Despite links to cardiovascular risk, only 0.2% of Americans received an Lp(a) test over the past decade, raising concerns about access, equity, and preparedness for new therapies.
For lab leaders, the findings highlight both the challenges of uneven adoption and the opportunities to drive greater awareness, access, and equity as new therapies approach the market.
The study was published September 26 in Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Advances, used Epic Cosmos, a nationwide database encompassing over 300 million patient records from health systems in all 50 states. It marks the first time Epic Cosmos has been used at this scale within the University of California system, and the first study to assess national patterns of Lp(a) testing at this volume.
Lp(a) is a cholesterol particle in the blood that is almost entirely determined by genetics. Elevated levels, which affect about 20% of the US population, are linked to significantly higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and aortic valve disease. Unlike LDL cholesterol, Lp(a) does not respond to diet or lifestyle changes, and currently there are no widely available therapies to lower it—though several are in late-stage clinical trials.
US Testing Rates Remain Low
An article on the study stated, “They found that between 2015 and 2024, just 728,550 patients, representing only 0.2% of the US population, underwent Lp(a) testing. Testing increased from about 14,000 patients in 2015 to more than 300,000 in 2024, but overall rates remain far below what experts recommend for identifying individuals at risk.”
European nations are moving toward universal Lp(a) screening as a key early predictor of heart disease, while the U.S. continues to lag behind.
“By analyzing national data from over 300 million patients, we’ve uncovered how much work remains to bring Lp(a) testing into routine care,” said Mattheus Ramsis, MD, lead author and assistant professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine.
Mattheus Ramsis, MD, lead author and assistant professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine noted, “These insights give us a roadmap for expanding access and addressing gaps. We’re seeing a growing recognition among clinicians of the importance of Lp(a) testing, but the low overall testing rates and regional imbalances highlight how much further we need to go. Broader awareness and access to testing could make the difference between catching disease early and missing an opportunity to prevent heart attacks and strokes, ensuring that all patients benefit from emerging therapies.” (Photo credit: UC San Diego Division of Cardiovascular Medicine)
Testing Patterns
The UC San Diego study found stark inequities in testing patterns. Adults aged 50 to 65 were most likely to be tested, and testing was nearly equal between men and women. But less than 10% of patients tested were Black and only 7% were Hispanic or Latino, despite both groups being disproportionately impacted by cardiovascular disease.
“We’re seeing a growing recognition among clinicians of the importance of Lp(a) testing, but the low overall testing rates and regional imbalances highlight how much further we need to go,” Ramsis said. “Broader awareness and access to testing could make the difference between catching disease early and missing an opportunity to prevent heart attacks and strokes, ensuring that all patients benefit from emerging therapies.”
Geographic disparities also stood out. California, Ohio, and Texas accounted for more than a quarter of all tests nationwide, while some states saw almost no uptake. Researchers say this uneven adoption underscores the need for clearer national guidelines and more consistent payer coverage to make Lp(a) testing accessible everywhere.
The study also noted that there was a shift in how tests are being conducted. The article said, “In 2015, most measurements used older ‘mass-based’ assays, which measure the total weight of Lipoprotein(a) in a blood sample. However, by 2024, two-thirds of tests were performed using the more accurate molar assays, in line with evolving clinical guidelines. Molar assays measure the actual number of Lp(a) particles in a person’s bloodstream to assess cardiovascular disease risk, rather than just the mass of particles.”
Co-author Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at UC San Diego, stressed the importance of laboratories in expanding adoption.
Mahmud commented, “The rise in testing is encouraging, but we are still far from where we need to be. If we want to close the gaps in cardiovascular risk assessment, especially in underserved communities, we need broader education, clearer guidelines and consistent insurance coverage for Lp(a) testing.”
For laboratory leaders, one of the most important steps in closing the gap on Lp(a) testing is proactive communication with physicians. Many clinicians may not be fully aware of the latest guidelines recommending at least one lifetime Lp(a) test for adults, or of the shift from mass-based to molar assays that better assess cardiovascular risk.
Lab leaders can play a central role by educating providers on when and why to order the test, sharing local testing capacity, and emphasizing how results may guide risk stratification as new therapies reach the market. By positioning themselves as trusted partners in cardiovascular prevention, labs can help physicians incorporate Lp(a) testing into routine practice, expand access to high-risk patients, and ultimately strengthen patient outcomes.
