Resource availability for CNS tumor diagnostics in the Asian Oceanian region: A survey by the Asian Oceanian Society of Neuropathology committee for Adapting Diagnostic Approaches for Practical Taxonomy in Resource-Restrained Regions (AOSNP-ADAPTR)

The shift toward a histo-molecular approach in World Health Organization classification of central nervous system tumors (WHO CNS5) emphasizes the critical role of molecular testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) and DNA methylation profiling, for accurate diagnosis. However, implementing these advanced techniques is particularly challenging in resource-constrained countries. To address this, the Asian Oceanian Society of Neuropathology committee for Adapting Diagnostic Approaches for Practical Taxonomy in Resource-Restrained Regions (AOSNP-ADAPTR) was initiated to help pathologists in resource-limited regions to implement WHO CNS5 diagnoses using simpler diagnostic tools, mainly immunohistochemistry. An online survey by this group assessed the in-house/local availability of diagnostic resources and outsourcing capabilities across the Asian Oceanian region, covering 19 countries. Of 318 responding centers, the availability of molecular techniques in-house/locally was limited in lower middle-income countries (LMICs), with 29% having fluorescence in situ hybridization, 10.7% Sanger sequencing, and only 9.4% NGS. DNA methylation was largely unavailable in-house/locally in of LMICs, while in the whole region, its availability stood at a meager 4.4%. Though outsourcing for all diagnostic tests was an easily accessible alternative, outsourcing for NGS and DNA methylation was uncommon because of the financial burden on patients being a significant obstacle. The survey categorized centers into five resource levels (RLs) based on the in-house/local access to diagnostic techniques, which highlighted the variability and disparity in diagnostic capabilities across the region. High-income countries had 80% of centers with advanced RL IV, V resources, in contrast to LMICs, where 70.5% of centers fell into RL I–III. This comprehensive evaluation emphasizes the need for tailored resource level guidelines, with the aim of improving diagnostic accuracy and treatment as well as advocating better healthcare infrastructure in resource-constrained areas. However, the survey's reliance on responses from better-resourced centers may underestimate challenges in lower-resource settings, stressing the need for broader outreach and support.