ArticleThe oncologist2026
Precision oncology at speed: workflow design determines clinical utility in rapid molecular testing for lung cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMatching patients with effective targeted therapies requires timely molecular results; however, the challenge today how to embed it into routine clinical workflows in ways that meaningfully affect patient-level treatment decisions.
methodsBuilding on prior work, the authors systematically reviewed laboratory operations, interdepartmental coordination, and administrative processes from two distinct healthcare settings: a US-based academic tertiary care center and a Canadian community hospital. We identified shared themes, context-specific challenges, and operational elements that distinguished successful integration from assay availability alone.
resultsAcross both environments, the comparison revealed that rapid testing consistently accelerated treatment decisions and facilitated biomarker-informed patient management, but its successful implementation depended on re-engineering laboratory workflows, aligning personnel competencies, and establishing turnaround time monitoring; technical availability alone did not ensure clinically meaningful rapid testing. While the academic context integrated rapid testing within comprehensive molecular pipelines and research frameworks, the community hospital context focused on pragmatic adoption for frontline care, especially in urgent clinical settings and based on the organization of the Canadian health system.
conclusionImplementing rapid molecular testing in NSCLC is fundamentally an implementation and systems-engineering challenge rather than a technical challenge. Clinical speed depended more on system design than assay availability alone and is influenced, in part, by the larger national healthcare context. Addressing laboratory, operational, and administrative barriers is essential to ensure that rapid testing improves outcomes. Lessons learned from both academic and community practice provide a practical, implementation-focused roadmap for broader adoption and equity in access to precision oncology.
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.