Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2025
Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts
Published on: July 25, 2020
Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps
Beryl Primrose Gladstone1,2, Janina Beha3, Arisa Hakariya4
1Department of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. primrose.beryl@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract:
Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) are pivotal in personalized cancer care. This systematic review and meta-analysis included 34 studies out of 576 articles (2020-January 2024) involving 12,176 patients across 26 major cancer entities. Of these, 20.8% (2,532 patients) received MTB-recommended therapies, with 178 outcome measures reported, achieving a median overall survival (OS) of 13.5 months, progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.5 months, and an objective response rate (ORR) of 5-57%. A pooled PFS2/PFS1 ratio ≥ 1.3 from 14 reports was observed in 38% (33-44%) of cases. Comparative data showed improved outcomes for MTB-treated patients, with hazard ratios of 0.46 (0.28-0.76, p < 0.001) for OS in 19 and 0.65 (0.52-0.80, p < 0.001) for PFS in 3 studies. These results highlight the benefits of MTB evaluations in improving outcomes for patients with solid tumors but also emphasize the need for standardized evaluation criteria to enable robust comparisons across studies.
Insights
Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) improve cancer care by recommending targeted therapies. This review shows MTB-guided treatments enhance patient survival and reduce disease progression in solid tumors.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Genomics
- Personalized Medicine
Background:
- Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) are crucial for precision oncology.
- Integrating genomic data into clinical decision-making is complex.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the impact of MTB recommendations on patient outcomes.
- To assess the efficacy of MTB-guided therapies in various solid tumors.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 studies (2020-2024) involving 12,176 patients.
- Analysis of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates (ORR).
Main Results:
- 20.8% of patients received MTB-recommended therapies.
- MTB-treated patients showed improved OS (HR 0.46) and PFS (HR 0.65).
- Median OS: 13.5 months, Median PFS: 4.5 months, ORR: 5-57%.
Conclusions:
- MTB evaluations significantly benefit patients with solid tumors.
- Standardized criteria are needed for consistent MTB evaluations and outcome comparisons.
Related Concept Videos
01:21Cancer Survival Analysis
02:57Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...