ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Genetic variant interpretation in tumours in the French national ring trials Gen&Tiss - main criteria of improvement.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer progression is driven by the accumulation of genetic variants, with technological advances increasing their detection. Precise variant interpretation is essential for clinical decision-making, necessitating robust quality assurance programmes. However, variability in interpretation can influence clinical outcomes. This study examines factors contributing to interpretation variability across French laboratories and evaluates the role of EQA schemes in enhancing consistency. Five-year data from the Gen&Tiss EQA programme (2018-2023) focusing on pathogenicity and actionability was analysed. Forty-four participants evaluated 75 variants in colon, lung, and melanoma cancer, while 17 evaluated 50 variants in ovarian cancer. The criteria included the entity responsible for post-analysis, MTB consultations, access to the private French OncoGenetics (FrOG) germline variant database, laboratory activity levels, type of institution, and interpretation complexity. Over the study period, laboratory performance improved significantly, with annual increases of 2.6% in multiparametric pathogenicity and 6.3% in actionability. Laboratories with dedicated somatic genetics services achieved the highest pathogenicity scores. While MTB consultations had inconsistent effects on variant interpretation, access to FrOG database was associated with higher pathogenicity scores in the ovarian programme. Additionally, higher laboratory activity correlated with improved interpretation accuracy, and increased interpretation complexity was linked to lower pathogenicity scores. These findings highlight structural factors affecting interpretation, but further investigation is needed at the individual level to inform policy and training strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41649514What 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.