William Blair or an affiliate does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. This report is not intended to provide personal investment advice. The opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual client circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments, or strategies to particular clients. The recipient of this report must make its own independent decisions regarding any securities or financial instruments mentioned herein.

Wall Street Perspective Diagnostics

April 18, 2018

Amanda Murphy, CFA amurphy@williamblair.com

Max Smock msmock@williamblair.com

2

Analyst Bio

Amanda Murphy, CFA, partner, joined William Blair in 2006. Ms. Murphy is a healthcare analyst with a focus on diagnostic services and life sciences. Previously, Ms. Murphy worked at Caremark as a business analyst and as a senior consultant within PricewaterhouseCoopers’s strategy consulting division. She received a B.S. in biology from Boston College’s honors program and holds an M.B.A. in finance, accounting, and economics from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University.

Amanda Murphy, Partner Analyst – Healthcare Diagnostic Services, Life Sciences +1 312 364 8951 amurphy@williamblair.com

Companies Under Coverage Diagnostic Services Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) Genomic Health, Inc. (GHDX) Invitae Corporation (NVTA) Laboratory Corp. (LH) Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN) NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO) Quest Diagnostics Inc. (DGX) Veracyte, Inc. (VCYT) Life Sciences Bio-Techne Corporation (TECH) Bruker Corporation (BRKR) Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) Pacific Biosciences, Inc. (PACB) Repligen Corporation (RGEN) Waters Corporation (WAT)

3

Stock Valuation – How Do Investors Think About Stocks?

( )1

FCFEEquity value

1

∞

=

=+

∑t

ttr

Sum of future free cash

flows

Discounted back to

present value

Stock value equals the net present value of future cash flows

• Cash flow = volume of tests x what you actually get paid

• Discount rate = how much risk am I willing to take to hold this asset

4

Diagnostics Investment Thesis Demographic trends support increased usage (volume growth)

• Aging population

• Cancer incidence increases by age

Innovation in sequencing platforms

• Cost per base reductions faster than Moore’s law

• Increase in sequencing tests on the market

Increased use of personalized medicine/targeted therapeutics

• Targeted therapeutics in pipeline

• Favorable regulatory environment

Transition to value-based care

• Need to lower cost of cancer care

• Diagnostics mechanism to more appropriately guide treatment

5

Demographics Are a Major Factor in Driving Healthcare Usage

6

Demographics Are a Major Factor Affecting HC Spending Growth

• Numbers of Medicare enrollment expected to surge with aging baby boomer population

• At the same time, the number of workers per beneficiary is expected to decline—creating a material funding challenge for the program

• Healthcare spending has slowed from recent levels but is still well in excess of GDP

• This situation is expected to become worse as the intensity of services and overall prices of Medicare are expected to accelerate

• This is expected to push healthcare to 20% of U.S. GDP ($5.5 trillion) by 2025

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000

2020 E

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Baby Boomers are driving material growth

in the size of the Medicare population…

Num

ber o

f peo

ple(

mill

ions

) Growth in Medicare population (2000 to 2020)

7

Cancer Prevalence/Cost to Treat Driven by Aging Population

• There are 1.74 million patients expected to be diagnosed with cancer a year—or 4,700 cases a day

• Mortality rates have declined and overall cancer incidence is down/stable, but the number of patients living with cancer is expected to grow from 15.5 million in 2016 to 26.1 million in 2040

• Average total treatment costs for patients in commercial insurance plans that were in active treatment for cancer reached $60K in 2014 (year-over-year growth of 19%)

• Over half of total costs are for outpatient services and the average combined cost of all drugs used by each patient represents 28% of the total cost of care

• Out-of-pocket costs are a major concern; average healthcare spending per patient increased from $2,000 in the month preceding diagnosis to as high as $25,000 in the month of diagnosis

Estimated cancer prevalance by age in the U.S. population from 1975 (216 million) to 2040 (380 million)

Source: Bluethmann et. al, “Anticipating the ‘Silver Tsunami’: Prevalence Trajectories and Co-Morbidity Burden Among Older Cancer Survivors in the United States.” Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 25.7 (2016)

8

Cost of Cancer Care – Key Focus of All Stakeholders

• Genentech’s survey of five key stakeholder groups

• Control of cancer costs and cancer specialty drug costs one of top five issues

9

Diagnostics as a Cost-Savings Mechanism • Diagnostics are a small portion of the spending but drive meaningful treatment decisions

• Separation of pharma coverage and diagnostic coverage within payer decision making

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group

2016 Medicare Spend by Type of Expenditure (total of $672.1 billion)

40%

22%

2% 1%

1%

6%

6%

16%

2% 5%Hospital Care

Physician and Clinical Services

Other Professional Services(including Dental)

