ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2016
Approach to biomarker testing: perspectives from various specialties.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for improving biomarker testing rates in non-small cell lung cancer in north America: a scoping review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Biomarker Turnaround Times and Impact on Treatment Decisions in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma at a Large Canadian Community Hospital with an Affiliated Regional Cancer Centre.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Consensus recommendations for optimizing biomarker testing to identify and treat advancedCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Patterns of Biomarker Use in Cancer Treatment Among Medical Oncologists in the Philippines.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
- The ins and outs of molecular pathology reporting.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its importance for patient outcomes, biomarker testing for lung cancer is not uniformly integrated into the Canadian health care system. To better understand current practice patterns for lung cancer biomarker testing, we assessed physician perspectives by specialty and region.
methodsA national survey of Canadian lung cancer specialists was conducted to understand their perspectives on biomarker testing in lung cancer. The 11-item survey assessed the current practice and challenges of testing. The survey was sent to 375 specialists.
resultsThe overall response rate for the survey was 36%. Nearly all specialists reported that knowing tumour genotyping results affects patient outcome and influences the treatment decision. Medical oncologists most commonly initiated molecular testing; however, most respondents suggested a shared model involving medical oncologists and pathologists. More than half of all responding specialists had the perception that fewer than 25% of test results are available for first-line treatment decisions. Identified barriers to routine testing for all lung cancer patients included cost, lack of funding, tissue availability, and sample quality.
conclusionsThere was clear agreement that biomarker testing is important in determining appropriate treatment for patients. There is a need for general consensus on who should initiate molecular testing. Clear clinical guidance for pathologists has to be established for molecular testing, including defining the population to be tested, the timing of testing, and the tests to be performed. Testing could be facilitated by including more information on diagnostic sample requisitions, such as clinical suspicion of primary lung cancer, cancer history, and other samples already collected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.