Fewer than half of patients followed up with a colonoscopy after abnormal blood-based colorectal cancer screening.
A new study from UCLA Health reveals that while blood-based tests for colorectal cancer offer a more convenient screening option, many patients do not complete the critical follow-up colonoscopy needed to confirm abnormal results.
The research, led by investigators at the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, found that only 49% of patients who received an abnormal blood-based screening result completed a colonoscopy within six months. Over the two-year study period, just 56% of patients ever completed the follow-up procedure.
“Blood-based colorectal cancer screening is promising, but it only works if individuals complete the follow-up colonoscopy,” said Folasade May, MD, PhD, MPhil, associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and senior author of the study. “More efforts are needed to help patients follow through to actually diagnose and treat the disease.”
Follow-Up Gaps Mirror Stool-Based Screening Rates
According to the study, the follow-up rates for blood-based tests were comparable to those observed for stool-based screenings but remain far below the levels considered optimal for timely detection and treatment of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy is a crucial next step after an abnormal screening result, allowing physicians to confirm the presence of cancer or pre-cancerous polyps.
The study also highlighted disparities related to insurance type and overall health. Patients with Medicare Advantage were significantly less likely to complete a follow-up colonoscopy compared to those with private insurance. Additionally, individuals with fewer health conditions were more likely to pursue timely follow-up care. Race and ethnicity were not significant predictors of follow-up completion in this cohort, in contrast to prior research on stool-based screening.
Colorectal Cancer Screening Remains a Vital Public Health Priority
Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States among men and women combined. Experts emphasize that early detection through regular screening can save lives. However, many patients avoid screening due to fear, limited access, or challenges with preparation for traditional tests such as colonoscopy or stool-based screening.
Folasade May, MD, PhD, MPhil, associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA said, “This study underscores that convenience alone does not ensure early cancer detection. Patients, clinicians, and health systems must work together to ensure that abnormal results lead to timely diagnostic procedures.”
Study Design and Methodology
The researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of medical claims data from more than 6,000 individuals aged 45 and older who received the Shield blood-based colorectal cancer screening test between 2022 and 2024. The analysis focused on 452 patients who received an abnormal result and tracked whether they completed a follow-up colonoscopy within six months.
Timothy Zaki, MD, a senior gastroenterology fellow at UCLA Health and the study’s first author, said the findings provide valuable real-world insight into patient behavior after blood-based screenings. “Understanding how often patients follow through with colonoscopy after an abnormal result is critical to assessing the potential impact of these newer screening methods on colorectal cancer outcomes,” he said.
Implications for Clinical Practice
The study, published in the journal Gastroenterology, emphasizes that timely follow-up is essential to ensure that blood-based screening tests translate into meaningful health benefits. Delays or failures to undergo colonoscopy after an abnormal result can compromise early detection and treatment, reducing the overall effectiveness of screening programs.
May added, “Our findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to improve follow-up rates, particularly among patients with Medicare Advantage or multiple health conditions. These steps are crucial to fully realize the potential of blood-based colorectal cancer screening.”
The new Plasma Immuno Prediction Score achieves 96% accuracy in forecasting TNBC outcomes, offering laboratories a powerful tool for precision oncology.
For laboratory professionals, the latest findings in plasma proteomics underscore how the clinical laboratory is becoming central to guiding cancer treatment decisions. The discovery of blood-based protein signatures that can predict immunotherapy outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) demonstrates how lab-developed tests and biomarker assays can directly influence patient care, moving precision oncology forward.
A news release explained that a team of researchers in China has identified a set of plasma proteins that can reliably predict whether patients with TNBC will respond to immunotherapy, potentially transforming treatment strategies for one of the most aggressive forms of breast cancer.
They found that three proteins in particular—arginase 1 (ARG1), nitric oxide synthase 3 (NOS3), and CD28—were strongly linked to treatment outcomes. From this, the team developed a predictive model called the Plasma Immuno Prediction Score (PIPscore), which achieved nearly 86% accuracy in forecasting responses.
“This study transforms how we approach TNBC immunotherapy,” said Yizhou Jiang, MD, co-corresponding author. “By translating complex plasma proteomics into a practical score, we’ve bridged the gap between research and clinical utility.”
