you increase the likelihood of a positive outcome. So we're eager to present and publish more on that. It is quite, right now, it's quite a valuable resource towards us, and we'll continue to invest in it.
Speaker 0
And so you kind of touched on it really briefly, but anything you can just elaborate on really briefly about any upcoming publications or presentations or potential data around Chester AMP? What should we think about the cadence of evidence generation over the next 12 to 18 months?
Yeah, you know, we've always valued data. Robin highlighted kind of our reimbursement strategy, our strong pricing. That doesn't happen without good data development. And so we're constantly looking to mine data and publish and present. We aren't so much focused on holding it for CHEST or AMP or ASCO. We really want a regular cadence of publications out there. I highlighted the INSIGHT study and referenced that we're really, timing is setting us up for ASCO, hopefully there. CLARIFY is going to be an ongoing effort at all times. We also had our prospective randomized trial called ALTITUDE. We've currently stopped enrolling. Now we're monitoring those patients to a minimum of one-year follow-up, and so that won't occur until later this year. And so that's something we'll be looking at for next year. But we're going to continue to ensure that anything that we push out as a product has good data to support its clinical use. And the Notify tests right now have the broadest base of both clinical evidence and clinical validity on the market for anything in lung nodule management. So we're proud of that, and we're going to continue to invest in it.
Speaker 0
We have time for maybe like one or two more really briefly. Just on competition, you've previously noted there's basically no direct competitors that provide meaningful competition. and it could remain, you know, many years away, perhaps three to five years. What do you view as one of the largest barriers to entry in this market specifically?
Yeah, you know, before we get to barriers, it's why is there an opportunity? And I think many forget that lung cancer is still the deadliest of all cancers in the United States. We've made significant progress with smoking secession and awareness. But on an annual basis, we see more and more people diagnosed with lung cancer that are never smokers. And so it highlights that this disease is not going away. I also look at it and say there have been a lot of, whether it's drugs, treatments, diagnostics that have failed. It's hard. It's difficult, which, you know, hence is why it's one of the deadliest. You know, more people in the United States will die of lung cancer this year than colorectal, prostate, and breast combined. And so that's the opportunity. We need competition. We need more investment. And we welcome it. And I think it's in the diagnostic front that the test with the best data should win. I think for us, we've distanced ourselves from competition by building a really strong IP portfolio. We talked about investment in that data development. And, you know, we don't take that lightly. We want to take that as an advantage. But most importantly, we have the only, you know, direct sales force focused on pulmonology. And so with over 100 sales reps, we fully welcome the opportunity to collaborate with others, bring new tests into the bag, like we're planning on doing. But for us, I think there needs to be more investment. We need to do a better job with awareness. Unfortunately, screening has not been a great success in the United States. The best you can see in the literature is that maybe 10% to 15% of the screen-eligible population currently participates in a screening program. So something has to change there. You know, we're big supporters and fans of the multi-cancer and single early cancer detection test that are focused in this arena, and those will positively impact this space and benefit us.
Speaker 0
So you just led me into my last question. There's one last fun one to finish with. So obviously, you sit on the diagnostic end of this landscape. You know, there's more and more conversation about blood-based biomarker testing, and potentially specifically for lung cancer, usually the high-risk population. And the way these are formulated is preferably with really high sensitivity, and they can afford lower specificity because inevitably a false positive just leads to adherence to computer tomography or CT scans, which is 10% to 15% adherence rate, so that works as well. So you essentially could benefit from this tailwind, or perhaps the fun question is, would you ever be open to either developing internally or acquiring some type of screening technology?
Yeah, it's a great question. It's a massive opportunity. The short answer is yes, but what we know by looking at others is it's expensive, it's timely, There's four to five, maybe even six others that are significantly ahead of us. We're more interested in seeing what their data looks like. I think you highlighted it. A false positive isn't necessarily that bad unless 99 out of 100 are false positives. And then you've got to figure out how do we find that needle in the haystack. That's where we come in. And I think that there could be great synergies there. But regardless, rising tide will raise all ships. I think any single cancer or multi-cancer early detection test focused on lung benefits us immensely because of what you said. They're going to bring more of the screen-eligible population into play. But after that CT scan, most physicians are going to start adopting Notify. So we're supporters of theirs. We're eager for them to have success. And if something was to come our way, especially now that we have...
