One of the most consequential moments in cancer care is deciding on the treatment plan. What is the role of surgery, radiation, or systemic therapy, and in what sequence? Is a clinical trial an option? How do the patient’s priorities shape those choices?

These decisions benefit from multidisciplinary expertise and discussion. Yet access often depends on where a patient receives care and whether the right specialists can come together in time. At Color, we built a virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (vMTB) as a consistent part of care for all patients. This week, at Clinical Pathways Congress 2026 in Boston, we present preliminary results from the program, delivered through our ASCO-Certified Virtual Cancer Clinic. The data demonstrates the feasibility of implementing structured expert multidisciplinary review at national scale.

Bringing expertise into decisions earlier

Research has associated multidisciplinary review of cancer patients with a 33% reduction in mortality. Its importance is also reflected in the updated American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)–Community Oncology Alliance(COA) Oncology Medical Home (OMH) standards which added multidisciplinary development of initial treatment plans (Woofter et al., JCO Oncology Practice, 2026). The clinical and operational challenge is making this approach accessible, timely, and useful to patients and their treating teams.

To us, effective care means bringing together the expertise each case requires every time: vMTB includes medical, surgical, and radiation oncology experts, along with genetics, rehabilitation medicine, palliative care, nutrition, psychology, radiology, pathology and many others. Together, these disciplines can address both treatment decisions and the broader needs that affect a patient’s life every day and their clinical outcomes. 

A consistent process, guided by clinical judgment

Every review begins with the patient: their clinical status, preferences, health-related social needs, and questions.

We then use a standard assessment to review workup completeness, staging accuracy, guideline concordance, clinical trial options, financial toxicity, and supportive care needs. AI helps synthesize medical records; clinicians verify the output.

Each patient is paired with a board-certified medical oncologist who coordinates specialist input through virtual consultation or discussion at our weekly live tumor board. The case’s complexity, urgency, and potential impact guide the process.

Patients receive recommendations in plain language. Follow-through is an essential part of the model: Our medical team works alongside their treating clinicians to support care.

What the preliminary results show

From December 2025 through September 2026, the vMTB completed 112 reviews for 109 patients.

• 100% of treatment plans were assessed for guideline concordance.

• 100% of patients were evaluated for clinical trial eligibility.

• 43% of patients enrolled before starting treatment. Among those patients, the vMTB recommended additional testing for 38% and provided complex treatment decision support for 32%.

A key finding highlight is the opportunity to engage before treatment begins. At that point, additional testing or input across surgical, radiation, and medical oncology may help inform the treatment plans. Reaching patients during this window is central to ensuring optimal outcomes through guideline-concordance care.

These results support feasibility of the model creation, implementation and process. 

What we need to learn next

As we expand this work, we will evaluate when and why recommendations are adopted, how they affect clinical outcomes and costs, and the value patients and local care teams derive. Our goal is to make multidisciplinary review a dependable part of cancer care—available early enough to inform decisions, grounded in each patient’s needs, and connected to the treating clinicians.