ArticleBMC medical education2024
Identifying barriers and opportunities to facilitate the uptake of whole genome sequencing in paediatric haematology and oncology practice.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical utility of whole genome sequencing (WGS) in paediatric cancer has been demonstrated in recent years. WGS has been routinely available in the National Health Service (NHS) England for all children with cancer in England since 2021, but its uptake has been variable geographically. To explore the underlying barriers to routine use of WGS in this population across England and more widely in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI), a one-day workshop was held in Cambridge, United Kingdom in October 2022.
methodsFollowing a series of talks, delegates participated in open, round-table discussions to outline local and broader challenges limiting routine WGS for diagnostic work-up for children with cancer in their Principal Treatment Centres (PTCs) and Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs). Within smaller groups, delegates answered structured questions regarding clinical capability, education and training needs, and workforce competence and requirements. Data was recorded, centrally collated, and analysed following the event using thematic analysis.
resultsSixty participants attended the workshop with broad representation from the 20 PTCs across the UK and ROI and the seven GLHs in England. All healthcare professionals involved in the WGS pathway were represented, including paediatric oncologists, clinical geneticists, clinical scientists, and histopathologists. The main themes highlighted by the group in ensuring equitable access to WGS identified were: lack of knowledge equity between NHS trusts, with a perception of WGS being for research only; and perception of lack of financial support for the clinical process surrounding WGS, including lack of time to take informed consent from patients. The latter also included limited trained staff available for data interpretation, affecting the turnaround time for reporting. Finally, the need for an integrated digital pathway to order, track, and return data to clinicians was highlighted.
conclusionAt the workshop, the general motivation for including WGS in the diagnostic work up for children with cancer was high throughout the UK, however a perceived lack of resources and education opportunities limit the widespread use of this commissioned assay. This workshop has led to some recommendations to increase access to WGS in this population in England and more widely in the devolved national of the UK and the ROI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.