Is there conflicting information provided by the molecular test and the H&E or between different molecular tests? Because when we say molecular, traditionally that means molecules, but in fact it’s come to mean DNA-based analysis. And the DNA-based analysis is only sort of half the story or even less. Now we know a lot of it. There’s a lot of other biomarkers out there, including protein-based biomarkers, which can be either assessed subjectively or more objectively with fluorescence or mass spec methods...
Is there conflicting information provided by the molecular test and the H&E or between different molecular tests? Because when we say molecular, traditionally that means molecules, but in fact it’s come to mean DNA-based analysis. And the DNA-based analysis is only sort of half the story or even less. Now we know a lot of it. There’s a lot of other biomarkers out there, including protein-based biomarkers, which can be either assessed subjectively or more objectively with fluorescence or mass spec methods. And so sometimes those methods don’t agree with each other. And the oncologist has to make a decision of which one to trust. And there’s not a hard and fast rule as to which one’s better. And the determination of how they should care for their patient should probably be made on the basis of the levels of evidence for each of the different biomarkers. And so some biomarkers are out there and they’re very well marketed, but they’re not very well tested in prospective trials. Other biomarkers are very well tested in prospective trials, but not so well marketed. And so I encourage the oncologist to look for the prospective trials and look for the clinical data supporting, high-level clinical data supporting the biomarkers, as opposed to just the marketing, which sometimes can be a little bit misleading.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
