scholarly journals EPCT-02. COMPARISON OF TARGETED AGENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE CNS-TAP TOOL TO THOSE SELECTED BY A TUMOR BOARD IN A MOLECULARLY-DRIVEN DIPG CLINICAL TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i46-i46
Author(s):  
Holly Roberts ◽  
Karthik Ravi ◽  
Bernard Marini ◽  
Cassie Kline ◽  
Sabine Mueller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anticancer Agents ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Tumor Boards

Abstract Recently, sequencing of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) biopsy specimens has revealed genomic heterogeneity of these tumors, fueling an interest in individualized, targeted treatment options. The Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium recently completed enrollment onto a feasibility study PNOC003: Molecular Profiling for Individualized Treatment Plan for DIPG (NCT02274987), in which a multidisciplinary tumor board recommended molecularly-targeted agents based on genomic and molecular profiling of each patient’s tumor. Separately, our group developed the Central Nervous System Targeted Agent Prediction (CNS-TAP) tool, which combines pre-clinical, clinical, and CNS penetration data with patient-specific genomic information to allow for numeric scoring of targeted anticancer agents to objectively evaluate these therapies for use in patients with CNS tumors. We hypothesized that highly-scored agents within CNS-TAP would overlap with the agents recommended by the tumor board in this study. For each PNOC003 participant, we utilized the genomic report to identify actionable alterations and input patient-specific data into CNS-TAP to identify the highest scoring agents. We compared high-scoring agents within CNS-TAP with recommendations from the PNOC003 tumor board for each of the enrolled 28 subjects. Overall, 93% (26/28) of patients had at least one agent recommended by both the tumor board and CNS-TAP. Additionally, 38% (37/95) of all agents recommended by the tumor board were also selected by CNS-TAP. Furthermore, we identified factors that likely contributed to the discordance between these two methods. Without clinician input, CNS-TAP is unable to account for drug-drug interactions, includes only designated anticancer agents, and cannot easily be updated in real time. However, CNS-TAP provides an objective evaluation of targeted therapies, whereas tumor boards are inherently subjective. Given the discordance identified between these methods and the strengths of each, a prospective study incorporating both CNS-TAP and a molecular tumor board for targeted therapy selection in DIPG patients is warranted.

scholarly journals CLRM-06. COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUALIZED ANTI-CANCER THERAPY REGIMENS RECOMMENDED BY A MULTIDISCIPLINARY MOLECULARLY-DRIVEN TUMOR BOARD IN A PEDIATRIC DIPG CLINICAL TRIAL (PNOC003) VERSUS THOSE SELECTED BY THE CNS-TAP TOOL

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. iv2-iv2
Author(s):  
Holly Roberts ◽  
Karthik Ravi ◽  
Allison Schepers ◽  
Bernard Marini ◽  
Cassie Kline ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anticancer Agents ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Individualized Treatment ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Genomic Profiling

Abstract Genetic sequencing of diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) has revealed genomic heterogeneity, fueling an interest in individualized targeted therapies. A feasibility study, PNOC003: Molecular Profiling for Individualized Treatment Plan for DIPG (NCT02274987), was completed within the Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium in which a multidisciplinary tumor board reviewed molecular and genomic profiling of each participant’s tumor to make targeted therapy recommendations. Separately, our team developed the Central Nervous System Targeted Agent Prediction (CNS-TAP) tool, which combines pre-clinical, clinical, and CNS penetration data with patient-specific genomic information to derive numeric scores for anticancer agents to objectively evaluate these therapies for use in patients with CNS tumors. We hypothesized that agents highly-scored by CNS-TAP would overlap with agents recommended by the PNOC003 tumor board. For each study participant, we retrospectively utilized the genomic profiling report to identify actionable alterations and incorporated these data into CNS-TAP to find the highest-scoring agents. We compared these CNS-TAP-recommended agents with recommendations from the tumor board for each of the 28 PNOC003 participants. Overall, 93% of patients (26/28) had at least one agent recommended by both the tumor board and CNS-TAP. Additionally, 38% of all agents (36/95) chosen by the tumor board were also selected by CNS-TAP. When only molecularly targeted anticancer agents were included in a sub-analysis, 60% of agents (34/57) were recommended by both methods. At present, we are prospectively evaluating the CNS-TAP tool within PNOC008: A Pilot Trial Testing the Clinical Benefit of Using Molecular Profiling to Determine an Individualized Treatment Plan in Children and Young Adults with High-Grade Glioma (NCT03739372). The CNS-TAP tool recommendations are shared during the PNOC008 molecular tumor board meetings once a consensus treatment recommendation has been reached. Subsequent analyses will focus on any adjustments in therapy decisions within the tumor board that result from the CNS-TAP tool output.

