Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Precision Oncology
Published
2025-04-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00865-1
Citations
12
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.23
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps

Michael Bitzer, Janina Beha, Beryl Primrose Gladstone, Pavlos Missios et al.
12 citations
npj Precision Oncology
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
11.23
article

Systematic review and meta-analysis of molecular tumor board data on clinical effectiveness and evaluation gaps

Michael Bitzer, Janina Beha, Beryl Primrose Gladstone, Pavlos Missios, Nisar P. Malek, Arisa Hakariya
article en
12 citations

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.

npj Precision OncologyVol. 9(1)
University of Tübingen (DE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
11.23
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.