Table 1.
Summary of the most important results from the questionnaire
| Primary lesions | |
| Neuro-oncology NGS panels per week per center, no. (%)a | |
| 0–5 | 6 (86%) |
| 5–10 | 1 (14%) |
| Panel origination, no. (%) | |
| Lab developed test | 6 (86%) |
| Commercial test | 1 (14%) |
| Latest panel update (%) | |
| Before 2019 | 1 (14%) |
| 2019 or later | 5 (71%) |
| Unknown | 1 (14%) |
| CNAs analysed, no. (%) | |
| Yes | 6 (86%) |
| No | 1 (14%) |
| NGS applied by default, no. (%) | |
| Yes | 4 (36%) |
| No | 2 (18%) |
| Only in specific cases | 5 (46%) |
| Markers always reported, no. (%) | |
| Diagnostic markers | 11 (100%) |
| Prognostic markers | 8 (73%) |
| Predictive markers | 3 (27%) |
| Actionability | 0 (0%) |
| Recurrent lesions | |
| Neuro-oncology NGS panels per week per center, no. (%) | |
| 0–5 | 7 (100%) |
| 5–10 | 0 (0%) |
| Composition molecular tumor board, no. (%) | |
| Clinical scientist in molecular pathology | 6 (100%) |
| (Neuro)pathologist | 2 (33%) |
| Neurologist | 3 (50%) |
| Neurosurgeon | 1 (17%) |
| Medical oncologist | 5 (83%) |
| Other (e.g. clinical geneticist) | 4 (67%) |
| CNAs analysed, no. (%) | |
| Yes | 5 (83%) |
| No | 1 (17%) |
| Goal(s) molecular diagnostics, no. (%) | |
| Diagnostic markers | 1 (10%) |
| Therapeutic targets | 8 (80%) |
| Gene fusions | 6 (60%) |
| Tumor mutational burden | 4 (40%) |
| Methylome profiling | 1 (10%) |
| Other (e.g. microsatellite instability) | 3 (30%) |
aTotal counts vary because the total number of respondents differed per question. CNAs: copy number aberrations. NGS: next generation sequencing