Menu
Close
.svg)
As ThinkGen has grown over the past several years, one area where we have developed particularly deep expertise is oncology. Today, oncology-related primary marketing research and analytics represents roughly 30-40% of our annual business, supported by a dedicated team of highly experienced researchers who have worked across most major tumor types and across the full commercial spectrum: from market understanding and segmentation to message testing, biomarker strategy, and launch planning.
One audience segment, in particular, has become increasingly important in our work: the pathologist.
Our clients ask us about pathologists more and more frequently now, and for good reason. As oncology continues its shift toward precision medicine, the role of the pathologist has evolved dramatically. The pathologist is no longer operating quietly in the background, simply confirming a diagnosis. In many respects, the pathologist has become one of the central operational and scientific decision-makers in modern oncology.
And having conducted a large number of studies with pathologists over the years, often working alongside my colleagues like expert oncology moderator Michael Galvin, I’ve come away consistently impressed by just how insightful they are as respondents in pharmaceutical marketing research.
Historically, the pathologist’s role was primarily anatomical: identify the tumor, characterize it histologically, stage it, and issue the report. But precision oncology has fundamentally expanded that responsibility.
Today, the pathologist increasingly serves as the steward of tissue, the orchestrator of molecular testing strategy, the interpreter of biomarkers, and, ultimately, a key determinant of therapeutic eligibility. Increasingly, pathologists are assisting in determining not simply what disease a patient has, but which therapy pathway becomes available.
That is a major shift.
In many tumor types, the pathologist now plays a central role in deciding:
In other words, they have become critical operational architects within the precision oncology ecosystem.
One theme that comes up repeatedly in marketing research interviews and focus groups with pathologists is tissue stewardship.
To those outside oncology, this may sound technical or procedural. In reality, it is one of the most important practical constraints in precision medicine today.
Pathologists are acutely aware that every biomarker request consumes finite material. A poorly planned testing sequence can exhaust tissue before all clinically relevant biomarkers are assessed. This creates pressure not only around assay selection, but around workflow efficiency and prioritization.
And as more therapies require increasingly specific biomarker identification, this burden intensifies. From what we've learned in our studies, pathologists think about these issues systemically. They are often balancing:
This systems-oriented mindset is one reason pathologists tend to be exceptionally sophisticated respondents in qualitative research.
One misconception in pharma is that precision oncology is solely a scientific challenge. In practice, it is equally an operational one.
Pathologists often speak extensively about workflow integration, testing logistics, assay standardization, lab capacity, interoperability, and communication gaps between departments. Many of the barriers they identify are not biological; they are procedural.
These are not peripheral concerns. They directly shape whether precision medicine works effectively in the real world.
And increasingly, pharmaceutical companies are recognizing that supporting the pathologist means supporting the broader success of biomarker-driven care.
All of this has important implications for commercial strategy.
Historically, many oncology launches focused overwhelmingly on the prescribing oncologist. But in biomarker-driven oncology, the pathologist often influences whether a patient ever enters the therapeutic funnel in the first place. That changes the equation considerably.
As a result, we’ve seen growing client interest in:
And importantly, pathologists themselves are often eager to engage in these conversations because they recognize their role is expanding rapidly. Also, they are somewhat "under-researched" as compared to Medical Oncologists and HEM/ONCs.
What makes this audience especially fascinating is that the role itself is still evolving.
Many pathologists describe a growing sense of responsibility within precision oncology. They are increasingly expected to navigate not only pathology, but molecular science, informatics, and therapeutic implications. Some have embraced this transformation enthusiastically. Others speak candidly about workload pressures, staffing shortages, reimbursement complexity, and the growing operational burden placed on pathology departments.
All of this creates a highly dynamic audience; and one that requires nuanced understanding.
And that nuance matters enormously in research.
Because pathologists are not simply laboratory professionals. They are key stakeholders in the evolving architecture of precision oncology.
As oncology continues moving toward increasingly personalized treatment paradigms, I suspect the role of the pathologist will only become more important.
Biomarker complexity is increasing. Testing algorithms are becoming more sophisticated. Companion diagnostics continue to expand. And therapies are becoming more dependent on highly specific molecular identification.
All of that elevates the importance of the pathology function.
For pharmaceutical companies, this means pathologists can no longer be viewed as a peripheral audience. They are increasingly core to both clinical adoption and commercial success.
And for those of working us in I&A, it means we need to continue developing a much deeper understanding of how pathologists think, work, prioritize, and navigate the operational realities of precision oncology.
Because in many ways, they are helping determine not just what a patient has, but what becomes possible next.
