ArticleThe journal of liquid biopsy2026
Clinician perspectives on the clinical utility of Belay Summit™ 2.0 cerebrospinal fluid test - A mixed methods study.
Article in The journal of liquid biopsy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Central Nervous System (CNS) Guidelines recommend utilizing next-generation sequencing (NGS) to enable comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) as standard of care for molecular characterization of CNS malignancies. The restrictive nature of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) makes plasma-based liquid biopsy an ineffective alternative, however cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-based liquid biopsy offers a minimally invasive alternative for genomic assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the clinician perspective of clinical utility of Belay's CSF-based genomic assay, Summit™ 2.0, and to assess how clinicians use test results in routine clinical practice. Methods: Clinical utility was assessed using clinician-reported survey responses from cases where Summit™ 2.0 testing was ordered for patients with known or suspected CNS disease. Survey questions evaluated indications for testing, test positivity, impact on clinical decision-making, report clarity, and perceived overall utility. Results: The survey response rate was 52% (95 surveys sent). Among 49 surveyed cases, 74% yielded positive genomic findings. Clinicians most frequently ordered testing to address diagnostic uncertainty or inform clinical management, with treatment selection as a less frequent primary indication. Clinical utility was reported in 86% of cases including those with negative findings, of which some results were useful for confirming existing diagnoses or management strategies. Clinicians also reported high confidence in the clarity and usability of test reports. Conclusion: Clinician-reported outcomes indicate that Summit™ 2.0 CSF-based genomic testing influenced clinical decision-making, including treatment selection, diagnostic clarification, confirmation of expected diagnoses, and care planning and provides meaningful information that supports diagnostic evaluation and management of CNS tumors.
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.