The impact of clinical decision making in a molecular tumor board at a tertiary care center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3128-3128
Author(s):  
Meena Sadaps ◽  
Kathryn Demski ◽  
Ying Ni ◽  
Vicky Konig ◽  
Brandie Leach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Genetic Counselors ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

3128 Background: Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards were first established with the onset of precision oncology (PO), as many clinicians were unfamiliar with the interpretation and incorporation of the information into clinical practice. PO has since rapidly evolved and integrated itself into standard of care practices for most cancer patients, yet molecular tumor boards have not grown accordingly and in fact some have been discontinued. There remains a paucity of data in regards to the value and impact of molecular tumor board discussions themselves. We previously reported on our longitudinal experiences in PO ( Sadaps et al, 2018), focusing on the therapeutic impact of matched therapy. Here, we report on the utility of our molecular tumor board in clinical decision making. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients seen at Cleveland Clinic with a solid tumor malignancy who had large panel, next-generation-sequencing (NGS) performed via any commercial platform from November 2019-January 2021. Cases were filtered through a local therapeutic algorithm and then reviewed individually. Initial review was performed by a core genomics committee comprised of 2 oncologists and 2 genetic counselors. Interesting and/or complex cases were flagged for discussion at our bimonthly molecular tumor board, which is regularly attended by medical oncologists, pathologists, genetic counselors, bioinformaticians, and patient care coordinators. Data analyzed included categorization of treatment recommendations and the percentage of cases for which initial recommendations were changed based on tumor board discussion. Results: Of 782 total cases, 575 (73.5%) had a clinically relevant genomics tumor board (GTB) recommendation as compared to 51.7% from our previously reported study. 16.7% of patients had on label recommendation(s) and 86.4% had off label/ clinical trial recommendation(s). 179 (22.9%) patients were recommended for genetic counseling (GC). During our bimonthly GTB, we discussed 173 (22.1%) of these cases. Of the discussed cases, the most common tumor types were hepatobiliary (18.5%), lower gastrointestinal (17.3%), and breast (16.2%). Topics of discussion at GTB included such things as pathologic/histologic/molecular testing, prioritization of available trials, appropriateness of an off label therapy, and need for a genetics consult. Discussion at GTB resulted in a change in treatment recommendation in 63 (36.4%) cases. Conclusions: Discussions from multidisciplinary molecular tumor board impacted treatment decisions for our patients. Referral to GC was also common and should be considered an integral part of somatic sequencing review. Molecular tumor boards remain a crucial platform for treatment guidance and clinical management, especially given the increase in “actionability” over the years due to newly discovered targets and targeted therapies in this rapidly evolving field.

The Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board Precision Oncology elective for Medical Oncology fellows.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11035-11035
Author(s):  
Kristen Marrone ◽  
Jessica Tao ◽  
Jenna VanLiere Canzoniero ◽  
Paola Ghanem ◽  
Emily Nizialek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Genomics ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Adaptive Expertise ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

11035 Background: The accelerated impact of next generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical decision making requires the integration of cancer genomics and precision oncology focused training into medical oncology education. The Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board (JH MTB) is a multi-disciplinary effort focused on integration of NGS findings with critical evidence interpretation to generate personalized recommendations tailored to the genetic footprint of individual patients. Methods: The JH MTB and the Medical Oncology Fellowship Program have developed a 3-month precision oncology elective for fellows in their research years. Commencing fall of 2020, the goals of this elective are to enhance the understanding of NGS platforms and findings, advance the interpretation and characterization of molecular assay outputs by use of mutation annotators and knowledgebases and ultimately master the art of matching NGS findings with available therapies. Fellow integration into the MTB focuses on mentored case-based learning in mutation characterization and ranking by levels of evidence for actionability, with culmination in form of verbal presentations and written summary reports of final MTB recommendations. A mixed methods questionnaire was administered to evaluate progress since elective initiation. Results: Three learners who have participated as of February 2021 were included. Of the two who had completed the MTB elective, each have presented at least 10 cases, with at least 1 scholarly publication planned. All indicated strong agreement that MTB elective had increased their comfort with interpreting clinical NGS reports as well as the use of knowledgebases and variant annotators. Exposure to experts in the field of molecular precision oncology, identification of resources necessary to interpret clinical NGS reports, development of ability to critically assess various NGS platforms, and gained familiarity with computational analyses relevant to clinical decision making were noted as strengths of the MTB elective. Areas of improvement included ongoing initiatives that involve streamlining variant annotation and transcription of information for written reports. Conclusions: A longitudinal elective in the JHU MTB has been found to be preliminarily effective in promoting knowledge mastery and creating academic opportunities related to the clinical application of precision medicine. Future directions will include leveraging of the MTB infrastructure for research projects, learner integration into computational laboratory meetings, and expansion of the MTB curriculum to include different levels of learners from multiple medical education programs. Continued elective participation will be key to understanding how best to facilitate adaptive expertise in assigning clinical relevance to genomic findings, ultimately improving precision medicine delivery in patient care and trial development.

