Neha Jain, Ph.D.’s Post

View profile for Neha Jain, Ph.D.

Sr. Director, Precision Medicine @ OneOncology

🧬 Solid vs Liquid Biopsy — Which Test, When, and Why It Matters Molecular testing has become routine in oncology — but one question keeps coming up: Should I order tissue NGS or a liquid biopsy? The answer, as always, is nuanced. 🔹 Tissue (solid) testing Still considered the gold standard for most solid tumors. It allows for: ✔️Comprehensive profiling: Detects SNVs, indels, CNVs, fusions, and complex alterations (e.g., MSI-H, TMB). ✔️Histology correlation: Integrates morphology, IHC, and genomics. ✔️Higher sensitivity for low-frequency variants in a well-preserved sample. Limitations: ✖️Tissue exhaustion (biopsy material may be limited) ✖️Turnaround time ✖️May not reflect tumor evolution or heterogeneity at progression 🔹 Liquid biopsy (cfDNA-based testing) A game changer when tissue is insufficient or inaccessible. It offers: ✔️Minimal invasiveness – just a blood draw ✔️Faster results – typically within days ✔️Dynamic monitoring – captures tumor evolution and emerging resistance Limitations: ✖️Sensitivity depends on tumor DNA shedding — false negatives can occur, especially in low-volume or CNS-only disease. ✖️Cannot detect fusions or CNVs as reliably as tissue-based platforms (though improving rapidly). ✖️No histopathologic context. 🧩 Practical takeaway: At diagnosis: Start with tissue when feasible. If tissue is inadequate or inaccessible: Add or reflex to liquid biopsy. At progression: Liquid biopsy can reveal resistance mutations and guide next-line therapy. 🧩 Ideal scenario: Use both — they are complementary, not competitive. As genomic assays expand, the smartest question is no longer “which test is better?” but “how can both work together to tell the complete story of the tumor?” #PrecisionOncology #MolecularTesting #NGS #LiquidBiopsy #CancerGenomics #OncologyInsights #ClinicalOncology #CancerDiagnostics

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories