ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Survey of diagnostic laboratories highlights need for improved standards in somatic genomic testing and reporting.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a growing international need to support somatic genomic testing, standardised variant curation and improved patient access to molecular profiling for somatic conditions, including cancer. We conducted a survey of scope, curation, reporting and sharing practices of diagnostic laboratories performing somatic testing in Australia and New Zealand. Laboratories with accreditation (n = 41) were invited in 2023 to complete a semi-structured, 25-question interview. Responses were received for 27 laboratories (66% response rate) offering solid tumour, haematological malignancy and non-cancer services. Only 36% of laboratories offered tests capturing the full breadth of variants, from single-nucleotide variants to gene fusions. Knowledge sharing was rare, with only one laboratory submitting variant classifications to a public knowledge base. Most laboratories (96%) conducted somatic testing in oncology. Of cancer laboratories, 35% offered testing considered capable of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). Almost half of cancer laboratories had already adopted the 2022 ClinGen/CGC/VICC oncogenicity guidelines, and 84% were using AMP/ASCO/CAP 2017 clinical significance guidelines. Only 47% of mixed discipline cancer laboratories reported biomarkers such as tumour mutational burden, with wide variation in reporting of matched therapy options. Our study has generated a unique overview of somatic laboratory practices in the region, and areas for global standardisation in somatic molecular testing and reporting. We also provide a model for practice and guideline uptake assessment, for application by other country-wide networks. This is particularly relevant in anticipation of CGP mainstreaming, with the increasing complexity of sequencing interpretation for laboratories and clinicians.
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.