LabCorp 35 page report
January 2026
##
Overview: what kind of report this is
The 2026 Pulse of the Oncologist report is not a hypothesis-driven clinical study but a practice-level diagnostic of modern oncology, produced by Labcorp to surface friction points in real-world cancer care and align them with diagnostic, digital, and service opportunities. Rather than asking whether a specific technology improves outcomes, the report asks a more upstream question: what actually slows oncologists down, complicates decision-making, or limits patient access in daily practice? Its findings are therefore best understood as systems intelligence, grounded in clinician perception and workflow realities, not clinical endpoints.
Methodologically, the report uses a mixed-methods design. Labcorp surveyed 152 practicing U.S. oncologists, spanning community practices, academic medical centers, and integrated systems, and representing multiple oncology subspecialties. These quantitative findings were supplemented by in-depth qualitative interviews and market analysis, with direct clinician quotations embedded throughout to anchor statistics in lived experience . The authors are transparent that this is perception-based data; for example, certain terms (notably “comprehensive genomic profiling”) were not rigidly defined, and results are meant to be interpreted directionally rather than as precise comparative rankings.
The report is structured around five major “trends,” each following the same arc: a real-world problem described by oncologists, supporting survey data, and an explicit “opportunity” section that frames how diagnostic partners—implicitly large national labs—could help reduce friction. This repeated structure is important: it signals that the report is not only descriptive, but also strategic.
Trend 1: time as the dominant clinical currency
The first and arguably most foundational finding is that time has become the scarcest and most consequential resource in oncology care. Nearly nine in ten oncologists expect cancer care to become even more complex over the next three years, driven by the explosion of diagnostic information, expanding treatment categories, increasingly complex cases, and shifting insurance rules. Against this backdrop, 60% of oncologists cite test turnaround time as a top challenge, a figure that the authors frame not as an operational inconvenience but as a threat to patient outcomes.
What is striking here is the moral framing: every day a test result is delayed is portrayed as a day treatment is delayed, a point reinforced by clinician quotations emphasizing anxiety, sleeplessness, and perceived harm. The report reinforces this with external data on the economic and personal burden of waiting, reframing turnaround time as both a clinical and ethical issue rather than merely a logistics metric. The implicit claim is that speed is no longer a “nice to have” feature of diagnostics, but a core determinant of care quality.
Trend 2: innovation constrained by access and affordability
The second trend highlights a persistent and sobering mismatch between diagnostic innovation and patient access. Despite enthusiasm for technologies such as MRD testing, liquid biopsy, and multi-cancer early detection, oncologists report that insurance coverage and patient out-of-pocket cost remain dominant barriers to use. More than half of respondents cite lack of coverage as a major obstacle, and over 40% point to cost as a key concern. Crucially, patient insurance status emerges as the single most important factor in choosing a laboratory partner, outweighing test sophistication or novelty.
The report’s rhetorical move here is clear: it argues that the most advanced test is clinically meaningless if patients cannot afford it. This section reframes value in oncology diagnostics away from technical performance alone and toward practical deployability at scale, emphasizing payer contracting, prior authorization support, and financial assistance as core components of diagnostic excellence rather than ancillary services.
Trend 3: digital friction in an increasingly virtual care environment
The third trend focuses on digital infrastructure and workflow integration, and it is one of the most concrete and operationally actionable sections of the report. Oncology care is increasingly virtualized—through remote monitoring, digital second opinions, and EHR-mediated communication—yet the digital plumbing has not kept pace. A substantial proportion of oncologists report difficulty with EHR connectivity, and while oncologists estimate that roughly half of oncology tests are ordered through EHRs, this lags far behind routine laboratory ordering.
The report shows that oncologists strongly prefer labs with easy ordering processes, real-time sample tracking, and tight EHR integration, and that these features directly influence lab choice. Importantly, the authors emphasize that the barrier is not resistance to new technology, but the cognitive and time burden of fragmented systems—multiple portals, redundant data entry, and poor interoperability. In this framing, digital friction becomes a hidden tax on clinician attention, contributing to burnout and inefficiency even as diagnostic sophistication increases.
Trend 4: the growing importance of clarity and interpretability
The fourth trend shifts from operational speed and access to cognitive clarity. The report argues that the precision-medicine era has succeeded in generating vast amounts of genomic data, but has struggled to translate that data into consistently actionable guidance. A notable minority of oncologists report that lab reports are unclear or insufficiently specific, and many express uncertainty about how to act on complex genomic findings.
