I will strongly disagree.
In the past, molecular genetic testing was rather simple, and the role of the attending "physician" was to ensure the quality of the test, that it meets specifications, and to provide an accurate result. No wonder PhDs took over.
With NGS testing in oncology, it has become far more complicated. There is not necessarily a simple test with a simple answer- it is a very complex test that simultaneously tests potentially millions of different variables, and the results need to be considered with the patient's germline phenotype, clinical history, histology, etc. Oncologists and physicians in general do not have the capability of understanding the complex results of these tests, thus an expert interpretation will be required. Who will given this interpretation in light of cancer biology, diagnostics, and clinical significance? Do you trust a PhD to tell you what a novel variant in KRAS can mean to treating a metastatic colon cancer patient with mucinous histology? How can they accurately assess tumor content and cellularity?
The future of NGS testing in oncology is in the hands of Anatomic Pathologists if precision medicine is to move forward. We are the best suited for such medically relevant interpretations, provided a sufficient fund of knowledge in the field (a minimum of MGP fellowship). If we do not take it, Oncologists themselves will. Not PhDs- that would ensure that NGS never moves beyond hotspot testing of well-established genetic signatures.
I think the best parallel is to Radiology. Any clinician can order an Xray and review the findings. But it is a very complex test with a lot potential variables, and an expert in such tests can render a far more valuable impression of the findings than a layperson/primary care clinician. History has shown this to be the case, otherwise radiology would not exist. And radiology has only become MORE complex, requiring additional expertise. Pathology as a field was also born of surgery in the same way. The future of this field, IMHO, is expert review and interpretation of the results. right now, most findings are delivered from a lab to a clinician, and any non-common finding (other than mutations like an EGFR 858 mutation or KRAS G12C in lung adenocarcinoma) is basically ignored. Our understanding of tumor processes and targeting of those processes will only make these analyses more complex, requiring more and more expertise. This was never true of IHC- the results were always "stain +/-" and easily absorbed into a pathologist routine.
/end rant