Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps
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 th...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | npj Precision Oncology |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00865-1 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850217207574822912 |
|---|---|
| author | Beryl Primrose Gladstone Janina Beha Arisa Hakariya Pavlos Missios Nisar P. Malek Michael Bitzer |
| author_facet | Beryl Primrose Gladstone Janina Beha Arisa Hakariya Pavlos Missios Nisar P. Malek Michael Bitzer |
| author_sort | Beryl Primrose Gladstone |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-3b5d3f49b7634b6080e80c13006fb5bb |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2397-768X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | npj Precision Oncology |
| spelling | doaj-art-3b5d3f49b7634b6080e80c13006fb5bb2025-08-20T02:08:08ZengNature Portfolionpj Precision Oncology2397-768X2025-04-019111110.1038/s41698-025-00865-1Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gapsBeryl Primrose Gladstone0Janina Beha1Arisa Hakariya2Pavlos Missios3Nisar P. Malek4Michael Bitzer5Department of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University TübingenCenter for Personalized Medicine, Eberhard-Karls UniversityDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University TübingenAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00865-1 |
| spellingShingle | Beryl Primrose Gladstone Janina Beha Arisa Hakariya Pavlos Missios Nisar P. Malek Michael Bitzer Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps npj Precision Oncology |
| title | Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps |
| title_full | Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps |
| title_fullStr | Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps |
| title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps |
| title_short | Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps |
| title_sort | systematic review and meta analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00865-1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT berylprimrosegladstone systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmoleculartumorboarddataonclinicaleffectivenessandevaluationgaps AT janinabeha systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmoleculartumorboarddataonclinicaleffectivenessandevaluationgaps AT arisahakariya systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmoleculartumorboarddataonclinicaleffectivenessandevaluationgaps AT pavlosmissios systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmoleculartumorboarddataonclinicaleffectivenessandevaluationgaps AT nisarpmalek systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmoleculartumorboarddataonclinicaleffectivenessandevaluationgaps AT michaelbitzer systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmoleculartumorboarddataonclinicaleffectivenessandevaluationgaps |