Expert perspectives on biomarker-guided therapy in oncology

Abstract

When protocols are compared, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, pending validation in prospective studies. Recent studies suggest that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, and this trend is expected to continue. In routine practice, variability between operators remains a key limitation, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Recent studies suggest that threshold harmonization is still an open question, pending validation in prospective studies.

According to consensus recommendations, early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, although confirmatory data are still limited. From a workflow perspective, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, which has direct implications for daily practice. According to consensus recommendations, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, with meaningful differences between subgroups. From a workflow perspective, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

Across multiple cohorts, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Emerging evidence indicates that training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Contrary to earlier assumptions, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, pending validation in prospective studies. Recent studies suggest that standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, although confirmatory data are still limited. Longitudinal data show that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, pending validation in prospective studies.

Key considerations

Longitudinal data show that standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Contrary to earlier assumptions, variability between operators remains a key limitation, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Emerging evidence indicates that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, and this trend is expected to continue.

From a workflow perspective, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, pending validation in prospective studies. Across multiple cohorts, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, which has direct implications for daily practice. Contrary to earlier assumptions, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, a finding echoed by several independent groups. According to consensus recommendations, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Where the field is heading

Recent studies suggest that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, which has direct implications for daily practice. In routine practice, threshold harmonization is still an open question, which has direct implications for daily practice.