ReviewBMC cancer2021
Whole genome sequencing in oncology: using scenario drafting to explore future developments.
Review in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the gap: Multi-stakeholder perspectives of molecular diagnostics in oncology.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Pandora's Box of AML: HowBiomedicines · 2025Review
- Value-based health care frameworks for the health technology assessments of "omics" technologies: an international survey.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Implementation of whole genome sequencing in cancer management: modelling and sensitivity analysis using system dynamics.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Actionable alterations in glioblastoma: Insights from the implementation of genomic profiling as the standard of care from 2016 to 2023.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- A scenario-drafting study to explore potential future implementation pathways of circulating tumor DNA testing in oncology.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Large-scale analysis of whole genome sequencing data from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cancer specimens demonstrates preservation of clinical utility.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Optimized whole-genome sequencing workflow for tumor diagnostics in routine pathology practice.Nature protocols · 2024Review
- Advancing hospital-based health technology assessment: evaluating genomic panel contracting strategies for blood tumors through a multimethodology.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Unraveling the genetic architecture of asthma.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn oncology, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is not yet widely implemented due to uncertainties such as the required infrastructure and expertise, costs and reimbursements, and unknown pan-cancer clinical utility. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible future developments facilitating or impeding the use of WGS as a molecular diagnostic in oncology through scenario drafting.
methodsA four-step process was adopted for scenario drafting. First, the literature was searched for barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of WGS. Second, they were prioritized by international experts, and third, combined into coherent scenarios. Fourth, the scenarios were implemented in an online survey and their likelihood of taking place within 5 years was elicited from another group of experts. Based on the minimum, maximum, and most likely (mode) parameters, individual Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) probability density functions were determined. Subsequently, individual opinions were aggregated by performing unweighted linear pooling, from which summary statistics were extracted and reported.
resultsSixty-two unique barriers and facilitators were extracted from 70 articles. Price, clinical utility, and turnaround time of WGS were ranked as the most important aspects. Nine scenarios were developed and scored on likelihood by 18 experts. The scenario about introducing WGS as a clinical diagnostic with a lower price, shorter turnaround time, and improved degree of actionability, scored the highest likelihood (median: 68.3%). Scenarios with low likelihoods and strong consensus were about better treatment responses to more actionable targets (26.1%), and the effect of centralizing WGS (24.1%).
conclusionsBased on current expert opinions, the implementation of WGS as a clinical diagnostic in oncology is heavily dependent on the price, clinical utility (both in terms of identifying actionable targets as in adding sufficient value in subsequent treatment), and turnaround time. These aspects and the optimal way of service provision are the main drivers for the implementation of WGS and should be focused on in further research. More knowledge regarding these factors is needed to inform strategic decision making regarding the implementation of WGS, which warrants support from all relevant stakeholders.
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.