INNV-16. CNS-TAP TOOL RECOMMENDATIONS OF TARGETED ANTI-CANCER AGENTS COMPARED TO THOSE SELECTED BY A MULTIDISCIPLINARY TUMOR BOARD IN A MOLECULARLY-DRIVEN DIPG CLINICAL TRIAL (PNOC003)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi108-vi108
Author(s):  
Holly Roberts ◽  
Karthik Ravi ◽  
Allison Schepers ◽  
Bernard Marini ◽  
Cassie Kline ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anticancer Agents ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Targeted Treatment ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Genetic Sequencing ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Multidisciplinary Tumor Board

Abstract Genetic sequencing of diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) has revealed genomic heterogeneity, sparking an interest in individualized and targeted treatment options for this particularly devastating disease. A feasibility study, PNOC003: Molecular Profiling for Individualized Treatment Plan for DIPG (NCT02274987), was completed within the Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium. In this study, a multidisciplinary tumor board reviewed detailed molecular and genomic profiling of each participant’s tumor and made molecularly-targeted treatment recommendations. Separately, our team developed the Central Nervous System Targeted Agent Prediction (CNS-TAP) tool, which combines pre-clinical, clinical, and CNS penetration data with patient-specific genomic information to derive numeric scores for targeted anticancer agents, aimed to objectively evaluate these therapies for use in patients with CNS tumors. We hypothesized that highly-scored agents within CNS-TAP would overlap with the agents recommended by the tumor board in PNOC003. For each study participant, we used the genomic profiling report to identify actionable alterations and incorporated these data into CNS-TAP to identify the highest-scoring agents. We compared high-scoring agents within CNS-TAP with recommendations from the tumor board for each of the enrolled 28 participants. Overall, 93% of patients (26/28) had at least one agent recommended by both the tumor board and CNS-TAP. Additionally, 38% of all agents (36/95) recommended by the tumor board were also selected by CNS-TAP. We identified factors that likely contributed to the differences in therapy recommendations between these two methods: CNS-TAP requires additional clinician input to account for drug-drug interactions, includes only classically-defined anticancer agents, and cannot easily be updated in real-time as new data emerge. However, CNS-TAP provides an objective evaluation of targeted therapies, whereas tumor boards are inherently subjective. A prospective study incorporating both CNS-TAP and a molecular tumor board for targeted therapy selection in high-grade glioma is currently ongoing to further compare and objectively evaluate these methods.

Targeted agents recommended by the CNS TAP tool compared to those selected by a tumor board in a molecularly-driven clinical trial in children and young adults with DIPG.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2048-2048
Author(s):  
Holly Roberts ◽  
Karthik Ravi ◽  
Cassie Kline ◽  
Sabine Mueller ◽  
Carl Johannes Koschmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anticancer Agents ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Genetic Sequencing ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

2048 Background: Genetic sequencing of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) and diffuse midline glioma (DMG) biopsy specimens has revealed genomic heterogeneity, fueling an interest in individualized, targeted treatment options. The Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Consortium recently completed a feasibility study PNOC003: Molecular Profiling for Individualized Treatment Plan for DIPG (NCT02274987), in which a multidisciplinary tumor board recommended targeted agents based on the molecular and genetic profiling of each patient’s tumor. Separately, our group developed a numeric scoring tool of targeted anticancer agents, the Central Nervous System Targeted Agent Prediction (CNS TAP) tool, which combines pre-clinical, clinical, and CNS penetration data with patient-specific genomic information to generate a numeric score for each agent to objectively evaluate these targeted therapies for use in patients with CNS tumors. We hypothesized that highly-scored agents within the CNS-TAP tool would overlap, at least in part, with the agents recommended by the molecular tumor board in PNOC003. Methods: For each study participant (n=28), a retrospective analysis was completed, utilizing the genomic report to identify actionable genetic alterations and to input patient-specific data into CNS TAP to identify the highest scoring agents. We compared high-scoring agents within the CNS TAP tool with recommendations from the PNOC003 tumor board for each of the enrolled 28 patients. Results: Overall, 93% (26/28) of patients had at least one agent recommended by both the tumor board and CNS TAP. Additionally, 39% (37/95) of all agents recommended by the tumor board were also selected by CNS TAP, with additional analysis ongoing. Conclusions: There was significant overlap between the highest-scoring and selected agents via CNS TAP compared with those chose by the molecular tumor board. Through this work, we also identified factors that likely contributed to the discordance in choice of targeted therapies. Without clinician input, the CNS TAP tool is unable to account for drug-drug interactions, includes only designated anticancer agents, and cannot easily be updated in real time, requiring extensive manual literature review for each included agent. However, CNS TAP provides an objective evaluation of targeted therapies, in contrast to inherently subjective recommendations of a tumor board. Given the discordance identified between these methods and the strengths of each, a prospective study incorporating both CNS TAP and a molecular tumor board for targeted therapy selection in patients with high grade glioma is warranted.