Breaking the Bottleneck in TNBC
Triple-negative breast cancer accounts for about 15% of breast cancer cases worldwide and is notoriously difficult to treat because it lacks the hormonal and HER2 targets used in other subtypes. Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising option, but predicting which patients will benefit remains a challenge.
Currently, clinicians rely on biomarkers like PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden. However, these markers often fail to capture the complexity of immune responses, leaving doctors without reliable tools to guide decisions. Tumor biopsies, another option, are invasive and impractical for frequent monitoring.
Yizhou Jiang, MD, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, said “Plasma proteomics provides a non-invasive window into systemic immunity. Our work shows that the blood can tell us as much, if not more, than the tumor itself about how a patient will respond.”
How the Study Worked
The research team analyzed dynamic changes in plasma proteins over the course of immunotherapy. Patients who responded to treatment showed sharp rises in immune-activating proteins such as CXCL9 and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ). Those who achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR)—meaning no detectable cancer remained after treatment—had higher levels of ARG1 and CD28, but lower levels of NOS3.
According to the study, these proteins appear to regulate critical aspects of immune activation and tumor suppression. Elevated NOS3, for example, correlated with fewer CD8+ T cells in tumors, suggesting an immunosuppressive role. In contrast, ARG1’s role in arginine metabolism may boost T-cell function and strengthen immune attack on tumors.
To integrate these findings, the researchers developed the PIPscore, a composite of six proteins including ARG1, NOS3, and IL-18. This model stratified patients into high- and low-response groups with impressive precision. The area under the curve (AUC)—a common measure of predictive performance—was 0.858, indicating strong accuracy.
Perhaps most strikingly, the PIPscore predicted 12-month progression-free survival with 96% accuracy, highlighting its potential clinical value.
Linking Blood to Tumor Biology
To strengthen their conclusions, the team also used single-cell RNA sequencing to link blood protein signatures with changes in the tumor microenvironment. For example, patients with higher NOS3 levels showed reduced infiltration of CD8+ T cells into tumors, aligning blood-based findings with tissue-level biology.
“This dual approach—measuring proteins in the blood and validating them against the tumor microenvironment—offers a holistic view of how immunotherapy works,” Jiang said. “It underscores that systemic immunity, not just local tumor factors, dictates treatment success.”
Clinical Implications
The potential benefits of this approach are wide-ranging. Oncologists could use the PIPscore to determine upfront whether a TNBC patient is likely to respond to immunotherapy, sparing non-responders from ineffective treatments, unnecessary side effects, and high costs. Because the test is blood-based, it could be repeated over time, allowing clinicians to adjust treatment plans in real time.
“The PIPscore not only predicts response but also opens doors to targeting metabolic pathways like arginine deprivation to overcome resistance,” Jiang noted. “These findings underscore the importance of systemic immunity.”
Beyond TNBC, the researchers believe the method could be applied to other cancers where immunotherapy outcomes are highly variable.
In addition to plasma proteomics, the field of pharmacogenomics offers another layer of precision in cancer care by examining how genetic variations influence drug response.
When combined with tools like the PIPscore, pharmacogenomic profiling could help oncologists tailor both immunotherapy and supportive treatments to individual patients. For laboratory professionals, this integration underscores the expanding role of molecular diagnostics in personalizing therapy—ensuring patients not only receive the right drug but also the right dosage based on their genetic and immune profiles.
Next Steps
The study’s authors acknowledge that further validation is needed before the PIPscore can enter routine clinical practice. Larger, multi-center trials will be necessary to confirm its reliability across diverse patient populations. Still, experts view the findings as a major step toward more precise cancer care.
As immunotherapy adoption grows, laboratory professionals will be essential in validating, standardizing, and implementing predictive tools like the PIPscore in clinical practice. Their expertise in assay development, quality control, and biomarker interpretation ensures that discoveries at the research level can be reliably translated into real-world diagnostics, ultimately improving outcomes for patients with aggressive cancers like TNBC.
Nearly all doctors call lab testing essential, but shortages and patient pressures are putting the system to the test.
Physicians across the United States certainly recognize the indispensable role of clinical laboratory testing in patient care, but growing workforce shortages, financial pressures, and rising patient demands are straining the system, according to a new survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of Siemens Healthineers.
The survey was released on July 29, during the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) conference in Chicago.
The Dark Dailyrecently covered how findings at ADLM showed digital pathology trends are being slowly adopted in the US but how there’s a larger movement to connect patient care more directly.
