Dr. Ruchika Talwar

Yeah, I think that all makes sense.

I mean, I think what you said about MRI specifically is an important point.

You know, often we will, I'd say nearly 100% of the time, I'll do an MRI before my confirmatory biopsy for obvious reasons.

But a lot of times, I'm sure as in your clinic, I might be seeing a patient who's been diagnosed elsewhere and

And I don't have the MRI reviewed by our specialized radiologists, which we know can change the read.

But I think it's a good point to remind ourselves that we really shouldn't be doing it more than every 12 to 24 months after the initial confirmatory biopsy.

What about your triggers for intervention?

I mean, you touched on this briefly, and I know that there's not great consensus in the guidelines in terms of what we're looking for.

But practically in your clinic, what do you generally use to guide that decision?

Yeah.

And you bring up one point that I don't think we covered earlier.

So I'll just go back and ask you that now.

Introductal obviously would upgrade the patient automatically.

But for you, is crib reform morphology an automatic disqualifier at the initial biopsy?

Got it.

Now, similar to all these other tools that we use to guide our decision making in terms of frequency of biopsies.

intensification of surveillance, et cetera, we're seeing more and more genomic testing products enter the market.

And a lot of those genomic tests

kind of market themselves with a value proposition that like this specific clinical scenario, intermediate risk prostate cancer, high volume, low risk prostate cancer, you know, this is how they really help answer those tough management questions.

So I would love to hear your thoughts on how genomic testing fits into this puzzle, because as we've covered, it's not really a slam dunk answer.