Molecular Tumor Board: A bottom-up approach as method for change.

e13537 Background: Precision oncology represents, together with immunotherapy, the leading innovation in cancer care. As a result, a growing number of patients will be treated in accordance with their disease’s specific genomic profile rather than the sole histology. At the same time, it is becoming more and more difficult to promptly adopt organizational solutions to deliver the right treatment to the right patient. In order to manage the complexity of genomic profiling and its clinical impact, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) have been established. However, there is still broad heterogeneity among recommendations about the role and aims of MTBs worldwide. Globally, a top-down approach prevails, showing significant differences in the indication of hierarchical structure, composition, and autonomy of established MTBs. In the Hub & Spoke cluster of the academic Hospital of Udine, we adopted a contrarian, bottom-up approach to address the challenge of MTB implementation in the context of a healthcare organizational project. Methods: To face the challenges of precision oncology, an MTB was established in the Friuli Centrale Local Health Authority, North East Italy, as part of a project called “Precision Oncology Pathways”. Its implementation was derived trough a bottom-up approach, focusing on the real impact of this new activity on the hospital context. The aim of this strategy was to make issues emerging from daily practice and from direct information sharing among professionals involved in the integrated care pathways (ICPs) of cancer patients. This project involved two different departments (oncology, medical laboratory) and 8 different units. A project manager was introduced to facilitate interaction among stakeholders, and semi-structured interviews were conducted to define critical hurdles for MTB implementation. Results: A proposal for a bottom-up approach to implement precision oncology clinical pathways will be presented. Organizational findings and a decision-making workflow will be illustrated. Three main aspects turned out to be critical for MTB implementation: the communication gap among stakeholders, the clinical impact of technological innovation, and the role of MTB within ICPs. Besides, interdisciplinary study groups were set up to discuss criteria for patient's referral, the informed consent submission process, quality aspects of analytical methods, essential elements of the genomic report, criteria for the interpretation of genomic tests, and verify regulatory issues and adherence to guidelines. Conclusions: A redefinition of the whole ICP is needed for effective MTB implementation in real practice, according to local peculiarities. In our vision, MTBs represent the corner stone of a new treatment paradigm, and their activity should be patient centered, integrated within ICPs, and focused on the hurdles of tumor genomic profiling (clinical, ethical, pharmaco-economic and technological).