NIPT Overview & 2025 Pulse Survey
Summary
The focus of the U.S. Oncology Genomics Tracker is to characterize the current clinical use of genomic testing across clinical applications (e.g., genomic profiling, MRD / recurrence monitoring, treatment response monitoring) and track how use changes over time. Respondents were asked about use of genomic testing within routine clinical practice within the past 3 months.
The survey was distributed randomly to U.S. oncologists. Respondents were selected to complete the survey if they were an actively-practicing board-certified medical oncologist or hematologist-oncologist, U.S.-based and had seen at least 40 patients over the past 3 months. Respondents were not screened out of the survey if they were not currently using, or had not previously used, genomics for biomarker testing.
Survey Table of Contents:
Introduction and Methodology
- Survey Demographics
- Survey Scope and Definitions
- Survey Limitations / Considerations
Survey Findings
- Executive Summary, Genomic Profiling & MRD / Recurrence Monitoring
- Executive Summary, Treatment Response Monitoring & Commercial Activity
Survey Findings – Genomic Profiling
- In the past 3 months, what share of your newly-diagnosed patients, received an NGS-based genomic profiling test for Tx selection? (Overall)
- In the past 3 months, what share of your newly-diagnosed patients received an NGS-based genomic profiling test for Tx selection? (AMC vs. CH)
- Of those that received NGS-based genomic profiling testing in the last 3 months, what share was tissue-based vs. blood (ctDNA)-based?
- Of those that received NGS-based GP* testing in the last 3 months, what share was small panels vs. large panels vs. WES / WGS?
- What is your level of awareness / familiarity with each of the following genomic profiling providers (tissue and / or blood-based)? (N=100)
- Which companies do you perceive to have the strongest offerings in genomic profiling (including tissue and/or liquid)?
- (1) What share of your tissue-based genomic profiling in the past 3 months was performed using each of the following providers? (2) In the next 12 months how do you expect your use of providers (by share) to change?
- For your top tissue-based genomic profiling vendor, what are the top 3 reasons why you order from this provider?
- What are your top pain points as it relates to comprehensive genomic profiling among tissue providers?
- (1) What share of your blood-based (ctDNA) genomic profiling in the past 3 months was performed using each of the following providers? (2) Over the next 12 months, how do you expect your use of providers (by share) to change?
- For your top blood-based genomic profiling vendor, what are the top 3 reasons why you order from this provider?
- What are your top pain points as it relates to comprehensive genomic profiling among blood-based providers?
- Considering only the past 3 months, please rank up to 4 of the top genomic profiling companies by number of sales representative interactions
- In the past 3 months, how many times have you been contacted by sales reps about genomic profiling offerings from your top 4 companies?
- Rank up to 4 companies that, in the past 3 months, had the most noticeable / memorable news, announcements, publications, etc. in genomic profiling
Survey Findings – MRD / Recurrence Monitoring
- How would you rate your familiarity with ctDNA-based MRD and monitoring testing in solid tumors? (N = 100)
- In the last 3 months, for patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment, what share received a blood-based (ctDNA) response monitoring test?
- In the last 3 months, for patients within 6 months of completion of curative intent treatment, what share received a ctDNA MRD test?
- In the last 3 months, for patients 6+ month from completion of curative intent treatment, what share received a ctDNA recurrence monitoring test?
- What is your level of confidence in the clinical utility / performance of MRD / monitoring testing?
- What is your level of awareness / familiarity with the solid tumor MRD / recurrence monitoring offerings from each of the following providers?
- (1) In the past 3 months, what share of MRD and monitoring* testing was ordered from each of the following providers? (2) Over the next 12 months, how do you expect your use of providers (by share) will change?
- For your top MRD / monitoring testing vendor, what are the top 3 reasons why you order from this provider?
- Which companies do you perceive to have the strongest offerings in MRD / Recurrence Monitoring?
Survey Findings – Treatment Response Monitoring
- How would you rate your familiarity with ctDNA-based treatment response monitoring testing in solid tumors?
- In the last 3 months, for your adjuvant stage patients within 6 months of 1L systemic Tx, what share received a ctDNA Tx response monitoring test? Of those that receive Tx response monitoring testing, how many tests do patients typically get over the course of their treatment journey?
- What is your level of confidence in the clinical utility / performance of treatment response monitoring testing?
- What is your level of awareness / familiarity with each of the following treatment response monitoring offering providers?
- (1) In the past 3 months, what share of Treatment Response Monitoring testing was ordered from each of the following providers? (2) Over the next 12 months, how do you expect your use of providers (by share) will change?
- For your primary Treatment Response Monitoring vendor, what are the top 3 reasons why you order from this provider?
- Which companies do you perceive to have the strongest offerings in Treatment Response Monitoring?
