Yan Ling, Xiao-Dong Jiao, Bao-Dong Qin, Jiang-Shui Ding, Zhan Wang, Ke Liu, Wen-Xing Qin, Ying Wu, Li Sun, Dong-Min Shi, Shi-Qi Chen, Xue Zhong, Xiao-Peng Duan, Bing Li, Yuan-Sheng Zang
{"title":"Impact of Molecular Tumor Board on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Refractory Solid Tumor: a Real-World Study.","authors":"Yan Ling, Xiao-Dong Jiao, Bao-Dong Qin, Jiang-Shui Ding, Zhan Wang, Ke Liu, Wen-Xing Qin, Ying Wu, Li Sun, Dong-Min Shi, Shi-Qi Chen, Xue Zhong, Xiao-Peng Duan, Bing Li, Yuan-Sheng Zang","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Providing precise oncologic treatment for patients with refractory solid tumor is still an unmet need in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess whether treatments recommended by a molecular tumor board (MTB) can improve clinical outcomes in patients with refractory solid tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened all patients with refractory solid tumor during the period from 2017 to 2022 at the authors' center. The patients with actionable molecular alterations (mainly included druggable tier 2 genetic variant identified using next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were presented to MTB. We compared the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the patients treated with a matched therapy recommended by MTB and those who did not receive the MTB-recommended therapy. Patients with no actionable molecular alterations served as an additional control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 338 patients with refractory solid tumor were screened. Among the 305 patients for whom NGS testing was conducted, 217 patients available for survival outcomes were included in the final analysis. A total of 129 patients had at least one actionable molecular alteration and were presented to MTB; 82 received the MTB-recommended therapy, while the remaining 47 did not. Those who received the recommended therapy had significantly longer median OS (17.7 vs. 4.4 months; HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66; P < 0.001) and median PFS (7.0 vs. 2.3 months, HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.65; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MTB improves oncologic prognosis in patients with refractory solid tumor, and matching MTB-recommended therapy is an independent factor for OS and PFS.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf196","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Providing precise oncologic treatment for patients with refractory solid tumor is still an unmet need in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess whether treatments recommended by a molecular tumor board (MTB) can improve clinical outcomes in patients with refractory solid tumors.
Methods: We screened all patients with refractory solid tumor during the period from 2017 to 2022 at the authors' center. The patients with actionable molecular alterations (mainly included druggable tier 2 genetic variant identified using next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were presented to MTB. We compared the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the patients treated with a matched therapy recommended by MTB and those who did not receive the MTB-recommended therapy. Patients with no actionable molecular alterations served as an additional control.
Results: A total of 338 patients with refractory solid tumor were screened. Among the 305 patients for whom NGS testing was conducted, 217 patients available for survival outcomes were included in the final analysis. A total of 129 patients had at least one actionable molecular alteration and were presented to MTB; 82 received the MTB-recommended therapy, while the remaining 47 did not. Those who received the recommended therapy had significantly longer median OS (17.7 vs. 4.4 months; HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66; P < 0.001) and median PFS (7.0 vs. 2.3 months, HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.65; P < 0.001).
Conclusion: MTB improves oncologic prognosis in patients with refractory solid tumor, and matching MTB-recommended therapy is an independent factor for OS and PFS.
为难治性实体瘤患者提供精确的肿瘤治疗在临床实践中仍然是一个未满足的需求。本研究旨在评估分子肿瘤委员会（MTB）推荐的治疗方法是否能改善难治性实体瘤患者的临床结果。方法：我们筛选了作者中心2017 - 2022年期间所有难治性实体瘤患者。将具有可操作分子改变的患者（主要包括使用下一代测序[NGS]鉴定的可药物2级遗传变异）提交给MTB。我们比较了接受MTB推荐的匹配治疗和未接受MTB推荐治疗的患者的总生存期（OS）和无进展生存期（PFS）。没有可操作的分子改变的患者作为额外的对照。结果：共筛选出338例难治性实体瘤患者。在进行NGS检测的305例患者中，有217例患者的生存结果被纳入最终分析。共有129名患者至少有一种可操作的分子改变，并被诊断为结核分枝杆菌；82人接受了mtb推荐的治疗，而剩下的47人没有。接受推荐疗法的患者的中位OS显著延长(17.7 vs 4.4个月；Hr 0.31, 95% ci 0.14-0.66；P < 0.001)和中位PFS (7.0 vs. 2.3个月，HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.65；P < 0.001)。结论：MTB可改善难治性实体瘤患者的肿瘤预后，与MTB推荐的治疗相匹配是OS和PFS的独立因素。
期刊介绍：
The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
