Patient attrition in Molecular Tumour Boards: a systematic review

The role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

In neuro-oncology, the inclusion of tumor patients in the molecular tumor board has only become increasingly widespread in recent years, but so far there are no standards for indication, procedure, evaluation, therapy recommendations and therapy implementation of neuro-oncological patients. The present work examines the current handling of neuro-oncological patients included in molecular tumor boards in Germany.

METHODS

We created an online based survey with questions covering the handling of neuro-oncologic patient inclusion, annotation of genetic analyses, management of target therapies and the general role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology in Germany. We contacted all members of the Neuro-Oncology working group (NOA) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) by e-mail.

RESULTS

38 responses were collected. The majority of those who responded were specialists in neurosurgery or neurology with more than 10 years of professional experience working at a university hospital. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) regularly take place once a week and all treatment disciplines of neuro-oncology patients take part. The inclusions to the MTB are according to distinct tumors and predominantly in case of tumor recurrence. An independently MTB member mostly create the recommendations, which are regularly implemented in the tumor treatment. Recommendations are given for alteration classes 4 and 5. Problems exist mostly within the cost takeover of experimental therapies. The experimental therapies are mostly given in the department of medical oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular tumor boards for neuro-oncological patients, by now, are not standardized in Germany. Similarities exists for patient inclusion and interpretation of molecular alterations; the time point of inclusion and implementation during the patient treatment differ between the various hospitals. Further studies for standardization and harmonisation are needed. In summary, most of the interviewees envision great opportunities and possibilities for molecular-based neuro-oncological therapy in the future.

Do more targets allow more cancer treatments, or not?

The three current oncology models (histological, agnostic and mutational) mainly differ in clinical, technological and organisational aspects, leading to different regulatory procedures and implications in antineoplastic therapy access by patients. Within the histological and agnostic models, Regulatory Agencies authorise target therapies and define their price, reimbursement, prescription and access based on results from clinical trials including patients affected by the same tumour (histological) or subjects with specific genetic mutations regardless of the tumour site or the histology (agnostic). The mutational model has been developed to identify specific actionable molecular alterations found by next-generation sequencing test-based large platforms on solid and liquid biopsies. Nevertheless, due to the highly uncertain efficacy and possible toxicity of drugs tested within this model, regulatory procedures based on histological or agnostic oncology cannot be followed. Multidisciplinary skills are required (e.g. the molecular tumour board's (MTB) representatives) to identify the best association between the genomic profile and the drug planned to be used, but quality requirements, practices and procedures of these discussions still need to be standardised. Real-world evidence from clinical practice (i.e. genomic findings, clinical data and MTBs' choices) lacks, therefore, it is urgently needed as opposed to limited findings from clinical trials. A potential solution for an appropriate access to the therapy chosen by the mutational model can be the indication-value-based sub iudice procedure of authorisation. The access to therapies suggested by extensive molecular profiling could be easily implementable within the Italian national health system, thanks to the existing regulatory procedures, i.e. the managed-entry agreements and the antineoplastic drug monitoring registries, alongside those granted by conventional studies (phase I, II, III, IV) conducted according to the histological and agnostic models.

Role of the Molecular Tumor Board for the Personalized Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Focus on the State of the Art in Italy

Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are multidisciplinary groups that combine molecular and clinical data from cancer patients in order to formulate treatment recommendations for precision medicine. To date, there is insufficient data to support the use of singleplex or next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies to select first-line therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but considering the high number of level II alterations, according to the ESMO scale for clinical actionability of molecular targets (ESCAT), it is suggested to include patients in molecular screening programs in order to be able to offer targeted therapies for specific genomic alterations. This article aims at reviewing the most recent literature related to the most used methodologies/approaches for molecular diagnostics and variants’ classification, summarizing the internationally published molecular screening studies in support of MTB activity and, in the end, discussing MTBs’ current position and role in Italy, the number of which is increasing, also thanks to the thrust of institutions.