Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41820565›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Survey of diagnostic laboratories highlights need for improved standards in somatic genomic testing and reporting.

Grace Pendlebury, Emma Tudini, James Andrews, Amanda B Spurdle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Grace PendleburyAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0749-5605
Emma TudiniAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
James AndrewsAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Amanda B SpurdlePopulation Health, QIMR Berghofer, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. amanda.spurdle@qimrb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1337-7897

Funding

Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) APP177524Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) GNT1113531Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) GNT1113531, GNT2000001 and GNT2035846Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) GNT2000001Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) GNT2035846
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic TestingLaboratories, ClinicalNeoplasmsAustraliaGenomicsHumansNew ZealandSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41820565
PMCPMC13549970

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.