Why consider Exacta?
The distinction is the combination of information: molecular, functional, and clinical.
What distinguishes the approach
Multiple biological layers
The product brings DNA, RNA, and protein findings into a combined assessment rather than relying on a single type of result.
A functional component
Viable-cell drug-response testing adds a direct laboratory observation to molecular information when suitable cells are available.
Integrated interpretation
The report is intended to support review of the findings together, in the context of previous treatment and the current clinical situation.
Compare the clinical question, not just the gene count
Different tests serve different purposes. More measurements do not automatically mean a better outcome. The useful comparison is whether the test provides reliable information that could change a particular patient’s care.
| Approach | What it can examine | How it relates to Exacta |
|---|---|---|
| A single biomarker test | A specific alteration or marker relevant to a defined clinical question. | Exacta describes a broader multi-analyte work-up. A focused or required companion diagnostic may still be needed. |
| A DNA-focused panel | Genetic alterations in the genes and variant classes included by that assay. | Exacta adds RNA/protein information and functional cell testing where the specimen and service support them. |
| Functional drug-response testing | The behavior of viable sampled cells exposed to drugs under laboratory conditions. | Exacta integrates functional observations with molecular findings and clinical context. |
| Integrated multi-analyte profiling | Multiple complementary types of tumor information. | This describes Exacta’s approach. Other services may also integrate multiple analytes; their methods, evidence, and specifications must be compared individually. |
This is a comparison of testing approaches, not a head-to-head comparison of named products. Individual commercial assays may include additional capabilities.
How this can help a patient’s care discussion
Bring additional findings to the team
Integrated profiling may reveal information that was not included in an earlier, narrower test.
Review findings together
The oncologist can consider whether molecular results, cell-response observations, and clinical history support the same interpretation or leave important uncertainties.
Make the next conversation more specific
Findings may inform questions about treatment options or trial eligibility. A result can also have no actionable implication. The treating team decides what, if anything, changes.
What has been observed in patients?
In RESILIENT, objective responses were reported in 54 of 126 evaluable patients (42.9%). The single-arm, open-label study enrolled 190 patients, of whom 143 started treatment. Its design and attrition limit causal conclusions; it does not prove superiority over another test or standard care. Datar Cancer Genetics funded the study.
Review RESILIENT, including its limitationsThe evidence hub also covers the LIQUID IMPACT pilot, pathway-specific combination studies, and circulating-cell research. Results from different studies should not be compared as if the populations and designs were the same.
What would be needed to claim “better”?
A claim of better outcomes than another named service would need appropriate comparative evidence in relevant patients. The materials reviewed for this site do not establish that Exacta is better than every available alternative. The supported proposition is its integrated scope—not a universal superiority claim.
Questions to compare any profiling service
- Which analyses are included for this patient and this specimen?
- What clinical evidence supports each claimed use?
- Will the result add useful information to tests already completed?
- What happens when the sample is inadequate or no actionable finding is reported?
- What are the total cost, turnaround time, and practical next steps?