Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42101621›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026

The critical role of accurate neoplastic cell percentage (NCP) assessment: investigating targeted training strategies for pulmonary biopsy and cytology specimens.

Thi Mai Phuong Pham, Dieter Peeters, Jan von der Thüsen, Myriam Remmelink, Birgit Weynand, Elisabeth Dequeker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thi Mai Phuong PhamBiomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0258-8915
Dieter PeetersDepartment of Pathology, AZ Sint-Maarten, 2800, Mechelen, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6943-2675
Jan von der ThüsenDepartment of Pathology and Clinical Bioinformatics, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9699-4860
Myriam RemmelinkDepartment of Pathology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1553-3550
Birgit Weynand *Department of Imaging and Pathology, Laboratory of Translational Cell & Tissue Research and University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Pathology, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4246-6303
Elisabeth Dequeker *Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. els.dequeker@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5383-3178

Funding

AstraZeneca Grant Agreement ID# 69986749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer diagnostics and therapeutics have widely changed, and in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), molecular analysis is crucial to identify actionable biomarkers. Targeted therapies specifically interfere with molecular mechanisms involved in tumor growth and proliferation to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life compared to conventional chemotherapy. However, suboptimal testing practices, including errors in neoplastic cell percentage (NCP) assessment, limit reliable downstream analyses, and therefore, hinder accurate targeted therapy decisions for NSCLC patients. This study conducted two assessment rounds in which participants evaluated cytology or biopsy cases to examine NCP assessment accuracy and molecular testing decisions among pathologists and non-pathologists. No evidence was found for changes in NCP assessment performance across rounds (OR = 1.996, 95% CI = [0.600;6.644], p = 0.260) and they were also not influenced by professional background (OR = 0.932, 95% CI = [0.611;1.421], p = 0.743). However, prior training in NCP assessment showed potential benefit for accurate NCP estimation. Additionally, incorrect NCP assessments were significantly linked to subsequent molecular testing decision errors (OR = 2.327, 95% CI = [1.286;4.212], p = 0.005), and the inter-observer agreement for cytology cases was poor with higher error rates for cytology cases compared to biopsy cases (OR = 2.389, 95% CI = [0.967;5.906], p = 0.059). In conclusion, a continuing need for training focusing on harmonization of NCP assessment and molecular testing decision-making remains. Ultimately, such assessment improvements will enhance accuracy of downstream precision medicine for NSCLC patients.

Indexed as

Biopsy specimenCytology specimenExternal Quality Assessment (EQA) schemeInter-observer variabilityNeoplastic cell percentage (NCP)Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Identifiers

PMID42101621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.