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. 1. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Division of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Authors: Ari VanderWalde; Axel Grothey; Daniel Vaena; Gregory Vidal; Adam ElNaggar; Gabriella Bufalino; Lee Schwartzberg Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-11-27
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
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