2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular Testing Turnaround Time for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in Routine Clinical Practice Confirms Feasibility of CAP/IASLC/AMP Guideline Recommendations: A Single-center Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When relying on a reference send‐out laboratory for ancillary testing, a shared responsibility exists for oversight of pre‐analytic factors leading to error. The perceived testing time by the clinician awaiting results is impacted not only by the reference laboratory TAT, but also by delays at the front end (time from test ordering to specimen arriving at reference laboratory) and at the back end (time from reference laboratory reporting to results available to clinicians) . Whereas the timing and quality measures taken by the reference laboratory are beyond the control of a given cytopathology laboratory, the front end and back end processes should be evaluated for maximal efficiency and reporting accuracy.…”
Section: Send‐out Testing: a Growing Quality And Safety Riskmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When relying on a reference send‐out laboratory for ancillary testing, a shared responsibility exists for oversight of pre‐analytic factors leading to error. The perceived testing time by the clinician awaiting results is impacted not only by the reference laboratory TAT, but also by delays at the front end (time from test ordering to specimen arriving at reference laboratory) and at the back end (time from reference laboratory reporting to results available to clinicians) . Whereas the timing and quality measures taken by the reference laboratory are beyond the control of a given cytopathology laboratory, the front end and back end processes should be evaluated for maximal efficiency and reporting accuracy.…”
Section: Send‐out Testing: a Growing Quality And Safety Riskmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The perceived testing time by the clinician awaiting results is impacted not only by the reference laboratory TAT, but also by delays at the front end (time from test ordering to specimen arriving at reference laboratory) and at the back end (time from reference laboratory reporting to results available to clinicians). 12 Whereas the timing and quality measures taken by the reference laboratory are beyond the control of a given cytopathology laboratory, the front end and back end processes should be evaluated for maximal efficiency and reporting accuracy. A summary of the risks associated with send-out reference laboratory testing are summarized in Figure 4; this summary is somewhat more applicable to a laboratory that sends out the specimen for testing than a reference laboratory that receives the specimens and performs the testing.…”
Section: Send-out Testing: a Growing Quality And Safety Riskmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 Additionally, a third of patients may have biopsies with insufficient tumor tissue for molecular studies. 18 In such a scenario, cytology, especially fine-needle aspiration (FNA), is placed at the front line in the management of patients with NSCLC. In this review, we describe the use of cytology samples, especially direct smears, in molecular studies, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), KRAS, and BRAF mutational testing; ALK and ROS1 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing; NGS; PD-L1 IHC; and DNA methylation detection.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, the international guidelines for the turnaround time to obtain results, most notably for EGFR status, were not followed consistently for all patients. 33,34 As such, the delay in responses was not compatible with the adapted caregiving of NSCLC patients, specifically in the case of rapid tumor progression. 35 For this reason, a number of laboratories have set up a double circuit, one using a rapid process with specific PCR-based techniques (COBAS, Biocartis, laboratory-developed tests) and the second one using gene panel assessment by NGS.…”
Section: Current Functioning: a New Funding Systemmentioning
confidence: 96%