A living view of your genomic and molecular findings — drawn entirely from your own records, cross-referenced against current research, and organized so the gaps become questions worth asking.
The 2020 tumor showed MDM2/CDK4/RB1 alterations; the 2026 sample shows a single SMO mutation and no copy-number changes — but with a low-tumor-content caveat the lab itself raised. That contrast is worth understanding, not interpreting alone.
"I can see my 2020 and 2026 molecular results look quite different — the 2020 tumor had MDM2 and CDK4 changes, the 2026 test shows mostly nothing plus a new SMO mutation, and the lab noted low tumor content. Can you help me understand what that difference means — whether it reflects the tumor changing, the sample, or something else — and what it means for my options?"
The navigator extracts the data points that drive trial eligibility — tumor type, stage, prior therapy, genomic markers, biomarker status, performance status, age, location — and compares each against a trial's inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each criterion is shown as met, unknown, or possibly disqualifying. We deliberately show no single score or percentage — a number invites false certainty. Instead each trial is placed on a far → close alignment, and the criteria behind it are laid bare so you can see exactly why, and which missing piece would most change the picture.
The recurring unknown across these trials is now subtler than "no current testing." A 2026 re-profiling does exist — but it found the prior markers not detected on a sample the lab flagged as low tumor content. So the open question is whether the 2020 markers (MDM2, CDK4) still characterize the tumor, or whether the 2026 sample simply couldn't detect them. That single point — confirming the current marker status on adequate tissue — would move several of these matches at once.
"My 2020 profile showed MDM2 and CDK4 changes that several trials key on; my 2026 profile didn't detect them, but on a low-tumor-content sample. Can we establish whether those markers are still present — so any trial discussion is based on a confident current read rather than a sample-limited one?"