The survey of 408 physicians, along with a parallel poll of 1,000 patients, reveals both how deeply doctors depend on laboratory professionals and how external pressures are reshaping testing decisions.
“Ninety-nine percent of physicians agree clinical lab testing is an integral part of the healthcare system,” the report states. Nearly all respondents said lab results are vital in informing treatment choices, with 98% noting they had modified a diagnosis or care plan based on test outcomes. As one physician put it, lab tests “help determine my actions” by providing crucial clarity in uncertain cases.
Doctors also reported that laboratory insights streamline the use of other healthcare resources. “Together, we help the health system and avoid unnecessary patient interventions,” one physician said, noting how test results often reduce the need for additional imaging or biopsies. In fact, 100% of surveyed physicians agreed that lab data helps them use other healthcare tools more effectively.
The Growing Strain on Labs
Despite reliance on labs, the collaboration doctors depend on is increasingly at risk. Clinical laboratory professionals manage more than 80,000 different tests across US facilities and generate roughly 14 billion results annually. Yet the workforce supporting this output is shrinking.
“When labs are short-staffed, it has a downstream effect on patient care,” 96% of doctors agreed. Another 94% expressed concern about healthcare staffing shortages more broadly. The problem is particularly acute in laboratories, where the number of training programs has dropped below 250 nationwide, leaving only about one lab scientist per 1,000 Americans.
Financial pressures are compounding the workforce issue. Though lab services account for only 4% of hospital costs, they are frequently targeted for cost-cutting. Consolidation and outsourcing have moved testing away from local facilities and toward centralized “dark labs,” largely operated by automation. While these high-tech labs maintain throughput, physicians caution that automation cannot replace collaboration. “In the age of automation, the human collaboration physicians depend on still counts,” the report warns.
Patient Demands Reshape Testing
Physicians are also feeling pressure from patients, many of whom arrive armed with information—or misinformation—from the internet. This rising “patient agency,” defined as the ability to influence healthcare decisions, is reshaping physician-patient interactions.
“Patient requests have forced me to weigh patient satisfaction against clinical judgment,” one physician admitted. Survey data shows 84% of patients expect their doctors to order requested tests, while 76% of physicians acknowledged ordering labs simply to satisfy those requests.
Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, chairman, The Global NASH/MASH Council, said, “As a hepatologist dedicated to enhancing liver disease care, I believe that advances in laboratory testing are enabling us to ‘move the needle’ from liver biopsy toward blood-based biomarkers, allowing for earlier intervention through less invasive methods. For this shift to be successful, collaboration between clinicians and laboratory professionals is essential.” (Photo credit: MASH Alliance)
At the same time, 90% of patients said they trusted their doctor’s recommendation if the physician advised against unnecessary tests. Still, the survey underscores tension: while exploratory testing may placate patients, it can also create unnecessary costs and confusion. “Laboratory testing may be somewhat mitigating, though it can add unnecessary volume and expense for already overburdened clinical laboratories,” the report cautions.
The Hidden Role of Cost and Bureaucracy
Physicians also report external bureaucratic and financial pressures influencing test orders. About 32% said they had faced directives to reduce testing, while only 37% had visibility into the cost of lab tests they ordered. That number dropped further when asked about insurance coverage.
“Inadequate healthcare coverage may prevent patients from getting the appropriate level of laboratory testing,” the report notes. Among doctors who do know test costs, 60% admitted delaying orders due to expense concerns. From the patient side, 29% of respondents reported unpaid medical bills, with more than half saying their debt included lab testing fees.
Physicians are caught between avoiding unnecessary spending and protecting themselves from malpractice risk. Nearly 70% cited fear of being sued for misdiagnosis as a top concern, and 92% said they consider whether lab testing might reduce that risk. As one doctor put it, “Errors that negatively impact a patient’s care weigh heavy on my conscience and affect my mental health.”
A Call for Stronger Collaboration
Despite these pressures, doctors remain clear on their priorities. “Ninety-five percent agree that ordering tests to validate a patient’s care plan is their priority over conserving resources,” the report found. To achieve that, physicians want stronger ties with clinical lab professionals.
