Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

To integrate RNA sequencing, labs can use a sequential workflow (DNA-NGS first, then RNA-NGS on driver-negative cases), which is cost-effective but slower. Alternatively, upfront co-testing is faster and decision-free but more expensive and may be unnecessary for patients with common DNA-level drivers.

Related Insights

Shifting from clinician-ordered to pathologist-initiated reflex testing for NSCLC biomarkers combines diagnosis and molecular analysis into one workflow. This operational change minimizes delays, increases testing rates, and optimizes the use of small biopsy samples, getting actionable results to oncologists faster.

Comprehensive molecular testing (PD-L1, EGFR, ALK) is no longer reserved for advanced disease. It is now critical for all patients with stage 1B or higher resectable NSCLC *before* starting any treatment to guide neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy decisions.

While liquid biopsies are a valuable, less invasive tool, a negative result is inconclusive for ruling out actionable mutations in NSCLC. It may simply mean the tumor isn't shedding enough DNA. Therefore, a negative liquid biopsy should never be the final word; it must be followed by a tissue biopsy to ensure patients don't miss out on targeted therapies.

In community SCLC care, molecular strategies are not monolithic. Genomic alteration testing (NGS) is ready for immediate use and can identify targets today. In contrast, neuroendocrine subtyping is still investigational and not yet clinically actionable, pending results from research studies.

DNA-based NGS can fail to detect clinically actionable fusions in NSCLC due to assay design limitations (low sensitivity). It can also report fusions of unclear significance (low specificity). Integrating RNA-based NGS is critical to reliably identify true driver fusions and clarify ambiguous DNA findings.

Clinicians ordering "NGS for lung" often misunderstand that Next-Generation Sequencing alone does not cover all actionable biomarkers, such as PD-L1 or HER2. This requires pathologists to interpret the clinician's intent and order a more comprehensive and appropriate test panel.

Clinicians increasingly perform Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) on initial diagnostic tissue, even if results don't alter first-line treatment. This proactive approach identifies stable mutations like PIK3CA early, enabling long-term planning, such as optimizing a patient's metabolic health in anticipation of future targeted therapies.

For post-progression biopsies, which are often small and contain necrotic tissue, institutions may prioritize DNA-based NGS panels. This strategy is based on the rationale that most resistance mechanisms are genetic mutations detectable by DNA sequencing, reserving RNA panels primarily for identifying less common fusion events.

For critical driver mutations like ROS1 and ALK fusions, relying solely on DNA-based Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) is insufficient. A study showed that a significant portion of these fusions are only detectable via RNA sequencing. Clinicians must verify that RNA analysis was included in NGS reports to avoid missing effective targeted therapies for one in five potential patients.

Tumor-informed assays like Signatera sequence a patient's tumor to create a personalized test, making it highly sensitive but taking 3-4 weeks. Tumor-uninformed assays are faster (1 week) but less sensitive as they screen for a generic panel of cancer mutations.