Comparison of treatment plans feasible through AI enabled multidisciplinary online tumor board solution versus NCCN-based clinical decision support system (CDSS).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 816-816
Author(s):  
Bhawna Sirohi ◽  
Sushil Beriwal ◽  
C. S. Pramesh ◽  
Supriya Chopra ◽  
Mahesh Goel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Treatment Plans

816 Background: Multidisciplinary tumor boards at Academic Medical Centers (AMC) maximize cancer outcomes. Guidelines based CDSS are alternatives to determine care pathways. Since 2015, 300 AMC cancer experts in USA and India use an AI enabled online tumor board solution, “NAVYA,” to scale low cost access to multidisciplinary expertise, on 1-2 minutes of expert time per decision (ASCO 2017). Methods: GI patients who used NAVYA between 5/1/15-8/31/19 were analyzed. Actionable treatment plans generated by NAVYA were compared to NCCN. Actionable treatment plans include chemotherapy protocols (doses, frequencies), radiation protocols (sites, fractions), etc. Inactionable specialty level decisions (CT-RT vs. surgery) lack specificity. Results: 1302 patients (4638 treatment decisions) were analyzed: 61% (794) male, 80% between age 45 to 75, mostly with Colon, Pancreas, Gallbladder, Rectum, or Stomach cancer; 49.7% non-metastatic. Cohort was comparable to GLOBOCAN estimates. In 82.2% (3812/4638) decisions, NAVYA added value beyond NCCN. First, in 4.5% (212/4638), NAVYA recommended a patient-specific treatment plan that was not part of NCCN. Second, in 3.2% (148/4638), NAVYA recommended treatments plan for clinical scenarios not covered by NCCN, (for eg. 3rd line therapies). Third, in 74.5% (3452/4638), NAVYA used patient specific criteria including resource constraints and patient preference to choose a treatment plan amongst the multiple pathways provided by NCCN and added actionable treatment details. Conclusions: Guideline based CDSS are insufficient to make the vast majority of actionable treatment decisions. Scaling rapid access to multidisciplinary experts is critical. Leapfrogging existing guidelines based CDSS, NAVYA online tumor board makes actionable expert treatment plans possible at a large scale.

scholarly journals Personalized Medicine in the Oncology Clinic: Implementation and Outcomes of the Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brian Dalton ◽  
Patrick M. Forde ◽  
Hyunseok Kang ◽  
Roisin M. Connolly ◽  
Vered Stearns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

Purpose Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. Methods A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. Results One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months ( 95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43% (95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. Conclusion The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic diseases.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 319-319
Author(s):  
David G. Brauer ◽  
Matthew S. Strand ◽  
Dominic E. Sanford ◽  
Maria Majella Doyle ◽  
Faris Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

319 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a requirement for comprehensive cancer centers and are routinely used to coordinate multidisciplinary care in oncology. Despite their widespread use, the impact of MTBs is not well characterized. We studied the outcomes of all patients presented at our pancreas MTB, with the goal of evaluating our current practices and resource utilization. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for all patients presented at a weekly pancreas-specific MTB over the 12-month period at a single-institution NCI-designated cancer center. The conference is attended by surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, interventional gastroenterologists, pathologists, and radiologists (diagnostic and interventional). Retrospective chart review was performed at the end of the 12-month period under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: A total of 470 patient presentations were made over a 12-month period. Average age at time of presentation was 61.5 years (range 17 – 89) with 51% males. 61.7% of cases were presented by surgical oncologists and 26% by medical oncologists. 174 cases were the result of new diagnoses or referrals. 78 patients were presented more than once (average of 2.3 times). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common diagnosis (37%), followed by uncharacterized pancreatic mass (16%), and pancreatic cyst (7%). The treatment plan proposed by the presenting clinician was known or could be evaluated prior to conference in 402 cases. Presentation of a case at MTB changed the plan of management 25% (n = 100) of the time, including MTB recommendation against a planned resection in 46 cases. When the initial plan changed as a result of MTB discussion, the most common new plan was to obtain further diagnostic testing such as biopsy and/or endoscopy (n = 24). Conclusions: MTBs are required and resource-intensive but offer the opportunity to discuss a wide array of pathologies and influence management decisions in a sizable proportion of cases. Additional investigations evaluating adherence rates to MTB decisions and to published guidelines (i.e. National Comprehensive Cancer Network) will further enhance the assessment and utility of MTBs.

scholarly journals An Analysis of a Multidisciplinary Lymphoma Virtual Tumor Board with Regional and International Participation

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2247-2247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Habermann ◽  
Ruth A Lentz ◽  
John J Schmitz ◽  
Alexander G von Bormann ◽  
Jason Young ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Treatment Approach ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Continuous Medical Education ◽  
World Health ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Pathologic Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Boards

Abstract Introduction: Outcomes of multidisciplinary and molecular tumor boards have been reported. Lymphoma specific tumor board outcomes have not been reported in the molecular era. In addition, the utility of multi-site, interactive tumor boards using videoconference technology are not widely reported. We prospectively followed the outcomes of a multidisciplinary multi-site lymphoma tumor board in the molecular era and during a change in the revision of the World Health Organization Classification in first published in 2016. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the international Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate specialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, and discussion followed by recommendations. Requirement for presentation includes having a diagnosis of lymphoma with pathology reviewed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (MCR). Pathology and radiology material, when relevant to the case, are required to be reviewed at MCR and presented by MCR pathologists/radiologists. Patients must be presented prospectively, and have active clinical issues or questions to be addressed. Four cases are presented per 60-minute meeting. 309 consecutive highly selected cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from 2014 to 2018. The pathology material was independently reviewed by the presenting hematopathologists and radiology material by the presenting radiologist. Participants are office based and included multiple members of the health care team which also incudes pharmacists, clinical research associates affiliated with lymphoma research, and physicians in training. Recommendations were prospectively tracked for changes in radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Actual follow-up of all patients after the meeting was not allowed in the MCCN. Participation in the meeting can be either via in-room attendance at MCR, video conference at a participating MCCN site, or via non-participatory live-stream online. Results: 309 cases were presented were presented from 2014-2018. 258 cases were from MCR, and 51 were not physically seen at MCR. 16 cases were presented at a subsequent meeting for further recommendations in the course of their disease after the initial presentation. 54% of patients presented had changes in some aspect of their care as a result of the meeting. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 5 (1.6%) patients. The pathologic diagnosis changed in 27 (8.7%). Additional testing was recommended in 44 (14%). Clinical management changes were recommended in 90 (29%) cases. These included alterations in treatment approach in 43 (14%), change from undecided to pursuit of treatment 10 (3%), change from undecided regarding treatment approach to further diagnostic testing 4 (1.3%), change from observation to treatment 9 (3%), change from treatment to observation 4 (1.3%), and treatment to further tests in 2 (0.6%) Site in room average attendance (internal/external) was 16.8/8.6. Non-participatory live-stream attendance was not possible to track. In an annual electronic evaluation of this activity, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no changes to the format of the conference. Enhancements over time have included Continuous Medical Education credit, an in room microscope, and real-time radiology images. Selected cases will now be on line on an international web site. Conclusion: In this highly selected group of lymphoma cases from multiple sites over a 4-year period, 54% of the (167/309) case presentations resulted in changes to some aspect of care as a direct result of this tumor board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was of value, efficacious, and meaningfully impacted lymphoma patients while substantially enhancing interdisciplinary interactions. Disclosures Ansell: Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Bayesian Framework to Augment Tumor Board Decision Making

2021 ◽  
pp. 508-517
Author(s):  
Stefano Pasetto ◽  
Robert A. Gatenby ◽  
Heiko Enderling
Keyword(s):  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Specific Response ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Mathematical Tool ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Board Decision Making

