Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35794532›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2022

Molecular pathology testing for non-small cell lung cancer: an observational study of elements currently present in request forms and result reports and the opinion of different stakeholders.

Kelly Dufraing, Kaat Van Casteren, Joke Breyne, Nicky D'Haene, Claude Van Campenhout, Sara Vander Borght, Karen Zwaenepoel, Etienne Rouleau, Ed Schuuring, Jan von der Thüsen and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05778045 (Investigating Patients' Medical Study Experiences in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Trials to Identify Influencing Trends), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05778045 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Investigating Patients' Medical Study Experiences in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Trials to Identify Influencing Trends

TypeobservationalSponsorPower Life Sciences Inc.Ran2024 to 2026Enrolled500ConditionsNon-Small Cell Lung Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Kelly DufraingDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0418-587X
Kaat Van CasterenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6339-9771
Joke BreyneDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, AZ Delta Roeselare Menen, Roeselare, Belgium.
Nicky D'HaeneDepartment of Pathology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Claude Van CampenhoutDepartment of Pathology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Sara Vander BorghtDepartment of Pathology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.
Karen ZwaenepoelLaboratory of Pathological Anatomy, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Etienne RouleauMedical Biology and Pathology, Gustave Roussy, Paris, France.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3655-143X
Jan von der ThüsenDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Elisabeth DequekerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Leuven, Belgium. els.dequeker@kuleuven.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), targeted therapies are becoming part of the standard treatment. It is of question which information the clinicians provide on test requests and how the laboratories adapt test conclusions to this knowledge and regulations.

methodsThis study consisted of two components; 1) checking the presence of pre-defined elements (administrative and key for therapy-choice) on completed requests and corresponding reports in Belgian laboratories, both for tissue- and liquid biopsy (LB)-testing and b) opinion analysis from Belgian pathologists/molecular biologists and clinicians during national pathology/oncology meetings.

resultsData from 4 out of 6 Belgian laboratories with ISO-accreditation for LB-testing were analyzed, of which 75% were university hospitals. On the scored requests (N = 4), 12 out of 19 ISO-required elements were present for tissue and 11 for LB-testing. Especially relevant patient history, such as line of therapy (for LB), tumor histology and the reason for testing were lacking. Similarly, 11 and 9 out of 18 elements were present in the reports (N = 4) for tissue and LB, respectively. Elements that pathologists/molecular biologists (N = 18) were missing on the request were the initial activating mutation, previous therapies, a clinical question and testing-related information. For reporting, an item considered important by both groups is the clinical interpretation of the test result. In addition, clinicians (N = 28) indicated that they also wish to read the percentage of neoplastic cells.

conclusionsCommunication flows between the laboratory and the clinician, together with possible pitfalls were identified. Based on the study results, templates for complete requesting and reporting were proposed.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsHumansLiquid BiopsyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPathology, MolecularMolecular pathologyNon-small-cell lung cancerPost-analytical phasePre-analytical phaseTest reportTest requesting

Identifiers

PMID35794532
PMCPMC9258204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.