More than half—55%—said they heavily rely on lab experts to confirm which tests are most relevant, while 96% said they welcomed feedback from laboratory colleagues to improve ordering practices. “Physicians say clinical laboratory professionals are essential partners in delivering high-quality patient care, but a shrinking laboratory workforce may threaten the collaboration doctors rely on for clinical clarity,” the report concludes.
The Future of the Lab
Looking ahead, the report raises the question of whether the rise of automation-heavy dark labs will be a temporary solution or a permanent shift. For many doctors, the fear is losing the human expertise that helps interpret increasingly complex test menus.
“What physicians want are clinical partners and greater access to skilled professionals whose clinical insights help inform their patient care decisions,” the report states.
Without reinvestment in labs and workforce development, patients may face longer wait times, higher costs, and reduced trust in the system.
Ultimately, both doctors and patients recognize the centrality of the lab. The challenge now, as the survey shows, is ensuring those professionals are supported. “Recognizing laboratory professionals as collaborative clinical partners, and resourcing clinical labs as essential infrastructure rather than cost centers, is vital to safeguarding the important clinical support physicians rely on,” Siemens Healthineers concluded.
With the ability to access critical biomarkers through the skin, this innovative patch from Georgetown researchers could shift the standard of care in diagnostics and drug delivery.
Researchers at Georgetown University have developed a technology that may replace the need for traditional blood testing: a non-invasive transdermal patch can detect biomarkers found in the bloodstream without drawing blood or inserting any devices into the body. The patch contains microheaters that reach 100 degrees Celsius to collect interstitial fluid from the surface of the skin.
Interstitial fluid is the vital liquid located in the spaces surrounding cells that transport oxygen and nutrients to cells throughout the human body, while removing waste products. The origin of this fluid is derived from blood plasma that leaks out of blood capillaries and eventually moves back into the bloodstream via the lymphatic system.
“The interstitial fluid, sometimes also called extracellular fluid, bathes every living cell in your body,” stated Makarand Paranjape, PhD, associate professor of physics and director of the Georgetown Nanoscience and Microfabrication Cleanroom Lab (GNuLab) in the College of Arts & Sciences in a news release. “It’s like a pre-filtered sample. When you draw blood, you have to filter down all the other stuff you don’t need. We don’t have to do that, so the interstitial fluid is ideal for detecting blood-borne biomarkers or biomolecules.”
The project originally began 25 years ago and was funded by the Department of Defense.
Over the past two decades, Paranjape has advanced this biomedical technology and built a portfolio of patents through Georgetown’s Office of Technology Commercialization, aiming to improve the quality of life for patients living with a broad range of chronic diseases.
Paranjape believes his patch, which he compares to a Band-Aid, will be beneficial for people who must have regular blood draws for disease maintenance and control, such as patients with diabetes, cancer, or heart disease.
Paranjape’s patch technology uses flexible polymers on an adhesive base, incorporating gold microheaters to create tiny pores in the skin, enabling the collection of interstitial fluid.
“You’re inserting a needle into your arm or abdomen and putting a sensor inside the body to detect blood glucose. Anytime you put something in your body, it’s going to be attacked by your own immune system,” he said.
Makarand Paranjape, PhD, associate professor of physics and director of the Georgetown Nanoscience and Microfabrication Cleanroom Lab (GNuLab) in the College of Arts & Sciences said, “When you’re talking about drug delivery and even monitoring biomolecules for diabetes, it’s all about the quality of life. Can that be improved? This technology, I feel, will do that.” (Photo credit: Georgetown University.)
Once the microheaters have been activated, the interstitial fluid exudes naturally from the pores in the skin and the patch is able to monitor biomarkers in the bloodstream. Because the temperatures applied to the skin and the generated micropores are shallow and do not reach nerve endings, the patch is pain-free. Patients also only need to change the patch once a day.
“That highly-controlled thermal pulse effectively removes only a microscopic portion of the top-most layer of dead skin. It’s essentially exfoliating that small area of skin to an extent that you’re creating a hair-sized micropore from the top of the skin extending to the living tissue,” Paranjape affirmed. “Once you get through that layer, there is plenty of interstitial fluid that actually comes up and out of the micropore since your heartbeat is providing pressure.”
Potential Beyond Diagnostics: A New Frontier for Drug Delivery
Paranjape developed the patch primarily with diabetics in mind but is hoping his device has further uses, including drug delivery. Transdermal patches for time-released drug delivery are available, yet this patch, according to Paranjape, is more effective as current patches on the market require existing drugs to be modified.
