OBJECTIVE: This paper describes our experience and outcomes from 54 cases presented to the (Molecular tumor board) MTB. METHODS: 54 Cases presented between July 2017 and April 2018 were included in this analysis. These patients had different types of cancers that had either failed standard therapy or were expected to fail and physicians were looking for future options for anticipated progression. Patients who had obvious mutations and were candidates for Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry or Molecular Analysis for Treatment Choice clinical trials were not included. Oncologists presented the cases virtually and Foundation Medicine scientific and clinical team discussed the molecular pathways to find targeted options or trials. Tumor board attendees included oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, mid-level providers, residents and staff of the Cancer Center. RESULTS: Amongst the 54 cases presented 81% had one or more potentially actionable alteration. 12 (22%) patients received genomically matched therapy as per MTB recommendations. Additional 13 (24%) patients have options available when they progress. Out of 12 patients who got treatment six are alive at the time of this analysis. Genomically matched therapy or Clinical Trials option were offered to the 46% of patients based on the MTB discussion. CONCLUSION: More widespread use of molecular diagnostics, better physician education and multidisciplinary collaboration between the staff involved in diagnosis and treatment, as well as third party payers are necessary for consensus on treatment and care of oncology patients.
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes our experience and outcomes from 54 cases presented to the (Molecular tumor board) MTB. METHODS: 54 Cases presented between July 2017 and April 2018 were included in this analysis. These patients had different types of cancers that had either failed standard therapy or were expected to fail and physicians were looking for future options for anticipated progression. Patients who had obvious mutations and were candidates for Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry or Molecular Analysis for Treatment Choice clinical trials were not included. Oncologists presented the cases virtually and Foundation Medicine scientific and clinical team discussed the molecular pathways to find targeted options or trials. Tumor board attendees included oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, mid-level providers, residents and staff of the Cancer Center. RESULTS: Amongst the 54 cases presented 81% had one or more potentially actionable alteration. 12 (22%) patients received genomically matched therapy as per MTB recommendations. Additional 13 (24%) patients have options available when they progress. Out of 12 patients who got treatment six are alive at the time of this analysis. Genomically matched therapy or Clinical Trials option were offered to the 46% of patients based on the MTB discussion. CONCLUSION: More widespread use of molecular diagnostics, better physician education and multidisciplinary collaboration between the staff involved in diagnosis and treatment, as well as third party payers are necessary for consensus on treatment and care of oncology patients.
Authors: Coren A Milbury; James Creeden; Wai-Ki Yip; David L Smith; Varun Pattani; Kristi Maxwell; Bethany Sawchyn; Ole Gjoerup; Wei Meng; Joel Skoletsky; Alvin D Concepcion; Yanhua Tang; Xiaobo Bai; Ninad Dewal; Pei Ma; Shannon T Bailey; James Thornton; Dean C Pavlick; Garrett M Frampton; Daniel Lieber; Jared White; Christine Burns; Christine Vietz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shruti Rao; Beth Pitel; Alex H Wagner; Simina M Boca; Matthew McCoy; Ian King; Samir Gupta; Ben Ho Park; Jeremy L Warner; James Chen; Peter K Rogan; Debyani Chakravarty; Malachi Griffith; Obi L Griffith; Subha Madhavan Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-07