GuidelineVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2024
Reporting of somatic variants in clinical cancer care: recommendations of the Swiss Society of Molecular Pathology.
Guideline in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to Read a Next-Generation Sequencing Report for AML and MDS? What Hematologists Need to Know.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Somatic variant testing through next-generation sequencing (NGS) is well integrated into Swiss molecular pathology laboratories and has become a standard diagnostic method for numerous indications in cancer patient care. Currently, there is a wide variation in reporting practices within our country, and as patients move between different hospitals, it is increasingly necessary to standardize NGS reports to ease their reinterpretation. Additionally, as many different stakeholders-oncologists, hematologists, geneticists, pathologists, and patients-have access to the NGS report, it needs to contain comprehensive and detailed information in order to answer the questions of experts and avoid misinterpretation by non-experts. In 2017, the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics conducted a survey to assess the differences in NGS reporting practices across ten pathology institutes in Switzerland. The survey examined 68 reporting items and identified 48 discrepancies. Based on these findings, the Swiss Society of Molecular Pathology initiated a Delphi method to reach a consensus on a set of recommendations for NGS reporting. Reports should include clinical information about the patient and the diagnosis, technical details about the sample and the test performed, and a list of all clinically relevant variants and variants of uncertain significance. In the absence of a consensus on an actionability scheme, the five-class pathogenicity scheme proposed by the ACMG/AMP guideline must be included in the reports. The Swiss Society of Molecular Pathology recognizes the importance of including clinical actionability in the report and calls on the European community of molecular pathologists and oncologists to reach a consensus on this issue.
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.