Lab spend

Other Health, Residential, andPersonal Care

Home Health Care

Nursing Care Facilities andContinuing Care

Retail Outlet Sales of MedicalProducts

Government Administration

Net Cost of Health Insurance

Lab spend accounted for $6.8 billion

Source: The 2017 Genentech Oncology Trend Report

Percentage of Total Cancer Care Expenditures across Service Categories (2015)

29%

24%

22%

6%

5%

4%3%

3% 2% 2%Drug and drug administration

Hospital care

Physicians and clinical services(non-drug)

Palliative care and hospice

Cancer screenings

Molecular/biomarker testing

Genetic testing and counseling

Cancer care managementprograms (diseasemanagement)Cancer survivorship programcare

All other services

10

Innovation in Sequencing Has Been Astounding

11

Source: National Human Genome Research Institute and Illumina company reports

Cost of Sequencing has Decreased Faster than Moore's Law

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$2.0

$500

$5,000

$50,000

$500,000

$5,000,000

$50,000,000

Jan-

05

Jan-

06

Jan-

07

Jan-

08

Jan-

09

Jan-

10

Jan-

11

Jan-

12

Jan-

13

Jan-

14

Jan-

15

Jan-

16

Jan-

17

ILM

N S

eque

ncin

g R

even

ue (i

n bi

llion

s)

Cos

t per

gen

ome

(log

scal

e)

Cost per Genome Illumina Sequencing Revenue (TTM)

1

2

3

4 5

1. Jan 2010 - Illumina launches HiSeq 20002. Jan 2012 - Illumina launches HiSeq 25003. Jan 2014 - Illumina launchesNextSeq 5004. March 2014 - Illumina launches HiSeq X5. Jan 2017 - Illumina launches NovaSeq

Cost per Base Has Declined Faster Than Moore’s Law

Source: Illumina filings and William Blair estimates

Illumina: Annual Shipments

230

914 1,020

1,627 1,700 1,970 1,985

436

409

245 358

457 402 245 307

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Num

ber o

f Shi

pmen

ts

High-throughput instruments Benchtop instruments

• Illumina has driven major reductions in cost per base since the HiSeq was first launched in 2010; the HiSeq X was a game changer lowering whole genome sequencing to $1,000 a genome

• At the same time, the company has focused on “democratizing” sequencing; the vast majority of the installed base is “benchtop platforms”

12

Growth in Sequencing Expected to Be Driven by Targeted Panels • While WGS is now accessible at a cost of less than $1,000 per genome and declining, targeted

sequencing is expected to drive the majority of market growth

Note:* Including non-human WGS (e.g., plant whole genome sequencing, bacterial sequencing, de novo genome sequencing from non-human organisms), gene fusion, and counting applications (e.g., NIPT)

Source: DecBio Consulting

$-

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

2014 2017 2020

Other RNA-SeqTargeted Resequencing* WESHuman WGS

WW NGS Market by Application (2014-20) Billions of dollars

CAGR (2014-17) (2017-20)

22% 19%

15% 13%

17% 12%

12% 6%

26% 14%

18% 12%

Shift of some current panels to WES / WGS and price decline offset by adoption for applications by (new) customers (e.g.,

liquid biopsy trials)

2.0

3.2

4.6

13

Innovation in Sequencing

• As an example, the Broad has generated over 16 petabases of sequencing data since the HiSeq was first launched in 2010

• A petabase is one thousand trillion base pairs, which is over 33,000 times as much sequence as was completed in the human genome project.

14

Proliferation of Genetic Testing

Source: Concert Genetics; 2017 Update: The Current Landscape of Genetic Testing

Total Testing Products on the Market

Source: Concert Genetics; 2017 Update: The Current Landscape of Genetic Testing

Note: Concert Genetics defines a genetic testing unit (GTU) as an orderable testing unit that is newly added to an existing catalog in its database.

• Roche invests $1.2 billion in Foundation Medicine

• Tempus raised > $200 million

• Grail raised over $1 billion to bring a pre-screening liquid biopsy assay to market

• Genetic information company Invitae raised >$400 million

• Liquid-biopsy company Guardant raised >$550 million

15

Treatment Paradigms Becoming Only More Complex

16

Targeted Therapeutic Pipeline

Source: IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science; Global Oncology Trends 2017

Late Phase Oncology Pipeline Molecules, 2006 to 2016 • Eighty-seven percent of the overall late stage pipeline are targeted therapeutics

• Almost all tumor types have seen increased segmentation based on biomarkers, age, and/or histology

• Biopharma pipeline is robust with over 1,100 number of therapies in phase III

• Ten percent of trials are currently using biomarker-based segmentation

• As an example, PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors have seen rapid uptake across cancers

• 728 trials using a PD-(L)1 inhibitor were posted to clinicaltrials.gov in 2017 with an additional 138 in 2018 to date; 140 of these are Phase III

Source: IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science; Global Oncology Trends 2017

Immuno-Oncology PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitor Update in the U.S.

