In colorectal cancer, residual or recurrent disease can go undetected.

IF THE CANCER IS THERE, RaDaR® WILL HELP FIND IT*

NeoGenomics is proud to introduce RaDaR to its testing line-up, to deliver personalized detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) and recurrence with a simple blood draw.

RaDaR for residual disease and recurrence is a personalized, multi-tumor liquid biopsy next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay that is optimized to detect and track up to 48 tumor-specific variants with exceptional sensitivity following surgery or other treatment courses. The technique centers on the isolation and analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), a component of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) that can be detected with a simple blood draw.

RaDaR enables the detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) and early disease relapse with an exceptional level of accuracy.*

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the trace amounts of cancer remaining in a patient’s body after curative-intent treatment, such as surgery, which can potentially lead to disease recurrence. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) released into the blood from MRD allows small amounts of tumor to be detected with greater sensitivity and much earlier with an MRD assay such as RaDaR than with conventional monitoring tests or radiographic scans.1

The earlier the MRD can be found, the quicker you can take appropriate action to potentially improve your patient’s management.

Testing for MRD through personalized assays such as RaDaR is an increasingly accepted method for detecting residual tumor and disease recurrence after cancer treatment—with greater accuracy and much earlier than traditional tests.2,3

RaDaR has been carefully designed to detect extremely low levels of ctDNA in the blood, demonstrating exceptionally high sensitivity (LOD95 = 0.0011 VAF) and specificity (100%).

LOD95 = limit of detection; VAF = variant allele fraction.

LOD: Limit of Detection

Application of RaDaR in the patient’s testing journey*

Illustrative chart showing circulating tumor DNA levels change over time and the timing advantage of MRD testing.

* For illustrative purposes.

The chart shows a solid orange line that represents the estimation of the change in circulating tumor DNA (or ctDNA) levels over time through three key segments of a patient's treatment journey: (1) before curative-intent therapy; (2) minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment; (3) recurrence surveillance. There are horizontal dotted lines that represent the level of detection thresholds for imaging tests (higher threshold) and MRD tests (lower threshold). Before a patient has had curative-intent therapy, ctDNA levels are relatively high. Once curative-intent therapy has finished, ctDNA levels drop dramatically below both imaging and MRD levels of detection. If relapse occurs, ctDNA will begin to increase again. MRD assessment during this period can provide early evidence of molecular relapse. Since the threshold for MRD screening is much lower than that of traditional screening tests, molecular relapse can be detected much sooner in the treatment timeline with respect to the detection of clinical relapse.

Learn more about RADAR

Explore RaDaR

RaDaR TECHNOLOGY

RaDaR utilizes amplicon-based PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and a targeted NGS approach designed to overcome the challenge of identifying low levels of ctDNA in both minimal residual disease and surveillance settings.

WHO IS RaDaR FOR?

RaDaR is for use in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENT INFORMATION

Learn how tests like RaDaR can help you and your doctor monitor your progress during your treatment journey.

CLIENT SERVICES

NeoGenomics offers best-in-class client support through dedicated Client Service Advocates, nation-wide specimen pick-up, mobile phlebotomy, and more.

* Our analytical validation data demonstrate a Limit of Detection (LoD95) of 0.0011% variant allele fraction (VAF) with 100% specificity.

References: 

1. Tie J, et al. Sci Tranl Med. 2016;8(346):346ra92. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6219. 2. Chakrabarti S, et al. Cancers. 2020;12(10):2808-2826. 3. Dasari A, et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17:757-770.