“Most of these patches require the drug in question to be tailored chemically to allow it to penetrate through intact skin. Ours does not,” he asserted. “We can use off-the-shelf drugs. We are creating tiny pores through the skin so the drug can easily enter and diffuse to the circulatory system.”
Paranjape also theorizes the patch could reduce pharmaceutical dosages, diminish medical waste and help curtail healthcare costs. His lab is currently working on adopting the patch for drug delivery in patients with Parkinson’s disease. He also plans to start a drug trial soon to help diagnose patients with cystic fibrosis.
Paranjape is hopeful that his patch-based platform technology will be utilized in the future to diagnose and treat patients with a wide array of illnesses and improve their quality of life.
“If there’s a marker in the blood that can be detected in the interstitial fluid, you can use the patch. If there’s a drug that can be used for the treatment of a condition, you can use the patch,” he said. “There’s a whole host of conditions that can be treated.”
Rapid adoption of automated storage systems in clinical and research labs is expected to support a compound annual growth rate of 11.1% through 2034.
As clinical laboratories push for greater efficiency in their processing of blood, urine, and tissue samples, research firm Global Market Insights (GMI) projects massive growth in the international market for automated systems used to safely store and retrieve these samples as well as chemical compounds used in drug discovery and research.
Key Growth Drivers: Biobanking, AI Integration, and Lab Digitalization
The market for automated sample storage systems in life sciences will grow from an estimated $1.3 billion in 2024 to $3.6 billion in 2034, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.1%, GMI stated in a July 2025 report.
“This high growth is attributed to several factors including the growing need for biobanking and maintaining biorepositories, digital transformation across clinical and research laboratories, growth in drug discovery and development, and growing focus on sample integrity and compliance,” GMI stated in a summary of the report.
Market Breakdown: Compound vs. Biological Sample Storage
The market includes a wide range of products used to manage sample storage and retrieval in healthcare, medical research, and drug development. Systems used to store, track, and retrieve chemical compounds accounted for nearly 60% of the market in 2024, with pharmaceutical companies as the primary drivers. Systems used to manage biological samples amounted to approximately 30% of the market.
The report identifies several key factors that are driving this growth. Among them, an increase in the number of biobanks and high-throughput genomic research programs is “significantly driving the growth in sample volumes,” GMI noted. “This trend is boosting the demand for scalable automated storage systems in laboratories.”
Photo copyright: Artem Podrez
Other drivers include new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). GMI noted that these systems are increasingly deploying AI “to automate sample identification, optimize retrieval processes, and reduce errors.” In addition, labeling techniques such as radio frequency identification and 2D barcodes “have minimized manual intervention while decreasing human mistakes to allow quicker inventory assessments and enhanced traceability,” GMI stated.
However, GMI also noted challenges that could hinder market growth, including high upfront costs and questions about data security.
Regional Trends and Leading Companies in Sample Storage Automation
North America currently boasts the largest market for these systems, an estimated $533.3 million in 2024, GMI reported. However, the Asia Pacific region will see the highest CAGR, growing at a rate of 11.9% through 2034.
GMI identified Brooks Automation as the market leader with a 20% share in 2024. The company’s product line includes PathFinder systems designed to automate management of biological samples in pathology labs, such as sorting, decapping, sealing, and archiving of specimens.
Interestingly, the report noted several recent developments involving Hamilton Company, including a 2024 deal with Platomics to register its liquid handling systems with the latter’s PlatoX regulatory platform. This will make it easier for clinical labs in the EU to comply with the region’s In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) when deploying internally developed tests, the companies stated in a press release.
The market, estimated at $1.02 billion in 2024, will grow to $3.12 billion by 2034, a CAGR of 11.9%, the company said.
The report noted many of the same growth drivers—and challenges—identified by GMI. Drivers include technological advancements as well as the growth of personalized medicine and the need for long-term sample preservation for research related to cancer, cardiovascular, and neurological disease.
“The automated biobanking market is on the cusp of a revolution, not only enhancing the speed and precision of sample management but also enabling cross-border biomedical collaboration, rare disease research, and pandemic preparedness,” the company stated in a press release. “As personalized medicine and digital health accelerate, investments in smart biorepositories will become foundational to innovation in diagnostics, drug discovery, and population health.”
