At a glance: high-throughput screening in oncology

Emerging evidence indicates that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Contrary to earlier assumptions, threshold harmonization is still an open question, although confirmatory data are still limited. When protocols are compared, threshold harmonization is still an open question, with meaningful differences between subgroups. When protocols are compared, early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, although confirmatory data are still limited.

Recent studies suggest that standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Contrary to earlier assumptions, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, and this trend is expected to continue.

According to consensus recommendations, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In routine practice, variability between operators remains a key limitation, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In routine practice, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

From a workflow perspective, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups. In multidisciplinary settings, threshold harmonization is still an open question, although confirmatory data are still limited. In routine practice, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, and this trend is expected to continue. Recent studies suggest that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.