One adoption number would have hidden the answer
A client needed to understand where NGS testing had been adopted across oncology, and where the opportunity still sat.
Adoption in this category is not a single figure. A site that runs sequencing in house, one that sends it to a reference laboratory and one that does both are three different customers with three different buying patterns.
Market sizing that averages across those three produces a number nobody can sell against. The testing model has to be part of the unit of analysis.
Surveys and interviews, across more than a hundred and sixty sites
The work combined surveys and interviews across more than 160 hospitals and laboratories in multiple regions.
The output was built as a lifecycle database rather than a report. Each site was recorded against where it sat in the genomic testing lifecycle, from no capability through to established in house sequencing.
That structure is what lets adoption be read by testing model instead of by geography alone.
Precision oncology programmes are often described at the level of the hospital. The purchasing behaviour lives a level below that, in the laboratory and its testing model.
Fifteen to twenty percent of the opportunity was still open
Adoption varied by testing model, which is the distinction the database was built to carry.
Between 15 and 20 percent whitespace remained across instrumentation, services and software.
Three categories, and they do not sit with the same sites. Whitespace in software is a different conversation from whitespace in instrumentation, and the database keeps them apart.
What the client took away was a view of where next generation sequencing had landed, where it had not, and which kind of site each remaining opportunity belonged to.
