ArticleCancer medicine2024
Referred molecular testing as a barrier to optimal treatment decision making in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Experience at a tertiary academic institution in Canada.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted Therapy, Immunotherapy, and Molecular Testing in Advanced Solid Tumors: A Medicare Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Observational
- Biomarker Testing Rates and Patterns in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Observational Study in Community Practices.JCO precision oncology · 2026Observational
- Deep learning framework for predicting EGFR mutation status from H&E whole slide images in lung adenocarcinoma.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Overcoming barriers to advanced biomolecular technologies that inform treatment of solid tumors: a roadmap to access.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Incongruence Between Prerequisite Molecular Testing and Treatment with Personalized Therapies for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Sequential versus massively parallel strategies for molecular characterization of non-small cell lung cancer samples obtained by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2025Article
- 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
- Referred molecular testing as a barrier to optimal treatment decision making in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Experience at a tertiary academic institution in Canada.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMolecular testing is critical to guiding treatment approaches in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), with testing delays adversely impacting the timeliness of treatment decisions. Here, we aimed to evaluate the time from initial mNSCLC diagnosis to treatment decision (TTD) following implementation of in-house EGFR, ALK, and PD-L1 testing at our institution.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 165 patients (send-out testing, n = 92; in-house testing, n = 73) with newly diagnosed mNSCLC treated at our institution. Data were compared during the send-out (March 2017-May 2019) and in-house (July 2019-March 2021) testing periods. We performed a detailed workflow analysis to provide insight on the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic intervals that constituted the total TTD.
resultsTTD was significantly shorter with in-house testing (10 days vs. 18 days, p < 0.0001), driven largely by decreased internal handling and specimen transit times (2 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.0001) and laboratory turnaround times (TAT, 3 days vs. 8 days, p < 0.0001), with 96% of in-house cases meeting the international guideline of a ≤ 10-day intra-laboratory TAT (vs. 74% send-out, p < 0.001). Eighty-eight percent of patients with in-house testing had results available at their first oncology consultation (vs. 52% send-out, p < 0.0001), and all patients with in-house testing had results available at the time of treatment decision (vs. 86% send-out, p = 0.57).
conclusionOur results demonstrate the advantages of in-house biomarker testing for mNSCLC at a tertiary oncology center. Incorporation of in-house testing may reduce barriers to offering personalized medicine by improving the time to optimal systemic therapy decision.
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.