- Considering the past 3 months, rank up to 4 of the top MRD / Treatment Response Monitoring companies by number of sales rep. interactions
- In the past 3 months, how many times have you been contacted by sales reps about MRD or TRM* offerings from your top 4 companies?
- What are the top 4 companies you noticed had the most memorable news, announcements, publications, etc. in MRD / Tx Response Monitoring?
Appendix – Intro to DeciBio
Survey Scope
Survey Scope & Design:
- Structured as a recall-based survey
- For most questions, respondents were directed to answer in the context of patients treated and/or experiences within the past 3 months
- Respondents were directed to answer in the context of patients treated in routine clinical care and not in the context of clinical trials
- For MRD and monitoring, respondents were directed to answer in the context of solid-tumor testing
- Logic was used to display certain questions to respondents based on prior responses (e.g., familiarity, testing rates, etc.) – thus, not all respondents answered all questions (i.e.,respondents were not shown questions that were irrelevant to them based on their practices)
- The median duration of completion was 24 minutes
Definitions
Respondents were provided with the following definitions while completing the survey:
Genomic Profiling: testing for multiple genomic aberrations (e.g., indels, CNVs, fusions / rearrangements, single nucleotide polymorphisms) simultaneously using NGS in either tissue or blood samples to identify clinically-actionable genomic variants, primarily for treatment selection and/or clinical trial enrollment
Small panel: An NGS panel containing < 100genes
Large panel: An NGS panel containing > 100genes
Neoadjuvant Response Monitoring: ctDNA-based testing performed before and after neoadjuvant treatment to assess the response to neoadjuvant therapy / predict pathological complete response**
Molecular (/Minimal) ResidualDisease (MRD): ctDNA test performed one or more times within6 months of completion of curative-intent treatment (typically after surgery) to check for residual disease and/or inform adjuvant treatment decisions (can be done before and/or after adjuvant treatment)**
Surveillance / RecurrenceMonitoring: ctDNA testing performed atone or more timepoints beyond 6 months post curative intent treatment (typically surgery +/-adjuvant treatment) to monitor for signs of molecular recurrence**
Treatment Response Monitoring: ctDNA testing performed at one or more time points during or after treatment of advanced-stage patients with systemic therapy to assess the effectiveness of the treatment. Note that treatment response monitoring may include analysis of ctDNA levels, ctDNA variants, or both.
Survey Limitations / Considerations
Limitations / Considerations for the data contained in this survey include:
- Survey format: This is a recall-based survey, which relies on oncologists’ ability to recall specific information, which is imperfect
- Survey N: Given the number of medical oncologists / oncologist-hematologists in theU.S. (13,400), the 100 survey responses captured here represent a margin of error of 9-10% at a 95% confidence interval
- Stakeholder type: Oncologists are the primary stakeholder for deciding to order tests, but mayor may not be involved in actually executing the order (a nurse and / or pathologist can often play that role), thus the oncologist may not be entirely familiar with the details of the tests ordered (e.g., which types of tests from which labs)
- Definitions: Oncologist’s may have definitions that differ from those used / described in this survey and may have answered questions according to their personal definitions (e.g., some respondents included lymphomas in their definition of solid tumors, while others did not)
- Selection bias: Oncologists that actively and regularly order biomarker testing are more likely to take a survey related to oncology biomarker testing, potentially overrepresenting adoption and utilization figures, especially for emerging methods
- Adherence to directions: Oncologists were directed to answer the questions within a specific context(e.g., solid-tumor patients treated within routine care (i.e., not trials) within the past 3 months) – it is possible that oncologists deviated from these guardrails when responding to questions
- Respondent mix: The mix of respondents by setting for this survey (52% community-based, 48%AMC-based) is not mapped to the overall distribution of oncology care in theU.S. (which is closer to ~85% community-based, 15% AMC-based)
- Volume vs. market share: Any share figures here correspond to volume share and are not necessarily reflective of market share
- Early access users: Some clinicians / institutions participate in early-access programs which give them access to tests prior to public / commercial launch of an assay, which could be captured here
DeciBio performed a small study on the NIPT market to get a pulse on user perspectives and key market dynamics. We surveyed N=20 respondents, with a 50%/50% lab directors vs. OB/GYN split and a 70%/30% US/EU split, across a mix of settings (e.g., academic medical center, community hospital, specialty clinic / private practice, reference lab).
We synthesized the survey analysis with secondary research into a short deck covering the following topics:
- Test adoption patterns across NIPT conditions
- Key purchasing criteria
- Market & competitive landscape
- Customer satisfaction with current vendors
- Pain points / unmet needs
- NIPT "wishlist" for next-gen product development
Download a sample of the report here.
Purchase Options
Experience the DeciBio Difference
Experience the DeciBio Difference
- $ 3,000.00 USD
