Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35857103›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment.

Frédérique Penault-Llorca, Keith M Kerr, Pilar Garrido, Erik Thunnissen, Elisabeth Dequeker, Nicola Normanno, Simon J Patton, Jenni Fairley, Joshua Kapp, Daniëlle de Ridder and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Frédérique Penault-LlorcaUniversity Clermont Auvergne, INSERM U1240, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Keith M KerrDepartment of Pathology, Aberdeen University Medical School and Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Pilar GarridoMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
Erik ThunnissenAmsterdam University Medical Center, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Elisabeth DequekerDepartment of Public Health, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Campus Gasthuisberg, University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicola NormannoCell Biology and Biotherapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Fondazione Giovanni Pascale" IRCCS, Naples, Italy.
Simon J PattonEMQN CIC, Manchester, UK.
Jenni FairleyGenQA, Edinburgh, UK.
Joshua KappAmgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
Daniëlle de RidderAmgen BV, Breda, the Netherlands.
Aleš RyškaDepartment of Pathology, Charles University Medical Faculty Hospital, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Holger MochDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. holger.moch@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7986-2839
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBAmgen (Netherlands) · NLAmgen (Switzerland) · CHCharles University · CZEmteq (United Kingdom) · GBInserm · FRIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITKU Leuven · BEUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnostic work-up for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires biomarker testing to guide therapy choices. This article is the second of a two-part series. In Part 1, we summarised evidence-based recommendations for obtaining and processing small specimen samples (i.e. pre-analytical steps) from patients with advanced NSCLC. Here, in Part 2, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to analytical steps of biomarker testing (and associated reporting and quality assessment) of small specimen samples in NSCLC. As the number of biomarkers for actionable (genetic) targets and approved targeted therapies continues to increase, simultaneous testing of multiple actionable oncogenic drivers using next-generation sequencing (NGS) becomes imperative, as set forth in European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. This is particularly relevant in advanced NSCLC, where tissue specimens are typically limited and NGS may help avoid tissue exhaustion compared with sequential biomarker testing. Despite guideline recommendations, significant discrepancies in access to NGS persist across Europe, primarily due to reimbursement constraints. The use of increasingly complex testing methods also has implications for the reporting of results. Molecular testing reports should include clinical interpretation with additional commentary on sample adequacy as appropriate. Molecular tumour boards are recommended to facilitate the interpretation of complex genetic information arising from NGS, and to collaboratively determine the optimal treatment for patients with NSCLC. Finally, whichever testing modality is employed, it is essential that adequate internal and external validation and quality control measures are implemented.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsBiomarkersHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMutationBiomarkersBest practiceExternal quality assessmentLiquid biopsyMolecular diagnosticsNext-generation sequencingNon-small cell lung carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID35857103
PMCPMC9297263
OpenAlexW4286209698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.