Scheiter, Alexander and Hierl, Frederik and Lueke, Florian and Keil, Felix and Heudobler, Daniel and Einhell, Sabine and Klier-Richter, Margit and Konstandin, Nikola P. and Weber, Florian and Scheiter, Andrea and Kandulski, Arne and Schlosser, Sophie and Cosma, Lidia-Sabina and Tews, Hauke and Weiss, Andreas R. R. and Grube, Matthias and Bumes, Elisabeth and Hau, Peter and Proescholdt, Martin and Steger, Felix and Troeger, Anja and Haferkamp, Sebastian and Reibenspies, Lucas E. and Schnabel, Marco J. and Schulz, Christian and Drexler, Konstantin and Hatzipanagiotou, Maria E. and Seitz, Stephan and Klinkhammer-Schalke, Monika and Unberath, Philipp and Calvisi, Diego F. and Pukrop, Tobias and Dietmaier, Wolfgang and Evert, Matthias and Utpatel, Kirsten (2023) Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 128 (6). pp. 1134-1147. ISSN 0007-0920, 1532-1827
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | FUSION; CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA; PLATFORM; GENOMICS; |
| Subjects: | 600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine |
| Divisions: | Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Chirurgie Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Dermatologie und Venerologie Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Innere Medizin I Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Innere Medizin III (Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie) Medicine > Abteilung für Pädiatrische Hämatologie, Onkologie und Stammzelltransplantation Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Innere Medizin II Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Neurochirurgie Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Neurologie Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Pathologie Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Strahlentherapie Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Urologie Medicine > Zentren des Universitätsklinikums Regensburg > Tumorzentrum e.V. |
| Depositing User: | Dr. Gernot Deinzer |
| Date Deposited: | 05 Mar 2024 09:08 |
| Last Modified: | 05 Mar 2024 09:08 |
| URI: | https://pred.uni-regensburg.de/id/eprint/56614 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