scholarly journals Support systems to guide clinical decision-making in precision oncology: The Cancer Core Europe Molecular Tumor Board Portal

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 992-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Tamborero ◽  
◽  
Rodrigo Dienstmann ◽  
Maan Haj Rachid ◽  
Jorrit Boekel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board in Clinical Decision Making at the Medical Center University of Freiburg

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3579-3579
Author(s):  
Rainer Claus ◽  
Lisa Lutz ◽  
Hauke Busch ◽  
Leman Mehmed ◽  
Agnes Csanadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Molecular Data ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Organ Specific ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
Made In

Abstract Introduction: In-depth knowledge about molecular pathogenesis of malignant diseases and rapidly increasing availability of targeted treatment options enables molecularly guided decision-making. We have established a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) that focuses on patient management based on specific molecular data at the individual patient level. Methods: The MTB has its main focus on hematologic and solid neoplasias progressing during standard treatment, on rare entities and on patients with treatment resistance. The biweekly MTB supports the work of organ-specific boards and external cooperation partners. The MTB multidisciplinary team consists of expert physicians from Hematology, Medical Oncology, Gynecology, Dermatology, Pediatrics and Radiation Oncology as well as Pathology, Molecular biology, Computational Biology and Genetics. Diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations are based on customized diagnostics and a case-by-case literature review. Recommendations are communicated back to the treating physician. Results: In the first year after implementation of the MTB, a total of 92 pts have been discussed in 155 case discussions during 25 MTB meetings. Referred patient cases covered the entire range of malignancies seen by the organ-specific boards including hematologic malignancies. 132 diagnostic recommendations were made in 80/92 (87%) pts, including IHC, ISH or panel sequencing with diagnostic reporting (n=96/72 pts) and exome, genome, transcriptome and/or methylome analysis (n=24/22 pts.). 43 treatment recommendations were made in 39/92 (42%) pts with an implementation rate of 47% (20/43 recommendations in 19/39 pts). Treatment recommendations mainly comprised off-label antibody and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy (40%) and trial inclusions (28%). Major reasons for non-adherence to recommendations included patient will, death of pts and medical reasons. Objective responses were observed in 5/19 (26%) pts to TKI in- and off-label and antibody off-label treatments. Disease stabilization was achieved in 3/19 (16%) pts. Specifically, the use of PD-(L)1 inhibiting antibodies was suggested in 13 cases (11 off-label) and implemented in 6 cases. Here, 2/6 pts responded or exhibited stable disease upon PD-(L1) blockage. Conclusion: Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board serves as an interdisciplinary platform for integrating comprehensive molecular data sets as predictive biomarkers in molecular guided, individualized patient care. Our experience demonstrates that individualized treatment recommendation is feasible and effective for a substantial proportion of patients in challenging clinical situations. Disclosures Claus: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Funding.

scholarly journals INNV-28. MOLECULAR TESTING IN NEURO-ONCOLOGY – ASSESSMENT OF UTILITY AND PRACTICE PATTERNS. A SOCIETY FOR NEURO-ONCOLOGY MEMBERSHIP SURVEY

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi136-vi136
Author(s):  
Maciej Mrugala ◽  
Susan Chang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Educational Programs ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
The Subject

Abstract BACKGROUND Molecular testing (MT) is utilized in neuro-oncology with increasing frequency. Multiple molecular panels are available providing a spectrum of information. We were interested in learning how this information is acquired, what are the practice patterns regarding this type of testing, how are the results utilized in patient care and how prepared neuro-oncologists are to interpret these results. METHODS We conducted a survey using the Society for Neuro-Oncology membership database. We developed a set of 13 questions and administered the survey to 2022 members using the online platform. RESULTS We received 153 responses (7.5% of membership). 89% percent of responders routinely order MT. Of those who do not order MT on all patients, 50% test younger patients and 57% midline tumors. 83% use MT in recurrent glioma. Other common indications for MT included: metastatic tumors, meningioma, medulloblastoma, ATRT. Majority (60%) use in-house panels, followed by Foundation One (35%), TEMPUS (13%), CARIS (10%) and other panels (23%). For 57% of respondents, the data from MT was somewhat useful and for 41% it was very useful. 78% used the results of MT for clinical decision-making. BRAF, EGFR/ALK, H3K27 mutations were most commonly used for treatment decisions. 50% of respondents have molecular tumor boards at their institutions and a majority of practitioners share the results of MT with their patients (95%). Respondents would like to see SNO-endorsed official guidelines on MT, organized lists of targeted agents available for specific mutations, a database of targetable mutations and clinical trials and more educational programs on the subject. CONCLUSIONS Molecular testing is neuro-oncology is commonly done. Many providers rely on the information for clinical decision making where appropriate. In-house and commercial genetic panels are equally used in practice. There continues to be a need for more education on the subject and development of neuro-oncology specific guidelines.

