Literature DB >> 34390291

Framework for Implementing and Tracking a Molecular Tumor Board at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Neha M Jain1, Lauren Schmalz, Christopher Cann1, Adara Holland1, Travis Osterman2,3, Katie Lang1,4, Georgia L Wiesner1,4, Tuya Pal1,2, Christine Lovly1, Thomas Stricker1,5, Christine Micheel2, Justin M Balko1,5, Douglas B Johnson1, Ben Ho Park1,2, Wade Iams1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels have evolved in complexity and have changed from selected gene panels with a handful of genes to larger panels with hundreds of genes, sometimes in combination with paired germline filtering and/or testing. With this move toward increasingly large NGS panels, we have rapidly outgrown the available literature supporting the utility of treatments targeting many reported gene alterations, making it challenging for oncology providers to interpret NGS results and make a therapy recommendation for their patients.
METHODS: To support the oncologists at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) in interpreting NGS reports for patient care, we initiated two molecular tumor boards (MTBs)-a VICC-specific institutional board for our patients and a global community MTB open to the larger oncology patient population. Core attendees include oncologists, hematologist, molecular pathologists, cancer geneticists, and cancer genetic counselors. Recommendations generated from MTB were documented in a formal report that was uploaded to our electronic health record system.
RESULTS: As of December 2020, we have discussed over 170 patient cases from 77 unique oncology providers from VICC and its affiliate sites, and a total of 58 international patient cases by 25 unique providers from six different countries across the globe. Breast cancer and lung cancer were the most presented diagnoses.
CONCLUSION: In this article, we share our learning from the MTB experience and document best practices at our institution. We aim to lay a framework that allows other institutions to recreate MTBs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the rapid pace of molecularly driven therapies entering the oncology care spectrum, there is a need to create resources that support timely and accurate interpretation of next-generation sequencing reports to guide treatment decision for patients. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) have been created as a response to this knowledge gap. This report shares implementation strategies and best practices from the Vanderbilt experience of creating an institutional MTB and a virtual global MTB for the larger oncology community. This report describe a reproducible framework that can be adopted to initiate MTBs at other institutions.
© 2021 AlphaMed Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implementation; Molecular tumor board; Next-generation sequencing; Precision oncology; Targeted therapies

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34390291      PMCID: PMC8571748          DOI: 10.1002/onco.13936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  19 in total

1.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  Enabling a genetically informed approach to cancer medicine: a retrospective evaluation of the impact of comprehensive tumor profiling using a targeted next-generation sequencing panel.

Authors:  Douglas B Johnson; Kimberly H Dahlman; Jared Knol; Jill Gilbert; Igor Puzanov; Julie Means-Powell; Justin M Balko; Christine M Lovly; Barbara A Murphy; Laura W Goff; Vandana G Abramson; Marta A Crispens; Ingrid A Mayer; Jordan D Berlin; Leora Horn; Vicki L Keedy; Nishitha M Reddy; Carlos L Arteaga; Jeffrey A Sosman; William Pao
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-05-05

Review 3.  Application of next-generation sequencing to improve cancer management: A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  O Tan; R Shrestha; M Cunich; D J Schofield
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 4.438

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

Authors:  Laura J Tafe; Ivan P Gorlov; Francine B de Abreu; Joel A Lefferts; Xiaoying Liu; Jason R Pettus; Jonathan D Marotti; Kasia J Bloch; Vincent A Memoli; Arief A Suriawinata; Konstantin H Dragnev; Camilo E Fadul; Gary N Schwartz; Clinton R Morgan; Britt M Holderness; Jason D Peterson; Gregory J Tsongalis; Todd W Miller; Mary D Chamberlin
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-07-23

5.  The State of Oncology Practice in America, 2018: Results of the ASCO Practice Census Survey.

Authors:  M Kelsey Kirkwood; Amy Hanley; Suanna S Bruinooge; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Laura A Levit; Caroline Schenkel; Jerome E Seid; Blase N Polite; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  De novo primary central nervous system pure erythroid leukemia/sarcoma with t(1;16)(p31;q24) NFIA/CBFA2T3 translocation.

Authors:  Huifei Liu; Terri L Guinipero; Kathleen M Schieffer; Chris Carter; Susan Colace; Jeffrey R Leonard; Brent A Orr; Samir B Kahwash; Patrick J Brennan; James R Fitch; Benjamin Kelly; Vincent J Magrini; Peter White; Richard K Wilson; Elaine R Mardis; Catherine E Cottrell; Daniel R Boué
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 7.  Implementation and utilization of the molecular tumor board to guide precision medicine.

Authors:  Shuko Harada; Rebecca Arend; Qian Dai; Jessica A Levesque; Thomas S Winokur; Rongjun Guo; Martin J Heslin; Lisle Nabell; L Burt Nabors; Nita A Limdi; Kevin A Roth; Edward E Partridge; Gene P Siegal; Eddy S Yang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-14

8.  Establishment of a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) and Uptake of Recommendations in a Community Setting.

Authors:  Ari VanderWalde; Axel Grothey; Daniel Vaena; Gregory Vidal; Adam ElNaggar; Gabriella Bufalino; Lee Schwartzberg
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-11-27

9.  Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.

Authors:  Bart Koopman; Harry J M Groen; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Katrien Grünberg; Kim Monkhorst; Adrianus J de Langen; Mirjam C Boelens; Marthe S Paats; Jan H von der Thüsen; Winand N M Dinjens; Nienke Solleveld; Tom van Wezel; Hans Gelderblom; Lizza E Hendriks; Ernst-Jan M Speel; Tom E Theunissen; Leonie I Kroeze; Niven Mehra; Berber Piet; Anthonie J van der Wekken; Arja Ter Elst; Wim Timens; Stefan M Willems; Ruud W J Meijers; Wendy W J de Leng; Anne S R van Lindert; Teodora Radonic; Sayed M S Hashemi; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Ed Schuuring; Léon C van Kempen
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-11-10
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Circulating tumor DNA: current challenges for clinical utility.

Authors:  Donna K Dang; Ben H Park
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 19.456

Review 2.  A clinician's handbook for using ctDNA throughout the patient journey.

Authors:  Samantha O Hasenleithner; Michael R Speicher
Journal:  Mol Cancer       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 27.401

3.  MTPpilot: An Interactive Software for Visualization of Next-Generation Sequencing Results in Molecular Tumor Boards.

Authors:  Abdullah Kahraman; Fabian M Arnold; Jacob Hanimann; Marta Nowak; Chantal Pauli; Christian Britschgi; Holger Moch; Martin Zoche
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2022-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.