How turnaround time can become an issue in laboratory diagnostic testing | Diaceutics

How turnaround time can become an issue in laboratory diagnostic testing 

December 5th, 2017



If you’ve ever had a blood test or a biopsy and questioned the time it takes to receive the results, the answer could be because the process involved can be more complex than you’d imagine, especially when a sample requires testing not once, but up to four times. Even though the range of diagnostic tests now available has increased significantly, and the analytical processes have seen immense technical breakthroughs in the new era of precision or personalized medicine, this is no guarantee of a speedy result.

The complete testing process from start to finish, from when a patient gets a diagnostic test until they get the results back, is called ‘turnaround time’ (TAT). This can be measured in two ways. Laboratory TAT is measured from the time the sample arrives at the molecular pathology laboratory until the result is reported, while total TAT is measured from the time the sample is taken from the patient until the result is reported. The length of both types of TAT can vary not only according to the complexity of the test but the logistics involved. These are some of the reasons why:

  • TAT can vary by methodology
    Different tests can be examined using different platforms and methodologies. A testing platform like Idylla, for example, which is a PCR-based molecular diagnostics system, can analyse and report on a sample in under three hours. It can be used when speed is a priority for physicians, but Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) might have to be used if multiple genes need to be analysed, and that takes longer.
  • NGS will have a much longer TAT
    NGS is perhaps the most complex testing methodology and takes longer to perform. It is not available in all labs and is more likely to be undertaken in academic institutions or commercial laboratories. Diaceutics’ research found that in the US, KRAS testing in NSCLC using NGS has an average laboratory turnaround time of 13 days compared with Sanger sequencing with an average of nine days.
  • TAT can vary by region
    Laboratories located in a certain region may have longer average TAT if NGS is their primary methodology but it can also be influenced by infrastructure issues and the logistics of transporting samples in some areas.
  • TAT can vary with the use of sample batching
    Some labs operate sample batching – the process of waiting for a number of samples to arrive at the lab so that they can be tested together rather than individually. The lab will try to collect samples over the course of seven to ten days and then run a single test batch for all samples. For the laboratory it is a question of trying to balance efficiencies by running tests together with minimizing the time it takes to report the result.

Precision medicine is such a fast-moving space that new platforms and even digital imaging of pathology samples are likely to speed the interpretation and reporting aspects of TAT but there will always be fundamental issues to address. These include the logistics involved in getting a sample to and from the lab, tight budgets for new equipment and the cost to train staff to run novel tests and use new technology. We appreciate the vital role laboratories play in ensuring patients are tested at an early stage but also understand the importance of identifying where the lab process can be improved to prevent patients from missing out on the targeted therapies they urgently need.

On December 5, 2017, Diaceutics is hosting a webinar discussing Why 50% of patients could be missing out on the right targeted therapy, which will go into more details about maximizing the number of patients being tested. To register for the webinar please click here.

Webinars & Podcasts

August 9th, 2018
Podcast: Oncology Patient Research
Why do we need to talk biomarkers with patients? Senior Director of Market Research at Diaceutics, Marianne Fillion, recently spearheaded an effort to gather insights directly from oncology patients to get an understanding of what they know about ...
April 20th, 2018
Podcast: PM Readiness Report 2018
Peter Keeling discusses the landscape and challenges for precision medicine, companion diagnostics, CDx or biomarker and conduit diagnostics are discussed including global laboratory test data analysis and forecasts for budget impact and value.
View all

Expert Insights

April 19th, 2018
The CMS National Coverage Decision on NGS
I. Introduction On March 16, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a National Coverage Determination (NCD) that cove...
January 19th, 2018
What does the EU IVD Regulation mean for companion diagnostics and LDTs?
Dave Smart, PhD, Director at Diaceutics, discusses the introduction of the EU IVD Regulation. While it is considered a necessary step, the Regulati...
View all expert insights

Competitive Benchmarking Reports

March 16th, 2018
PM Readiness Report 2018 Summary
March 14th, 2017
Pharma Readiness for Diagnostic Integration 2017
View all reports

Publications

September 11th, 2018
BRAF mutation testing in melanoma – Poster presented at European Congress of Pathology 2018
BRAF mutation testing in melanoma: a study including Austria, Germany and UK, highlighting concordance for current technologies, and potential requirement of more sensitive technologies in future applications.
August 3rd, 2018
A Way Forward: Leveraging Advanced Diagnostic Testing to Unlock the Value of Precision Medicine
Read about how advanced diagnostic testing, ensuring that right patient gets the right therapy, at the right time, particularly with respect to therapies where the test result determines whether or not the therapy should be used (precision medicin...
View all publications
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
LinkedIn