This concern is contextualized by reference to emerging efforts, such as ESMO’s recommendations for standardized genomic reporting formats, which aim to bridge the gap between molecular detail and clinical decision-making. The report also highlights the growing role of genetic counselors, particularly in hereditary cancer testing, noting that roughly three-quarters of such cases involve counselor guidance. The broader message is that interpretation—not data generation—has become the limiting step, and that diagnostics increasingly require embedded decision support, education, and expert consultation to deliver clinical impact.
Trend 5: human connection amid workforce strain
The final trend zooms out to the oncology workforce itself. The report documents high levels of burnout, a willingness among many oncologists to trade income for work-life balance, and an aging workforce that portends future shortages. Against this backdrop, oncologists emphasize the value of human support from diagnostic partners, including access to lab experts, consultative services, and patient support programs.
Interestingly, while concierge services and second opinions are viewed positively, affordability remains a constraint even here. The report’s underlying claim is that diagnostics cannot be separated from the emotional and cognitive labor of oncology care, and that labs that invest in human connection—not just automation—can play a role in sustaining the workforce.
What the authors ultimately argue matters most
Across all five trends, the authors return to a single unifying thesis: oncologists do not primarily need more innovation; they need less friction. Speed, access, digital integration, interpretive clarity, and human support are presented not as independent goals, but as interdependent pillars of high-value oncology care. Weakness in any one undermines the others.
The concluding sections explicitly translate these insights into strategic imperatives for Labcorp, emphasizing faster turnaround times, broader payer coverage, deeper EHR integration, clearer reporting, and expanded consultative services. While this alignment clearly serves Labcorp’s business strategy, it is grounded in a coherent and internally consistent reading of clinician feedback.
What is most new, surprising, or discussion-worthy
What is most striking—and potentially most valuable for journal club discussion—is the report’s reframing of value in oncology diagnostics. Turnaround time is treated as a moral and clinical imperative, not an operational detail. Ease of ordering and integration emerges as more influential than test novelty. Interpretation and clarity are portrayed as more limiting than assay sensitivity. And labs are positioned not just as testing vendors, but as workflow partners and even partial buffers against burnout.
At the same time, the report invites healthy skepticism. It relies on self-reported perceptions rather than outcomes data, and nearly every “opportunity” maps cleanly onto services a large national lab can provide. Policy dynamics—such as CMS coverage rules, MolDx processes, and prior authorization complexity—are acknowledged but not deeply analyzed. These gaps themselves can fuel productive discussion.
Bottom line
Taken as a whole, the Pulse of the Oncologist report argues that the central bottleneck in modern oncology is no longer scientific discovery, but operational translation. Precision medicine has succeeded technically; it is now constrained by time, access, integration, clarity, and human bandwidth. Whether one sees the report primarily as field intelligence, strategic positioning, or both, it offers a useful and candid snapshot of how oncology actually feels from the clinician’s side of the interface—and why diagnostics increasingly live or die by workflow rather than novelty alone.
###
Original bullets report
Great choice for a journal club kickoff. This is not a traditional hypothesis-driven paper; it’s a field-level diagnostic of oncology practice, framed through the lens of a large national reference lab. That actually makes it more interesting for discussion, because the “results” are about systems, friction, and incentives, not molecules.
Below is a structured, journal-club–ready review you can use as scaffolding for slides and discussion. I’ll move in four layers: (1) what this report is and how it was done, (2) the five major findings, (3) what the authors think is most important, and (4) what’s genuinely new, surprising, or debatable.
1. What this report is — and how it was done
What kind of “study” is this?
This is a mixed-methods market and practice landscape report, not an academic outcomes study. Its goal is to surface operational pain points experienced by oncologists and map them to diagnostic, digital, and service opportunities—very explicitly from a Labcorp perspective.
Think of it as:
A structured needs assessment
Grounded in clinician voice
Designed to justify lab workflow, informatics, payer, and consultative investments
Data sources and methods
According to the methods section , Labcorp combined:
Quantitative
Survey of 152 practicing U.S. oncologists
Mix of:
Community practices (45%)
Academic medical centers (55%)
Integrated systems
Specialties included medical oncology, hematology, pediatric oncology, gynecologic oncology, and pathology
Qualitative
In-depth interviews
Market and literature analysis
Embedded verbatim quotes throughout
Importantly:
This is self-reported perception data
CGP, for example, was not explicitly defined, and authors flag that results should be interpreted “directionally,” not as strict comparisons
Framing choice that matters
The report is organized into five “Trends”, each following the same structure:
A real-world problem
Supporting survey data
A concluding “Opportunity”—almost always phrased as something labs could or should do
That structure is deliberate and worth calling out explicitly in journal club.
2. The five major findings (the core content)
Trend 1: Time is the critical currency
The central claim: diagnostic delay is now a dominant clinical and economic risk, not a minor inconvenience.
Key findings:
89% expect oncology care to become more complex within 3 years
60% cite test turnaround time as a top challenge
Complexity is driven by:
More treatment categories
More diagnostic information
Changing case complexity and insurance rules
Notably, the authors elevate waiting itself as harmful—citing “patient time costs” of ~$4.9B annually.
Interpretive move:
The report reframes speed not as operational efficiency, but as clinical urgency and moral responsibility.
Trend 2: Innovation without access
This section tackles the mismatch between technical capability and real-world usability.
Key findings:
52% cite lack of insurance coverage as a major barrier
42% cite patient cost as a key concern
Patient insurance coverage is the top factor in lab selection
Despite excitement around:
MRD
Liquid biopsy
MCED
…the report emphasizes that innovation that isn’t covered might as well not exist (their words, via quote).
Interpretive move:
The authors subtly shift the definition of “best test” from most advanced to most accessible.
Trend 3: Digital friction in a virtual future
This is one of the most data-dense and actionable sections.
Key findings:
41% struggle with EHR connectivity
Oncologists estimate 56% of oncology tests are ordered through the EHR—30 percentage points less than routine labs
73% want better digital/IT lab interfaces
74% say sample tracking would increase lab use
63% choose labs based on ease of ordering
The report also references external data showing:
Rising EHR inbox burden
Oncology having the highest after-hours EHR workload
Interpretive move:
This section reframes digital adoption as not a technology problem, but an integration and workflow problem.
Trend 4: Clarity is essential for actionable care
Here the report pivots from logistics to cognition.
Key findings:
22% find lab reports unclear
18% question report specificity
~75% of hereditary cancer testing cases involve genetic counselor input
The authors cite:
ESMO’s push for standardized genomic reporting
Evidence that CGP changes therapy in ~⅔ of cases—when it’s interpretable
Interpretive move:
The report suggests that data volume has outpaced interpretive infrastructure.
This is one of the few places where the lab’s role is framed as cognitive support, not just logistics.
Trend 5: Human connection remains a differentiator
The final trend zooms out to workforce sustainability.
Key findings:
~59% of oncologists report burnout
~62% would accept lower pay for better work-life balance
14% cite limited access to lab experts as a key challenge
26% say patient support services would differentiate a lab
The authors emphasize:
Concierge services
Second opinions
Genetic counseling
Human consultation layered onto technology
Interpretive move:
This reframes labs as emotional and cognitive partners, not just test vendors.
3. What the authors think is most important
Across the conclusion and repeated framing language, the authors’ core thesis is:
Oncologists don’t need more innovation; they need less friction.
They define high-value oncology diagnostics as resting on five interdependent pillars:
Speed
Access
Digital integration
Interpretive clarity
Human support
And they are explicit that:
These are inseparable
Failure in any one undermines the others
For Labcorp, this conveniently maps onto:
Logistics investment
Payer contracting
API/EHR integration
Report design
Consultative services
That alignment is not accidental—and is worth surfacing in discussion.
4. What’s new, surprising, or most discussion-worthy
Here’s where your journal club will get interesting.
What’s genuinely new or under-appreciated
Turnaround time as a moral issue, not just operational efficiency
This is a notable rhetorical shift, and it resonates with frontline clinicians.EHR friction outweighs test novelty
The finding that ease of ordering trumps test sophistication is quietly radical.Interpretation > generation of data
The report is blunt that unclear reports erode the value of precision medicine.Labs as workforce stabilizers
The idea that labs can reduce burnout through better interfaces and human support is not commonly articulated this clearly.
What’s surprising (or at least notable)
Digital pathology and WES/WGS rank lower than MRD and liquid biopsy in perceived impact, despite hype.
Even at AMCs, coverage and cost dominate lab selection, not academic prestige.
A sizable minority of oncologists openly question report clarity—remarkable given how central genomics now is.
What’s debatable or missing (excellent journal club prompts)
Selection bias: oncologists willing to respond to a Labcorp survey may already be lab-engaged.
No patient outcomes data: everything is perceptual.
Lab-centric solutions: nearly every “opportunity” points back to lab action, not systemic reform.
Policy layer is thin: CMS, MolDx, prior authorization rules are mentioned implicitly, not analyzed.
You could frame this provocatively as:
“Is this a neutral field report—or a carefully evidenced business strategy document?”
That’s not a criticism; it’s a productive lens.
Bottom line for your journal club
This report is best read not as evidence that X test is better, but as evidence that:
The bottleneck in modern oncology is no longer scientific discovery—it’s operational translation.
If you want, next we can:
Turn this into a 10–12 slide journal club deck
Write discussion questions that will actually provoke debate
Or map these findings explicitly to MRD, CGP, or payer policy realities you’re already working with
