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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |