ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2024
Landscape of cancer biomarker testing in England following genomic services reconfiguration: insights from a nationwide pathologist survey.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Genomic testing for RET in the clinic: UK and global perspective.Endocrine-related cancer · 2025Review
- Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCancer diagnostics have been evolving rapidly. In England, the new National Health Service Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) provides centralised access to genomic testing via seven regional Genomic Laboratory Hubs. The PATHways survey aimed to capture pathologists' experience with current diagnostic pathways and opportunities for optimisation to ensure equitable and timely access to biomarker testing.
methodsA nationwide survey was conducted with consultant pathologists from regional laboratories, via direct interviews based on a structured questionnaire. Descriptive analysis of responses was undertaken using quantitative and qualitative methods.
resultsFifteen regional centres completed the survey covering a median population size of 2.5 (1.9-3.6) million (each for n=12). The median estimated turnaround time (calendar days) for standard molecular markers in melanoma, breast and lung cancers ranged from 2 to 3 days by immunohistochemistry (excluding NTRKfus in breast and lung cancers, and PD-L1 in melanoma) and 6-15 days by real-time-PCR (excluding KIT for melanoma), to 17.5-24.5 days by next-generation sequencing (excluding
conclusionOur survey highlighted the role of regional pathology within the evolving diagnostic landscape in England. Notable recommendations included improved communication and education, active stakeholder engagement, and tackling informatics barriers.
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.