Abstract P214: Patient and Physician Factors Influence Decision-Making in Hypercholesterolemia

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 131 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Krempf ◽  
Ross J Simpson ◽  
Dena R Ramey ◽  
Philippe Brudi ◽  
Hilde Giezek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Goal Attainment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Double Blind

Objectives: Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians’ treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We surveyed physicians’ treatment recommendations in high-risk patients with LDL-C not controlled on statin monotherapy. Methods: Physicians completed a questionnaire pre-randomization for each patient in a double-blind trial (NCT01154036) assessing LDL-C goal attainment rates with different treatment strategies. Patients had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks’ atorvastatin 10 mg/day and before randomization. Physicians were asked about treatment recommendations for three scenarios: (1) LDL-C near goal (100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C far from goal (120 mg/dL), then (3) known baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients on atorvastatin 10 mg/day. Factors considered in their choice were specified. Physicians had been informed of projected LDL-C reductions for each treatment strategy in the trial. Regression analysis identified prognostic factors associated with each scenario, and projected LDL-C values for physicians’ treatment choices were compared to actual LDL-C values achieved in the trial. Results: Physicians at 296 sites completed questionnaires for 1535 patients. The most common treatment strategies for all three scenarios were: 1) not to change therapy, 2) double atorvastatin dose, 3) add ezetimibe, 4) double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe. Doubling atorvastatin dose was the most common treatment recommendation in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). ‘No change in therapy’ was recommended in 6.5% of patients when LDL-C was assumed far from goal. Treatment recommendations were more aggressive if actual LDL-C was known or considered far from goal. When compared with the ‘no change in therapy’ recommendation, CV risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were generally considered in decision-making for each treatment choice, regardless of LDL-C scenario. Patients randomized to a more aggressive regimen than recommended by physicians had larger reductions in LDL-C: the actual reduction in LDL-C in patients randomized to ‘add ezetimibe’ was -20.8% versus a projected reduction of -10.0% when physicians recommended ‘doubling atorvastatin dose’. Conclusions: This study provides insight into physicians’ perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. Targeting lower LDL-C and CV risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making but, generally, physicians were more conservative in their treatment choice than guidelines recommend, which may result in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.

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.

A comparison of patients' and physicians' expectations regarding precision oncology tests.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1568-1568
Author(s):  
Navdeep Dehar ◽  
Tasnima Abedin ◽  
Patricia A. Tang ◽  
D. Gwyn Bebb ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
Survey Responses

1568 Background: With the increasing number and frequency of biomarker and genetic tests that are offered to patients with cancer, it is important to ensure that they fully understand the implications of these tests. In this survey study, we aimed to compare the attitudes and expectations of patients and cancer physicians about the role of biomarker and genetic testing in clinical decision-making. Methods: Two separate, complimentary, self-administered questionnaires for cancer patients and their physicians, respectively, were collected in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Survey responses from patients were subsequently matched with those of their corresponding oncologists to form patient–oncologist dyads. We determined the concordance rates between responses of patients and those of their oncologists. Results: A total of 113 patients and 15 physicians participated in the study from July to September 2019. Patients demonstrated good understanding of general cancer biology (79%) and diagnostic processes (91%) associated with precision oncology. About 70% patients were willing to undergo minor procedures, and participate in research involving biomarker or genetic testing; however, this was over-estimated by their physicians in 82% of cases. Many patients felt that their tumor should be tested to guide treatment (70%) and were not bothered by potential delays in treatment due to testing (23%). These views from patients were largely shared by their oncologists (concordance 64%). While only 28% patients thought that they had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, majority (68%) said that they needed more information. Importantly, knowledge and expectations regarding the applications of biomarker or genetic test results on actual diagnosis and prognosis were grossly discrepant between patients and their oncologists (concordance 26% and 36%, respectively). Conclusions: Patients and cancer physicians tend to be aware of the advances in precision oncology and are willing to participate in biomarker and genetic testing and research. However, they do not consistently agree about the roles and applications of these tests, which may result in misplaced expectations. Strategies to improve education and communication are needed to align these expectations and improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

scholarly journals Transitioning the Molecular Tumor Board from Proof of Concept to Clinical Routine: A German Single-Center Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 1151
Author(s):  
Rouven Hoefflin ◽  
Adriana Lazarou ◽  
Maria Elena Hess ◽  
Meike Reiser ◽  
Julius Wehrle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Adherence ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Clinical Routine ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
Over Time

