Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
220,595 studies31 sourcesUpdated 7 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Journal of Translational Medicine

MAP of molecular analyses in real-worlD oncology centers – MAPpaMoNDO: a study of the translational research Young GOIM group

  • Federica Papaccio1
  • Pasquale Lombardi2,3
  • Gaia Giannone4
  • Francesca Carlino5
  • Angelica Petrillo6
  • Rosa Falcone7
  • Ina Valeria Zurlo8
  • Alessandro Parisi9
  • Salvatore Corallo10,11
  • Concetta Sergi12
  • Alessandro Caputo1
  • Francesco Pepe13
7 more authors
  • Vincenzo De Falco14
  • Antonio Febbraro15
  • Roberto Bordonaro12
  • Davide Ciardiello16
  • Alberto Servetto17
  • Paola Parente18
  • Carminia Maria Della Corte14
18 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry “Scuola Medica Salernitana”, University of Salerno, Baronissi, SA Italy
  2. 2Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W120HS UK
  3. 3Phase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  4. 4Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
  5. 5Medical Oncology Unit, AORN Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano, Caserta, Italy
  6. 6Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedale del Mare, Naples, Italy
  7. 7Department of Oncology, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata IDI-IRCCS, Rome, 00167 Italy
  8. 8Medical Oncology, “Vito Fazzi” Hospital, Lecce, Italy
  9. 9Medical Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Delle Marche - Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
  10. 10Internal Medicine and Medical Therapy Department, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
  11. 11Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
  12. 12Medical Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
  13. 13Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
  14. 14Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Precision Medicine, Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy
  15. 15Oncology Unit UPMC Hillman Cancer Center Villa Maria, Mirabella Eclano, AV Italy
  16. 16Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, IEO, IRCCS, Milano, Italy
  17. 17Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini 5, Naples, Italy
  18. 18Pathology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Policlinico Riuniti, Foggia, Italy
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Background: Despite the growing number of potential predictive biomarkers, molecular testing in daily oncology practice remains fragmented.

Methods: The GOIM Young Translational Group conducted a survey to map the molecular testing prescription habits of oncologists across diverse Italian institutions. The survey evaluated general practices and specific tumor types—including gastrointestinal, lung, breast, genitourinary, gynecological, melanoma, and cancer of unknown primary (CUP)—exploring variations in testing frequency, technology, timing, and sample types between academic and non-academic institutions. We also evaluated logistical differences between center types and specific topics of interest, such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) implementation, re-biopsy of new lesions, liquid biopsy timing/access and BRCA testing.

Results: Sixty-three responses were collected from 46 institutions, spanning diverse geographical regions and institution types. Molecular analyses are performed entirely in-house in only 40% of cases overall. A marked institutional gap emerged: 60% of academic centers perform all testing internally, compared to just 20% of non-academic centers. Academic centers also demonstrated higher participation in external quality control programs (70% vs. 50%) and more frequently served as regional hubs (60%). Furthermore, a pronounced difference was observed in hereditary cancer testing: in-house germline BRCA1/2 testing for breast cancer is available in 81% of academic institutions compared to only 13% of non-academic centers. Access to liquid biopsy varied across tumor types and center settings. In colorectal cancer, 35.7% of all institutions reported a lack of access, with non-academic centers experiencing a higher rate of non-accessibility (47.8% vs. 21.0% academic), highlighting structural disparities across practice settings.

Conclusions: This survey provides an overview of current molecular testing practices for solid tumors among a cohort of selected Italian oncology institutions, revealing stark disparities between academic and non-academic centers. While patient-level clinical endpoints, turnaround times, and costs were not directly measured, addressing these institutional variations and supporting patient access to precision oncology will benefit from coordinated nationwide policy harmonization, structural investments in non-academic laboratory infrastructure, and the formalization of managed hub-and-spoke networks.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-026-08810-x.

