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.