Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39476312›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025

Molecular tumor board in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Luca Boscolo Bielo, Elena Guerini Rocco, Edoardo Crimini, Matteo Repetto, Mariano Lombardi, Cristina Zanzottera, Gaetano Aurilio, Massimo Barberis, Carmen Belli, Yinxiu Zhan and 11 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pathologica · 2025
    Article
  3. Immunohistochemistry for PTEN testing in HR +/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Luca Boscolo BieloDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Elena Guerini RoccoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Edoardo CriminiDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Matteo RepettoEarly Drug Development Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Mariano LombardiDivision of Pathology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Cristina ZanzotteraDivision of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Gaetano AurilioDivision of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Massimo BarberisDivision of Pathology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Carmen BelliDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Yinxiu ZhanDepartment of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Elena BattaiottoDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Jalissa KatriniDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Renato MarsicanoDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Paola ZagamiDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Beatrice Taurelli SalimbeniDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Angela EspositoDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Dario TrapaniDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Carmen CriscitielloDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Nicola FuscoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Antonio MarraDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe CuriglianoDivision of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via G. Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy. giuseppe.curigliano@ieo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeComprehensive genomic profiling is becoming increasingly important in the management of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Real-world clinical outcomes from applying molecular tumor boards (MTBs) recommendations in this context remain limited. Accordingly, we conducted a retrospective, single-institution analysis to evaluate the clinical impact of discussing patients affected by mBC at the MTB.

methodsClinicogenomic data of patients affected by mBCs referred to the European Institute of Oncology MTB between August 2019 and December 2023 were reviewed. Genomic alterations were classified by ESCAT framework. Clinical outcomes of patients showing actionable alterations and receiving molecular-matched therapy (MMT) were compared to those receiving standard therapy (ST).

resultsNinety-six patients were included. Following MTB discussion, genetic counseling was recommended in 27% (n = 26) of patients, while additional molecular analyses were requested in 25% (n = 24) cases. Fifty-six patients (58%) displayed at least one actionable alteration. For patients with available follow-up (n = 50), 32 (64%) received MMTs and 18 (36%) ST. No differences in real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) (4.07 months [95% CI 2.14-8.28] vs. 3.12 months [95% CI 1.51-NE], P = 0.8) and 12-month overall survival (OS) (58% [95%CI 43-78] vs. 57% [95%CI 34-97), P = 0.9) were observed between the MMT- and ST-group. Level I ESCAT alterations yielded longer rwPFS (5.82 months [95% CI 3.12-8.41]) compared to ESCAT II (2.14 months [95%CI 1.61-NE]) and ESCAT III (2.10 months [95% CI 2.04-NE]; P = 0.03). Twenty-four percent of patients showed a PFS2/PFS1 ratio > 1.3 from MMT.

conclusionMolecular tumor boards can provide additional treatment options for patients affected by mBC. Besides treatment recommendations, MTBs also have the utility to assess the validity of discussed genomic reports and to identify alterations worthy of genetic counseling.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsGenomicsLiver NeoplasmsPrecision MedicineFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedMolecular Targeted TherapyProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorBreast cancerMolecular tumor boardMTBPrecision medicinePrecision oncology

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.