In exclusive clinical partnership with KPCIRC
OnKommon

Knowledge · how a decision gets made

Four journeys

How a decision actually gets made, and where each service fits into it. Four composites, each ending with what the service did not do.

Illustrative composites. No person described on this page exists, and nothing here is a testimonial.

How to read this page

Four journeys, honestly labelled

None of these people exists. Every one of these situations does.

We would rather show you a composite that is clearly marked as one than a testimonial you have no way to check. Each journey below is assembled from the kinds of situations our clinical partner sees, and it is written to show the work rather than the feeling.

Planned

What the decision actually said: ranked options, evidence tier against each one, contraindications named, signed by the tumour board.

Matched

What it was matched to: a licensed therapy, a recruiting trial, a monitoring schedule or a surveillance pathway, filtered against the real situation.

Access

The arranging that followed: assistance and biosimilar mapping, paperwork filed, pathology chased, counselling booked, results routed to the treating team.

Each one ends with what the service did not do, stated as plainly as what it did. A page that shows only the useful half is advertising.

Illustrative composite

Meenakshi Podwal

52, Pune. Newly diagnosed.

Newly diagnosed, reports arriving faster than they can be read

“There were three reports and two appointments in one week. I did not know which of it mattered, or what I was supposed to be deciding.”

What was already established

  • A histological diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma
  • Staging imaging showing metastatic disease
  • A small diagnostic biopsy, most of it already used
  • No molecular result yet, and treatment due to start
  1. 01

    First contact

    Signal

    A question sent on WhatsApp on a Sunday evening: is genomic testing something we should be asking about, or is that for later? A reply within four hours explained that in advanced non-squamous lung cancer this is usually a question for now rather than later, because a driver alteration can change the first treatment rather than the second.

  2. 02

    Free consultation

    Blueprint consultation

    The care team went through what had already been done. The important finding was not clinical: the biopsy was small and largely spent, which is the most common reason profiling fails in this cancer.

  3. 03

    Testing

    Signature STb O, from blood

    Because tissue was limited, plasma was used in parallel rather than after a failed tissue attempt. The panel was chosen to read fusions as well as point mutations, since several lung drivers are structural.

  4. 04

    Decision

    Blueprint Care, signed by KPCIRC

    A ranked report with the evidence tier for each option, explicit contraindications, matched recruiting trials, and biosimilar and assistance mapping. Reviewed and signed by the molecular tumour board.

  5. 05

    Afterwards

    A named navigator

    One person to call, who chased the pathology, filed the assistance paperwork, and sat with the family when the report was explained.

What we actually did

Planned

A ranked Blueprint Care decision with an evidence tier against every option, contraindications named, and the reasoning written out. It reached her oncologist before the first cycle was prescribed rather than after it had started.

Matched

The driver alteration matched to a licensed targeted therapy, and separately to two recruiting trials checked against her staging, her prior treatment and how far she could reasonably travel.

Access

Biosimilar and assistance mapping run against the matched therapy, the manufacturer assistance application completed and filed by her navigator, and the hospital pathology team chased directly so the block never had to be re-requested.

What changed

The result arrived before the first treatment decision rather than after it, which is the single thing that most often does not happen.

What it did not do

It did not make the diagnosis, choose the treatment, or promise that any option would work. Her treating oncologist made every clinical decision. Profiling narrows and evidences the options; it does not pick one.

Illustrative composite

Subramanyam Krishnan

61, Chennai. Tested elsewhere eight months ago.

Already tested, never answered

“I paid for a genomic test last year. I have the report. Nobody has ever told me what to do with it.”

What was already established

  • Colorectal cancer, metastatic
  • A genomic report from another laboratory, eight months old
  • Extended RAS and BRAF status reported
  • No interpretation, no ranked options, no board discussion
  1. 01

    First contact

    Navigation

    Records from three hospitals were assembled into one clarity timeline. That is often where the actual gap becomes visible, and here it did: the earlier panel had read point mutations but not copy number, so HER2 amplification had never been assessed.

  2. 02

    Assessment

    Free consultation

    The honest answer was that most of the sequencing did not need repeating. Repeating it would have cost money and weeks for information that already existed.

  3. 03

    Interpretation

    Decipher Plus

    The existing data was interpreted rather than regenerated, and only the specific gap was topped up. A full repeat panel was not ordered, because it would not have added anything the first one already showed.

  4. 04

    Decision

    Blueprint Care

    The reinterpreted profile went to the molecular tumour board with the full treatment history, and came back as a ranked report with the evidence tier attached to each option.

What we actually did

Planned

Records from three hospitals assembled into one timeline, then a board-signed reinterpretation of the sequencing he had already paid for. The plan named the one scope gap worth filling instead of recommending a blanket repeat.

Matched

The topped-up copy-number result matched to an anti-HER2 combination and to a trial recruiting specifically in HER2-amplified colorectal cancer, neither of which the original report could have pointed to.

