ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2025
Novel Approach to Proficiency Testing Reveals Significant Variations in Biomarker Practice Leading to Critical Differences in Lung Cancer Management.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Timely access to quality biomarker testing in NSCLC is critical to patient outcomes. The Canadian Pathology Quality Assurance provides external quality assurance (EQA) to laboratories in Canada. The Canadian Pathology Quality Assurance has recently developed a novel approach to molecular biomarker EQA testing, assessing accuracy, turnaround time, and interpretation of reports. This study reports the results of the first end-to-end biomarker EQA challenge in NSCLC. Methods: Three challenge specimens were made using NSCLC tissue and paired with clinical vignettes mimicking referred-in cases. Participants were to provide all required molecular testing (immunohistochemistry and gene sequencing) and submit final reports for each case, while being timed. Reports were assessed by molecular pathologists and medical oncologists who recommended a systemic treatment based on vignettes and reports. Results: A total of 13 Canadian laboratories participated. The turnaround time of molecular reporting ranged from five to 57 (median 22.5) calendar days. Two laboratories (15%) reported their results within 2 weeks. Four laboratories (31%) reported the results of their biomarkers after more than 30 days.Only three laboratories received optimal status (23%). One laboratory (8%) failed due to a critical genotyping error, three (23%) received a suboptimal status due to inappropriately long turnaround times, and the remaining six (69%) received an adequate status. Conclusions: This report demonstrates the utility of this proficiency testing style compared with standard laboratory self-reporting. The approach has elucidated substantial differences in the quality of NSCLC biomarker results produced by Canadian laboratories. Ongoing efforts to improve turnaround times and clarity of reporting, including regular external measurement, are tools that can improve patient outcomes in NSCLC.
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.