Open Access

Simple Summary In Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), clinicians and researchers discuss the biology of tumor samples from individual patients to find suitable therapies. MTBs have therefore become key elements of precision oncology programs. Patients living in urban areas with specialized medical centers can easily access MTBs. Dedicated efforts are necessary to also grant equal access for patients from rural areas. To address this challenge, the four German cancer centers in Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg and Augsburg collectively measured the regional efficacy of their MTBs. By jointly analyzing the residences of all MTB patients, we uncovered regional differences in our mostly rural catchment area. Mapping and further understanding these local differences—especially the underrepresented white spots—will help resolving inequalities in patient access to precision oncology. Our study represents a hands-on approach to assessing the regional efficacy of a precision oncology program. Moreover, this approach is transferable to other regions and clinical applications. Abstract (1) Background: molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are crucial instruments for discussing and allocating targeted therapies to suitable cancer patients based on genetic findings. Currently, limited evidence is available regarding the regional impact and the outreach component of MTBs; (2) Methods: we analyzed MTB patient data from four neighboring Bavarian tertiary care oncology centers in Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg, and Augsburg, together constituting the WERA Alliance. Absolute patient numbers and regional distribution across the WERA-wide catchment area were weighted with local population densities; (3) Results: the highest MTB patient numbers were found close to the four cancer centers. However, peaks in absolute patient numbers were also detected in more distant and rural areas. Moreover, weighting absolute numbers with local population density allowed for identifying so-called white spots—regions within our catchment that were relatively underrepresented in WERA MTBs; (4) Conclusions: investigating patient data from four neighboring cancer centers, we comprehensively assessed the regional impact of our MTBs. The results confirmed the success of existing collaborative structures with our regional partners. Additionally, our results help identifying potential white spots in providing precision oncology and help establishing a joint WERA-wide outreach strategy.

Background Neuroblastoma is the most common extracranial solid tumour in children. Relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma is associated with a poor outcome. We assessed the combination of irinotecan–temozolomide and dasatinib–rapamycin (RIST) in patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma. Methods The multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2, RIST-rNB-2011 trial recruited from 40 paediatric oncology centres in Germany and Austria. Patients aged 1–25 years with high-risk relapsed (defined as recurrence of all stage IV and MYCN amplification stages, after response to treatment) or refractory (progressive disease during primary treatment) neuroblastoma, with Lansky and Karnofsky performance status at least 50%, were assigned (1:1) to RIST (RIST group) or irinotecan–temozolomide (control group) by block randomisation, stratified by MYCN status. We compared RIST (oral rapamycin [loading 3 mg/m2 on day 1, maintenance 1 mg/m2 on days 2–4] and oral dasatinib [2 mg/kg per day] for 4 days with 3 days off, followed by intravenous irinotecan [50 mg/m2 per day] and oral temozolomide [150 mg/m2 per day] for 5 days with 2 days off; one course each of rapamycin–dasatinib and irinotecan–temozolomide for four cycles over 8 weeks, then two courses of rapamycin–dasatinib followed by one course of irinotecan–temozolomide for 12 weeks) with irinotecan–temozolomide alone (with identical dosing as experimental group). The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was analysed in all eligible patients who received at least one course of therapy. The safety population consisted of all patients who received at least one course of therapy and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01467986, and is closed to accrual. Findings Between Aug 26, 2013, and Sept 21, 2020, 129 patients were randomly assigned to the RIST group (n=63) or control group (n=66). Median age was 5·4 years (IQR 3·7–8·1). 124 patients (78 [63%] male and 46 [37%] female) were included in the efficacy analysis. At a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 31–88), the median progression-free survival was 11 months (95% CI 7–17) in the RIST group and 5 months (2–8) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·62, one-sided 90% CI 0·81; p=0·019). Median progression-free survival in patients with amplified MYCN (n=48) was 6 months (95% CI 4–24) in the RIST group versus 2 months (2–5) in the control group (HR 0·45 [95% CI 0·24-0·84], p=0·012); median progression-free survival in patients without amplified MYCN (n=76) was 14 months (95% CI 9–7) in the RIST group versus 8 months (4–15) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·51–1·38], p=0·49). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 [81%] of 67 patients given RIST vs 49 [82%] of 60 patients given control), thrombocytopenia (45 [67%] vs 41 [68%]), and anaemia (39 [58%] vs 38 [63%]). Nine serious treatment-related adverse events were reported (five patients given control and four patients given RIST). There were no treatment-related deaths in the control group and one in the RIST group (multiorgan failure). Interpretation RIST-rNB-2011 demonstrated that targeting of MYCN-amplified relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma with a pathway-directed metronomic combination of a multkinase inhibitor and an mTOR inhibitor can improve progression-free survival and overall survival. This exclusive efficacy in MYCN-amplified, relapsed neuroblastoma warrants further investigation in the first-line setting. Funding Deutsche Krebshilfe.

This document presents the results from the working group "Business Models" (WG 1) discussing the seminar topic under market aspects. Main objectives were developing a shared view of the field (i.e. matching business, technology and research interests), identifying key players and relations between them (including barriers and lessons learned so far from the 2G/2.5G market), discussing the role of business models and value chains and applying them to P2P-networks. In the concluding round the difference between traditional DB/IS applications and mobile applications is explored.