Access

Only the missing assay was ordered rather than a full repeat panel, which is weeks and money that stayed with him. The consolidated timeline went to his treating team in a form they could file and use.

What changed

The question turned out to be interpretation, not sequencing. What was missing was a specific gap in what the first panel could detect, not the panel itself.

What it did not do

It did not find something the first laboratory got wrong. The earlier report was accurate for what it measured. The limit was scope, and no reinterpretation can recover an alteration class the assay never read.

Illustrative composite

Deepak Gupta

47, Delhi. Four months into treatment.

On treatment, and finding out only at the next scan

“Every three months I wait for a scan to tell me whether the last three months were worth it.”

What was already established

  • Advanced disease with a known driver alteration
  • On matched targeted therapy, tolerating it well
  • Imaging every twelve weeks
  • A baseline molecular profile already on file
  1. 01

    The conversation first

    Free consultation

    Before anything was ordered, the team asked what a rising result would actually cause his oncologist to do. That question is worth settling before monitoring starts rather than when a number arrives, because information you cannot act on can be harder to live with than not knowing.

  2. 02

    Monitoring

    Sentinel, four draws a year

    Serial plasma measured against the baseline the original Signature test established. A trend line rather than a single value, because one measurement in isolation means very little.

  3. 03

    Escalation

    Back to the treating team

    Findings are escalated to the treating oncologist, who decides. Monitoring reports into the clinical relationship; it does not sit outside it.

What we actually did

Planned

An escalation plan agreed in writing before the first draw: what a rising result would cause his oncologist to do, and at what point. Settled in advance so a number arriving would not have to be interpreted under pressure.

Matched

Matched to a monitoring schedule keyed to his own baseline and his treatment cycles, with a resistance plan naming in advance what would be tested for if the trend turned, so the next question was already written down.

Access

Draws arranged at home on that schedule, and every result routed to his treating oncologist rather than to him alone, so nothing arrived without someone able to explain it.

What changed

The interval between measurements shortened, and the reasoning behind any change was agreed in advance rather than improvised when a result appeared.

What it did not do

Monitoring does not make treatment work longer, and an earlier signal is not the same as a better outcome. Whether acting earlier improves outcomes is a question trials are still answering, and we say so before anyone subscribes.

Illustrative composite

Vaishnavi Rao

34, Bengaluru. Not diagnosed. Worried about her family.

A family pattern, and two children

“My mother had ovarian cancer at 49. Her sister had breast cancer. I have two daughters and I want to know what I am supposed to tell them.”

What was already established

  • No personal cancer diagnosis
  • A mother with ovarian cancer diagnosed in her forties
  • A maternal aunt with breast cancer
  • No genetic testing anywhere in the family
  1. 01

    First contact

    Signal, then genetic counselling

    The first answer was a caution rather than a test. Testing a healthy relative before the alteration in the family is identified is far less informative than it sounds, and a negative result in that situation can be falsely reassuring.

  2. 02

    The right person first

    Testing the affected relative

    Where an affected relative is alive and willing, testing them first is what makes the result interpretable for everyone else. Her mother was tested as the index case.

  3. 03

    Then the family

    Heritage Adhoc

    Once a specific variant was identified in the family, testing relatives became a focused question with a clear yes or no, rather than a broad search.

  4. 04

    Counselling throughout

    KPCIRC genetic counselling

    Including the questions people are most afraid to ask: whether they have to know, whether they have to tell their children, and what happens either way.

What we actually did

Planned

A testing order rather than a test. The index case identified, then a cascade plan naming which relatives to test, in what sequence, and what each result would and would not settle for the next person in line.

Matched

Once the family variant was identified, each relative was matched to a focused single-variant test rather than another broad panel, and matched to the surveillance pathway that variant calls for.

Access

Genetic counselling arranged for relatives in three cities, including for the ones who had not decided whether they wanted to know, and the paperwork handled so no relative had to start the process from scratch.

What changed

The order changed. Testing the affected relative first is what made every subsequent result in the family interpretable.

What it did not do

A germline result does not say whether someone will develop cancer. It changes risk and it changes surveillance. Deciding what to do with that, and when to tell children, is a personal decision supported by counselling rather than a clinical instruction.

Our standard

Real stories, when they exist

What we DO

  • Label every illustrative composite as one, prominently
  • State what a service did not do alongside what it did
  • Publish real stories only with written consent covering every platform
  • Honour a withdrawal of consent, at any time, without argument

What we DON’T do

  • Present a composite as a real patient
  • Imply a typical or expected outcome
  • Publish a quote we cannot evidence
  • Use a person’s story to make a claim their clinician would not make

Take the next step

Three ways forward. Pick the one that fits today.

01

Book a free consultation

A no-obligation conversation with our care team, arranged through KPCIRC.

Book a consultation
02

Begin Blueprint Care

Commission your decision report and a dedicated clinical team.

Explore Blueprint Care
03

Ask on WhatsApp, free

Signal replies to your first question within four hours, at no cost.

Start with Signal