Related

  1. HeCOG Cancer Biobank and Registry: a nationwide real-world resource for translational oncology research.
    E Fountzilas, K Papadopoulou, G-A Koliou +34
    ESMO real world data and digital oncologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textOncologyEurope PMC
  2. Spatial/molecular heterogeneity and treatment response in HER2+ early breast cancer: Translational analyses from the DAPHNe trial
    E. Chen, I. Schlam, K. Shimada +25
    bioRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textOncologybioRxiv
  3. Cannabinoids in oncology: pharmacology, clinical applications, and translational perspectives
    Emma Safran, Howard Safran, Stanley Kim
    Frontiers in pharmacologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPharmacology & toxicologyEurope PMC
  4. Mitochondrial metabolic plasticity in cancer: hybrid bioenergetic states and translational targeting in surgical oncology
    Debdeep Chattopadhyay, Ramya Lakshmi Rajendran, Nida Mubin +6
    Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Berberine and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a global analysis of molecular mechanisms, translational challenges and research frontiers.
    Fei Yu, Sihan Yin, Jiayu Zhu +1
    Frontiers in nutritionPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPharmacology & toxicologyEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{papaccio2026molecular,
  title = {{MAP of molecular analyses in real-worlD oncology centers – MAPpaMoNDO: a study of the translational research Young GOIM group}},
  author = {Federica Papaccio and Pasquale Lombardi and Gaia Giannone and Francesca Carlino and Angelica Petrillo and Rosa Falcone and Ina Valeria Zurlo and Alessandro Parisi and Salvatore Corallo and Concetta Sergi and Alessandro Caputo and Francesco Pepe and Vincenzo De Falco and Antonio Febbraro and Roberto Bordonaro and Davide Ciardiello and Alberto Servetto and Paola Parente and Carminia Maria Della Corte},
  journal = {Journal of Translational Medicine},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.1186/s12967-026-08810-x},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-026-08810-x},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - MAP of molecular analyses in real-worlD oncology centers – MAPpaMoNDO: a study of the translational research Young GOIM group
AU  - Federica Papaccio
AU  - Pasquale Lombardi
AU  - Gaia Giannone
AU  - Francesca Carlino
AU  - Angelica Petrillo
AU  - Rosa Falcone
AU  - Ina Valeria Zurlo
AU  - Alessandro Parisi
AU  - Salvatore Corallo
AU  - Concetta Sergi
AU  - Alessandro Caputo
AU  - Francesco Pepe
AU  - Vincenzo De Falco
AU  - Antonio Febbraro
AU  - Roberto Bordonaro
AU  - Davide Ciardiello
AU  - Alberto Servetto
AU  - Paola Parente
AU  - Carminia Maria Della Corte
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/18
JO  - Journal of Translational Medicine
DO  - 10.1186/s12967-026-08810-x
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-026-08810-x
AB  - Background: Despite the growing number of potential predictive biomarkers, molecular testing in daily oncology practice remains fragmented.  Methods: The GOIM Young Translational Group conducted a survey to map the molecular testing prescription habits of oncologists across diverse Italian institutions. The survey evaluated general practices and specific tumor types—including gastrointestinal, lung, breast, genitourinary, gynecological, melanoma, and cancer of unknown primary (CUP)—exploring variations in testing frequency, technology, timing, and sample types between academic and non-academic institutions. We also evaluated logistical differences between center types and specific topics of interest, such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) implementation, re-biopsy of new lesions, liquid biopsy timing/access and BRCA testing.  Results: Sixty-three responses were collected from 46 institutions, spanning diverse geographical regions and institution types. Molecular analyses are performed entirely in-house in only 40% of cases overall. A marked institutional gap emerged: 60% of academic centers perform all testing internally, compared to just 20% of non-academic centers. Academic centers also demonstrated higher participation in external quality control programs (70% vs. 50%) and more frequently served as regional hubs (60%). Furthermore, a pronounced difference was observed in hereditary cancer testing: in-house germline BRCA1/2 testing for breast cancer is available in 81% of academic institutions compared to only 13% of non-academic centers. Access to liquid biopsy varied across tumor types and center settings. In colorectal cancer, 35.7% of all institutions reported a lack of access, with non-academic centers experiencing a higher rate of non-accessibility (47.8% vs. 21.0% academic), highlighting structural disparities across practice settings.  Conclusions: This survey provides an overview of current molecular testing practices for solid tumors among a cohort of selected Italian oncology institutions, revealing stark disparities between academic and non-academic centers. While patient-level clinical endpoints, turnaround times, and costs were not directly measured, addressing these institutional variations and supporting patient access to precision oncology will benefit from coordinated nationwide policy harmonization, structural investments in non-academic laboratory infrastructure, and the formalization of managed hub-and-spoke networks.  Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-026-08810-x.
SN  - 1479-5876
ER  -