Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026

Next Generation Sequencing for the Detection of Actionable Mutations in Solid and Liquid Tumors
Published on: September 20, 2016
From Recommendation to Implementation: Clinical Outcomes of a Single-Center Molecular Tumor Board
Tabea Fröhlich1,2,3, Ulrich Lehmann1,4, Tanja Reineke-Plaaß1,4
1Center for Personalized Medicine (Zentrum für Personalisierte Medizin, ZPM), Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) Hannover (Claudia von Schilling Center), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Background:
Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) support precision oncology by translating genomic profiling into evidence-based treatment recommendations, for example according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Their clinical utility in real-world care depends on effective implementation within healthcare systems.
Objectives:
To evaluate the implementation rate of MTB recommendations, associated determinants, and clinical outcomes in a real-world single-center cohort.
Patients And Methods:
At a single-center MTB, 582 consecutive cases (2020-2023) were retrospectively analyzed, with last survival follow-up in August 2025. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, genomic alterations, ESCAT and ZPM (Zentrum für Personalisierte Medizin) evidence levels, targeted therapy recommendation and implementation rates, survival outcomes, and barriers to implementation were evaluated using descriptive and inferential statistics, as appropriate.
Results:
Of 582 patients (median age 61 years, 48.5% female, 78.2% UICC stage IV), 55.6% (n = 324) received a targeted therapy recommendation, most based on ESCAT I-II evidence (59.9%). Among patients with a therapy recommendation, implementation status was unknown in 83 cases, but at least 23.5% (n = 76) received the proposed therapy. Major barriers included continuation of alternative systemic therapy (n = 89, 53.9%) and best supportive care or death before initiation (n = 54, 32.7%). Stronger levels of evidence (ESCAT per level increase: OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39, p = 0.003; ZPM per level increase: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.19-1.75, p < 0.001) and lower gastrointestinal cancer (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.13-4.93, p = 0.020) were positively associated with increased likelihood of therapy implementation, while extramural molecular profiling showed a trend toward lower uptake (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36-1.03, p = 0.062). Overall survival (OS) from the date of MTB discussion in the full cohort (n = 563) was 11.1 months (95% CI 9.7-12.8). In patients who received at least one prior therapy before MTB discussion (n = 202), OS was 20.1 months (95% CI 12.3-NA) in patients who received the MTB-recommended therapy (n = 62) versus 7.7 months (95% CI 6.5-12.5) in those who did not (n = 140; p < 0.001). Among 31 patients with paired data, PFS under MTB-guided therapy was significantly longer than in the prior line (p = 0.036), with 54.8% achieving a PFS2/PFS1 ratio ≥ 1.3.
Conclusions:
In this real-world analysis, implementation of MTB recommendations was associated with improved survival outcomes. However, systemic, clinical, and logistical barriers substantially limited uptake. Earlier integration of MTBs into treatment planning and targeted strategies to address these barriers may help increase their potential benefit for patients.
Related Concept Videos
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...
