephan criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT klinkhammerschalkemonika criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT unberathphilipp criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT calvisidiegof criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT pukroptobias criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT dietmaierwolfgang criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT evertmatthias criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre
AT utpatelkirsten criticalevaluationofmoleculartumourboardoutcomesfollowing2yearsofclinicalpracticeinacomprehensivecancercentre