PURPOSE Ideally, specific treatment for a cancer patient is decided by a multidisciplinary tumor board, integrating prior clinical experience, published data, and patient-specific factors to develop a consensus on an optimal therapeutic strategy. However, many oncologists lack access to a tumor board, and many patients have incomplete data descriptions so that tumor boards must act on imprecise criteria. We propose these limitations to be addressed through a flexible but rigorous mathematical tool that can define the probability of success of given therapies and be made readily available to the oncology community. METHODS We present a Bayesian approach to tumor forecasting using a multimodel framework to predict patient-specific response to different targeted therapies even when historical data are incomplete. RESULTS We demonstrate that the Bayesian decision theory's integrative power permits the simultaneous assessment of a range of therapeutic options. CONCLUSION This methodology proposed, built upon a robust and well-established mathematical framework, can play a crucial role in supporting patient-specific clinical decisions by individual oncologists and multispecialty tumor boards.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary Cancer Management of Colorectal Cancer in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Biniyam Tefera Deressa ◽  
Nikola Cihoric ◽  
Ephrem Tefesse ◽  
Mathewos Assefa ◽  
Daniel Zemenfes
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Colorectal Cancers ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Retrospective Assessment ◽  
Tumor Boards

PURPOSE Multidisciplinary cancer care is currently considered worldwide as standard for the management of patients with cancer. It improves patient diagnostic and staging accuracy and provides patients the benefit of having physicians of various specialties participating in their treatment plan. The purpose of this study was to describe the profile of patients discussed in the Tikur Anbessa Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) and the potential benefits brought by multidisciplinary care. METHODS The study involved the retrospective assessment of all patient cases presented to the Tikur Anbessa Hospital colorectal cancers MTB between March 2016 and November 2017. The data were collected from the MTB medical summary documents and were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). RESULTS Of 147 patients with colorectal cancer, 96 (65%) were men. The median age at presentation was 46 years (range, 17-78 years). The predominant cancer was rectal (n = 101; 69%), followed by colon (n = 24; 16%). Of these, 68 (45%) and 22 (15%) had stage III and IV disease, respectively, on presentation to the MTB. The oncology department presented the majority of the patients for discussion. Most patients had undergone surgery before the MTB discussion but had no proper preoperative clinical staging information. The majority of patients with rectal cancer treated before the MTB discussion had undergone surgery upfront; however, most of the patients who were treatment naive before MTB received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery. CONCLUSION Decisions made by tumor boards are more likely to conform to evidence-based guidelines than are those made by individual clinicians. Therefore, early referral of patients to MTB before any treatment should be encouraged. Finally, other hospitals in Ethiopia should take a lesson from the Tikur Anbessa Hospital colorectal cancers MTB and adopt multidisciplinary cancer management.

The PLATON pilot-study “Platform for analyzing targetable tumor mutations”: A PLATON network study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6598-TPS6598
Author(s):  
Arndt Vogel ◽  
Bianca Zäpf ◽  
Thorsten Oliver Goetze ◽  
Benedikt Westphalen ◽  
Lothar Müller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Molecular Profile ◽  
Curative Therapy ◽  
Esophagogastric Cancer ◽  
Study Sites

TPS6598 Background: PLATON Network is designed as a platform to improve personalized therapy based on genomic profiles in gastrointestinal cancer patients. PLATON’s study-design focuses on patient’s molecular profiling and will provide a network web application for interlinking PLATON investigators which integrates information of the participating centers, their patients, the molecular profiles and available clinical trials at PLATON`s study-sites. Methods: The PLATON Network is designed as a permanent open, multicenter, prospective, cohort study with biobanking, with a shared platform infrastructure for associated sub-studies. In a first approach the PLATON Network enrolls within its pilot-study 200 patients in Germany of both sexes and ages over 18 at 40 study sites (NCT04484636) with signed informed consent. All patients of the pilot-study are diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC), intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCA), gallbladder carcinoma (GBCA), pancreatic cancer (PDCA) or esophagogastric cancer (EC/GC). At the time of enrolment, patients are within their first-line therapy and no local curative therapy is available. Molecular profiling will be performed with the Foundation Medicine Assays FoundationOne CDx and FoundationOne Liquid CDx. Investigators may use the platform for searching clinical trials matching the individual molecular profile of their patients or may identify a patient, who may be eligible for a study or other treatment options available at the corresponding centers of the PLATON network. The interactive network web application will comprise a dashboard and a moderated chat room to interact for example in a virtual Molecular Tumor Board. The first patient was included on the 25th of November 2020. Up to 12th of February 2021, a total of 36 patients HCC (N = 1), CCA (N = 6), PDCA (N = 12), GBCA (N = 0) and EC/GC (N = 16) were enrolled at 11 study-sites and the results of 29 genetic analyses were completed. All cohorts of the pilot-study are open for recruitments up to a maximum of 40 individuals per diagnostic group. Clinical trial information: NCT04484636.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document