Patient attrition in Molecular Tumour Boards: a systematic review

Background Molecular Tumour Boards (MTBs) were created with the purpose of supporting clinical decision-making within precision medicine. Though in use globally, reporting on these meetings often focuses on the small percentages of patients that receive treatment via this process and are less likely...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of cancer 2022-11, Vol.127 (8), p.1557-1564
Main Authors: Frost, Hannah, Graham, Donna M., Carter, Louise, O’Regan, Paul, Landers, Dónal, Freitas, André
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
631/67/1059/602
692/4028/67/1059/602
692/4028/67/69
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biomedicine
Cancer Research
Clinical Decision-Making
Clinical Deterioration
Decision making
Drug Resistance
Epidemiology
Humans
Literature reviews
Molecular Medicine
Mutation
Neoplasms - genetics
Neoplasms - pathology
Neoplasms - therapy
Oncology
Patients
Precision Medicine
Systematic review
Tumors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Molecular Tumour Boards (MTBs) were created with the purpose of supporting clinical decision-making within precision medicine. Though in use globally, reporting on these meetings often focuses on the small percentages of patients that receive treatment via this process and are less likely to report on, and assess, patients who do not receive treatment. Methods A literature review was performed to understand patient attrition within MTBs and barriers to patients receiving treatment. A total of 51 papers were reviewed spanning a 6-year period from 11 different countries. Results In total, 20% of patients received treatment through the MTB process. Of those that did not receive treatment, the main reasons were no mutations identified (27%), no actionable mutations (22%) and clinical deterioration (15%). However, data were often incomplete due to inconsistent reporting of MTBs with only 55% reporting on patients having no mutations, 55% reporting on the presence of actionable mutations with no treatment options and 59% reporting on clinical deterioration. Discussion As patient attrition in MTBs is an issue which is very rarely alluded to in reporting, more transparent reporting is needed to understand barriers to treatment and integration of new technologies is required to process increasing omic and treatment data.
ISSN:0007-0920
1532-1827
DOI:10.1038/s41416-022-01922-3