TY - JOUR
T1 - Molecular Tumor Boards
T2 - A Consensus Statement From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
AU - Aldea, Mihaela
AU - Rotow, Julia K.
AU - Arcila, Maria
AU - Hatton, Matthew
AU - Sholl, Lynette
AU - Rolfo, Christian
AU - Tagliamento, Marco
AU - Radonic, Teodora
AU - Schalper, Kurt A.
AU - Subbiah, Vivek
AU - Malapelle, Umberto
AU - Roden, Anja C.
AU - Manochakian, Rami
AU - Tsao, Ming Sound
AU - Linardou, Helena
AU - Hui, Rina
AU - Novello, Silvia
AU - Greystoke, Alastair
AU - Saqi, Anjali
AU - Lantuejoul, Sylvie
AU - Hwang, David M.
AU - Nevins, Kelly
AU - Wynes, Murry
AU - Waqar, Saiama
AU - Han, Yuchen
AU - Yatabe, Yasushi
AU - Chang, Wei Chin
AU - Hayashi, Takuo
AU - Kim, Tae Jung
AU - Hofman, Paul
AU - Tavora, Fabio
AU - Hirsch, Fred R.
AU - Denninghoff, Valeria
AU - Leighl, Natasha B.
AU - Drilon, Alexander
AU - Cooper, Wendy A.
AU - Dacic, Sanja
AU - Mohindra, Pranshu
AU - Pavlakis, Nick
AU - Lopez-Rios, Fernando
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
PY - 2025/11
Y1 - 2025/11
N2 - Context: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are multidisciplinary meetings of specialists dedicated to analyzing biomarker test results to provide personalized treatment recommendations. However, global disparities in the successful implementation of MTBs exist, driven by unequal access to molecular diagnostics and supportive multidimensional expertise. Objective: To establish recommendations for MTB implementation, outline practical frameworks for their operation, and address disparities in expertise and resources between new and established MTBs. Design: A modified Delphi method involved 37 international experts in three survey rounds and online meetings, with consensus defined as more than or equal to 75% agreement. Results: The panel identified a molecular biologist or pathologist with expertise in molecular diagnostics and tumor-specific medical oncologists as indispensable MTB members. Case selection should reflect institutional expertise and volume, with newer MTBs reviewing less selected cases to gain experience. Regular meetings are advised to avoid delays beyond 14 days from result availability to discussion. Reporting should be standardized to include clinicopathologic data (tumor characteristics, treatment history), biomarker findings (testing results, sample details), and recommendations (treatment, retesting, genetic counseling). Treatment options should be ranked by the level of evidence for actionability and may include options not available locally. Performance evaluation should consider changes in patient management based on MTB input and matched therapy rates. Conclusions: These MTB consensus recommendations are applicable across tumor types, despite being developed by lung cancer and molecular specialists and initiated by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. They provide a structured framework for MTB implementation, report standardization, case selection, and quality assessment, aiming to standardize practice and address gaps in expertise for personalized cancer care.
AB - Context: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are multidisciplinary meetings of specialists dedicated to analyzing biomarker test results to provide personalized treatment recommendations. However, global disparities in the successful implementation of MTBs exist, driven by unequal access to molecular diagnostics and supportive multidimensional expertise. Objective: To establish recommendations for MTB implementation, outline practical frameworks for their operation, and address disparities in expertise and resources between new and established MTBs. Design: A modified Delphi method involved 37 international experts in three survey rounds and online meetings, with consensus defined as more than or equal to 75% agreement. Results: The panel identified a molecular biologist or pathologist with expertise in molecular diagnostics and tumor-specific medical oncologists as indispensable MTB members. Case selection should reflect institutional expertise and volume, with newer MTBs reviewing less selected cases to gain experience. Regular meetings are advised to avoid delays beyond 14 days from result availability to discussion. Reporting should be standardized to include clinicopathologic data (tumor characteristics, treatment history), biomarker findings (testing results, sample details), and recommendations (treatment, retesting, genetic counseling). Treatment options should be ranked by the level of evidence for actionability and may include options not available locally. Performance evaluation should consider changes in patient management based on MTB input and matched therapy rates. Conclusions: These MTB consensus recommendations are applicable across tumor types, despite being developed by lung cancer and molecular specialists and initiated by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. They provide a structured framework for MTB implementation, report standardization, case selection, and quality assessment, aiming to standardize practice and address gaps in expertise for personalized cancer care.
KW - Artificial intelligence
KW - Biomarker
KW - ESCAT
KW - Molecular tumor board
KW - Next-generation sequencing
KW - OncoKB
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105013103142
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtho.2025.07.009
DO - 10.1016/j.jtho.2025.07.009
M3 - Review article
C2 - 40633839
AN - SCOPUS:105013103142
SN - 1556-0864
VL - 20
SP - 1594
EP - 1614
JO - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
JF - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
IS - 11
ER -