We are seeking short, two- to three-sentence quotes from oncologists and other physicians on biomarker testing in clinical practice. Please answer any of the questions below. In your practice, what are the biggest barriers to ordering guideline-recommended biomarker testing? How often do you start treatment before full molecular results return, and what drives that decision? Have you encountered cases where delayed or incomplete testing affected treatment selection or outcomes? What role do payer policies or prior authorization play in your testing decisions? How do tissue limitations or sample quality impact your ability to order comprehensive panels? Are you using liquid biopsy alongside tissue testing? If yes, how has it changed your workflow? What operational fixes have improved testing rates in your setting? What is one change that would immediately improve biomarker testing adherence in routine care? Short, direct, actionable responses preferred. Oncologists strongly encouraged, all physicians welcome.

I run BioGenix Peptides and spend my days on identity confirmation, purity verification, and documentation because "close enough" ruins conclusions. That same reproducibility mindset is why biomarker testing in clinic breaks down when the sample, chain-of-custody, or reporting isn't tight. Big barriers I see (from the lab side) are tissue limitations and pre-analytic handling--tiny cores, low tumor fraction, degradation from heat/moisture/time--so you get "incomplete" panels or ambiguous calls. When the specimen is compromised, you're effectively studying the wrong "sequence," and treatment selection becomes guesswork. Starting therapy before full molecular results often isn't just urgency--it's logistics: insufficient material for comprehensive panels, slow send-outs, and fragmented reporting that doesn't land as a single actionable readout. I've watched research teams lose weeks chasing signal that was really impurity/identity noise; clinically, that same dynamic is delayed or wrong targeting when the initial test set is partial. One operational fix that consistently improves adherence is requiring verification-grade documentation at the testing step: clear sample adequacy criteria up front, reflex rules (tissue - liquid biopsy if tissue is limited), and a single standardized report format that's built for reproducibility. If I could change one thing immediately, it'd be mandatory "specimen quality + identity" gating before ordering--because if the input is wrong, every downstream decision is unstable.