Molecular precision oncology faces two major challenges: first, to identify relevant and actionable molecular variants in a rapidly changing field and second, to provide access to a broad patient population. Here, we report a four-year experience of the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Freiburg (Germany) including workflows and process optimizations. This retrospective single-center study includes data on 488 patients enrolled in the MTB from February 2015 through December 2018. Recommendations include individual molecular diagnostics, molecular stratified therapies, assessment of treatment adherence and patient outcomes including overall survival. The majority of MTB patients presented with stage IV oncologic malignancies (90.6%) and underwent an average of 2.1 previous lines of therapy. Individual diagnostic recommendations were given to 487 patients (99.8%). A treatment recommendation was given in 264 of all cases (54.1%) which included a molecularly matched treatment in 212 patients (43.4%). The 264 treatment recommendations were implemented in 76 patients (28.8%). Stable disease was observed in 19 patients (25.0%), 17 had partial response (22.4%) and five showed a complete remission (6.6%). An objective response was achieved in 28.9% of cases with implemented recommendations and for 4.5% of the total population (22 of 488 patients). By optimizing the MTB workflow, case-discussions per session increased significantly while treatment adherence and outcome remained stable over time. Our data demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of molecular-guided personalized therapy for cancer patients in a clinical routine setting showing a low but robust and durable disease control rate over time.

scholarly journals Challenges and Experiences Extending the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics to a Molecular Tumor Board Platform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niklas Reimer ◽  
Philipp Unberath ◽  
Hauke Busch ◽  
Melanie Börries ◽  
Patrick Metzger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Genomics ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Molecular Profile ◽  
Therapy Recommendations ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Research Platform ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
Aid Decision

In Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), therapy recommendations for cancer patients are discussed. To aid decision-making based on the patient’s molecular profile, the research platform cBioPortal was extended based on users’ requirements. Additionally, a comprehensive dockerized workflow was developed to support the deployment of cBioPortal and connected services. In this work, we present the challenges and experiences of nearly two years of implementing and deploying an MTB platform based on cBioPortal and compare those to findings of a previous study.

Implementation and impact of the first two years of a systemwide molecular tumor board at Henry Ford Health System (HFHS).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19266-e19266
Author(s):  
Igor I. Rybkin ◽  
Nadia Z Haque ◽  
Kristen Collins ◽  
Louisa Laidlaw ◽  
Tom Mikkelsen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
The Impact

e19266 Background: HFHS implemented clinically-oriented Precision Medicine Program (PMP) in 2016. As part of the program, multidisciplinary molecular tumor board (MTB) was created to review complex molecular cases, providing guidance to treating medical oncologist in selecting targeted therapies and clinical trials. In some cases MTB recommended genetic counseling or recommended against/for additional molecular testing. MTB consists of oncologists, molecular pathologists, clinical trial staff, and genetic counselors. MTB was designed as teaching platform engaging hematology-oncology fellows into cases analysis and presentation. Here we present preliminary analysis of the impact of the MTB on the HFHS oncology practice. Methods: From 09/08/2017 to 12/31/2019 MTB reviewed 120 cases, 116 cases were used for this analysis. Data was abstracted using Syapse precision oncology platform, MTB recommendation note, electronic medical record (EMR), and molecular test results. Results: Out of 116 pts 83 (72%) were Caucasian, 25 (22%) African American, 4 (3%) Asian, 1 (1%) American Indian. Fifty-two % (n = 21) had an ECOG performance status of 1. Most common primary disease sites were lung (39%, n = 45) brain (12%, n = 15), and hematologic cancers (9%; n = 10), followed by breast (5%, n = 6), prostate (4%, n = 5), colon (3%, n = 4), and others (28%, n = 31). The most common genetic abnormalities discussed were atypical EGFR (n = 15), non-V600 BRAF (n = 10), KRAS (n = 8), BRCA2 (n = 5), NF2 (n = 4), PTEN (n = 4), CSF3R (n = 3), IDH1 (n = 3), TP53 (n = 3), and 29 less common mutations. Thirty five (30%) pts out of 116 total were recommended clinical trials, although only 3 patients (10% of recommended) were enrolled into trials. 31 pts (27%) were recommended off-label therapy, although trials were preferred. 18% of pts (n = 21) were recommended genetics referral, although only 3 have seen Geneticist, with two undergoing germline testing. One pt was discovered to have a germline RET V804M mutation which was originally detected in the cancer. Conclusions: The first two years of data demonstrate the utility of the MTB and provide a basis for ongoing analysis. Through multidisciplinary approach, MTB encourages care coordination and collaboration. MTB resulted in genetics referrals, clinical trial recommendations, and identification of targeted therapy options, including off label. In many cases, MTB recommendations prevented futile therapies and/or additional molecular testing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document