The impact of clinical decision making in a molecular tumor board at a tertiary care center.

Abstract

3128 Background: Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards were first established with the onset of precision oncology (PO), as many clinicians were unfamiliar with the interpretation and incorporation of the information into clinical practice. PO has since rapidly evolved and integrated itself into standard of care practices for most cancer patients, yet molecular tumor boards have not grown accordingly and in fact some have been discontinued. There remains a paucity of data in regards to the value and impact of molecular tumor board discussions themselves. We previously reported on our longitudinal experiences in PO ( Sadaps et al, 2018), focusing on the therapeutic impact of matched therapy. Here, we report on the utility of our molecular tumor board in clinical decision making. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients seen at Cleveland Clinic with a solid tumor malignancy who had large panel, next-generation-sequencing (NGS) performed via any commercial platform from November 2019-January 2021. Cases were filtered through a local therapeutic algorithm and then reviewed individually. Initial review was performed by a core genomics committee comprised of 2 oncologists and 2 genetic counselors. Interesting and/or complex cases were flagged for discussion at our bimonthly molecular tumor board, which is regularly attended by medical oncologists, pathologists, genetic counselors, bioinformaticians, and patient care coordinators. Data analyzed included categorization of treatment recommendations and the percentage of cases for which initial recommendations were changed based on tumor board discussion. Results: Of 782 total cases, 575 (73.5%) had a clinically relevant genomics tumor board (GTB) recommendation as compared to 51.7% from our previously reported study. 16.7% of patients had on label recommendation(s) and 86.4% had off label/ clinical trial recommendation(s). 179 (22.9%) patients were recommended for genetic counseling (GC). During our bimonthly GTB, we discussed 173 (22.1%) of these cases. Of the discussed cases, the most common tumor types were hepatobiliary (18.5%), lower gastrointestinal (17.3%), and breast (16.2%). Topics of discussion at GTB included such things as pathologic/histologic/molecular testing, prioritization of available trials, appropriateness of an off label therapy, and need for a genetics consult. Discussion at GTB resulted in a change in treatment recommendation in 63 (36.4%) cases. Conclusions: Discussions from multidisciplinary molecular tumor board impacted treatment decisions for our patients. Referral to GC was also common and should be considered an integral part of somatic sequencing review. Molecular tumor boards remain a crucial platform for treatment guidance and clinical management, especially given the increase in “actionability” over the years due to newly discovered targets and targeted therapies in this rapidly evolving field.