Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41206382›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026

Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) network proposal for a consensus gene panel for pan-cancer sequencing: a Delphi methodology.

Richard Phillips, Bristi Basu, Zohra Butt, Mounia Beloueche, Natalie Cook, Simon J Crabb, Alastair Greystoke, Darren Hargrave, Robert Jones, Muhammad Yasin Kureeman and 17 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

27 authors.

Richard PhillipsDepartment of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. rep199@student.bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8978-9743
Bristi BasuUniversity of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-2868
Zohra ButtPierre Fabre Ltd, Green Park, Reading, UK.
Mounia BelouecheBoehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Natalie CookExperimental Cancer Medicine Team, Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2606-1082
Simon J CrabbSouthampton ECMC, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3521-9064
Alastair GreystokeInstitute of Clinical and Translational Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9168-0387
Darren HargravePaediatric Oncology, University College London Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Robert JonesCardiff University and Velindre University NHS Trust, Velindre School of Medicine, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, UK.
Muhammad Yasin KureemanPierre Fabre Ltd, Green Park, Reading, UK.
Juanita LopezDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, Oak Cancer Centre, Sutton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8321-4212
Claire McKeeveWest of Scotland Centre for Genomic Medicine, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Magdalena MeissnerCardiff University and Velindre University NHS Trust, Velindre School of Medicine, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5897-0219
Brent O'CarriganUniversity of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8187-6298
Eileen E ParkesDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-3698
Milind RonghePaediatric Oncology Department, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow, UK.
Patricia RoxburghSchool of Cancer Sciences, Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9869-591X
Debashis SarkerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4814-8429
Kienan I SavagePatrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4898-899X
Paul H S ShawDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Velindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.
Stefan SymeonidesEdinburgh Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9892-9314
Deborah A TweddleInstitute of Clinical and Translational Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Aditi VediUniversity of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6761-6510
Harriet S WalterUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2618-711X
Joanna ZabkiewiczDepartment of Haematology, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Hospital, Cardiff, UK.
Gary W MiddletonDepartment of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5695-3474
Andrew D BeggsDepartment of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0784-2967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) Network supports UK-wide access to experimental cancer therapies, many of which require specific genomic alterations. This study aimed to develop expert consensus on essential genes for a pan-cancer sequencing panel, involving subject matter experts (SMEs) from the ECMC Network and the pharmaceutical industry.

methodsA pilot with 8 SMEs graded 526 genes, refining the list to 210. A three-round Delphi process was then used, with SMEs iteratively evaluating each gene. In the final round, SMEs also assessed the inclusion of tumour mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), and mutation types (structural variations, copy number variations, and/or fusions).

resultsConsensus was reached on a final panel of 99 genes applicable across multiple cancers. High agreement was also achieved for including TMB, MSI, and screening for structural variations, copy number variants, and fusions. The panel is intended for both adult and paediatric tumour types.

conclusionsThis consensus-based gene panel offers a standardised approach to pan-cancer genomic screening. It supports harmonised diagnostics and could improve patient access to personalised therapies and research trials across clinical and NHS settings.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorConsensus SequenceNeoplasmsDelphi TechniqueDNA Copy Number VariationsHumansMicrosatellite InstabilityMutationBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID41206382
PMCPMC12820137

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.