17

Increased Complexity of Care

Source: IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science; Global Oncology Trends 2017

Percent of Biomarker-Based Segmentation in Selected Tumors

18

Increased Use of Biomarkers by Pharma

• William Blair’s 20th bi-annual CRO survey (in collaboration with Life Science Strategy Group); n of 136 biopharma companies

• General responses indicate a healthy fundamental demand environment; most optimism since the recession

• Biopharma companies across the board expect a 1% to 2% greater percentage change in R&D in 2018 and 2019; overall expect midsingle-digit R&D budget growth, if not better, in the coming three years

• In another bullish indicator for 2018 demand, biotechnology funding in the first quarter was up 45% compared with a year ago; this comes on the heels of an increase of 37% during all of 2017

• Thirty percent use biomarkers currently in the majority of trials; over 60% expect to increase use of biomarkers post-commercialization

Source: Life Science Strategy Group, LLC and William Blair & Company, LLC

William Blair Spring CRO SurveyPercentage of clinical trials currently using at least one biomarker (all respondents; n=136)

30%32%

18% 18%18%

10%

7%

4%

19%

9%7%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Pre-commercialization Post-commercialization

% o

f res

pond

ents

0 to 20% 21 to 40% 41 to 60% 61 to 80% 81 to 100% Don't know/ Unsure

Percentage of pre-commercialization clinical trials / post-commercialization marketing using at least one biomarker

~30% of respondents currently use biomarkers in the majority of clincial trials but less than 15% of

respondents currently use biomarkers post commercialization

Source: Life Science Strategy Group, LLC and William Blair & Company, LLC

William Blair Spring CRO SurveyExpectations for use of associated biomarkers over time (all respondents; n=136)

23%

17%

52%

42%

21%24%

1%1% 1%4%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Pre-commercialization Post-commercialization

% o

f res

pond

ents

Significant increase Modest increase No change Modest decrease Significant decrease Unsure

Percentage of pre-commercialization clinical trials / post-

~60% expect to see increased use of biomarkers post commercialization

19

• Median time for drug approval has dropped from 10.25 years (2013) to 9.8 years in 2016 as the FDA has incorporated expedited review pathways (e.g., Breakthrough Therapy Designation)

Favorable Regulatory Environment – Approvals

Source: Global Oncology Trends 2017; IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science

Time for Patent Filing to Approval in the United States

20

“By proposing streamlined approaches for our colleagues in the research and development communities, the FDA hopes to enable more efficient access to safe and effective, novel targeted therapies for the patients who need them.”

– Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Commissioner of the FDA

Favorable Regulatory Environment – Biomarkers

Note: Approvals include novel drugs and genericsSource: FDA

Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling: FDA Approvals by Year

1 0 0 0 1 2 1 04 1 1 1

6 7 8 9

3124

85 84

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Num

ber o

f FD

A ap

prov

als

Note: Each approved companion diagnostic is included once, in year of initial approvalSource: FDA

Annual Number of FDA Cleared or Approved (PMA) Companion Diagnostic Devicesversus FDA NME Approvals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

FDA

NM

E a

ppro

vals

Num

ber o

f app

rove

d/cl

eare

d C

Dx

devi

ces

Number of CDx Devices (LHS) FDA NME approvals (RHS)

21

What Are Investors Concerned About?

22

Reimbursement!

( )1

FCFEEquity value

1

∞

=

=+

∑t

ttr

23

Reimbursement Success Stories

Source: Company releases

Oncotype Dx (Breast) Quarterly Test Volume

Q1'06: NHIC covers Oncotype Dx breast

Q3'06: Aetna covers Oncotype Dx breast

Q1'07: -UNH covers Oncotype Dx breast-

Humana covers Oncotype Dx breast

(4m)

Q2'07: -Cigna covers Oncotype Dx breast (9m)

-UK launch of Oncotype Dx breast

Q1'07: -UNH covers Oncotype Dx breast

-Humana covers Oncotype Dx breast

(4m)

Q2'13: Palmetto coverage expansion for

Oncotype Dx breast

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Q1'

05

Q3'

05

Q1'

06

Q3'

06

Q1'

07

Q3'

07

Q1'

08

Q3'

08

Q1'

09

Q3'

09

Q1'

10

Q3'

10

Q1'

11

Q3'

11

Q1'

12

Q3'

12

Q1'

13

Q3'

13

Q1'

14

Q3'

14

Q1'

15

Q3'

15

Q1'

16

Q3'

16

Q1'

17

Q3'

17

Test

volu

me

(thou

sand

tes

ts)

Oncotype Dx Breast (Genomic Health)

Source: Company releases

Afirma + Percepta Quarterly Test Volume

Q1'12: Palmetto covers Afirma

Q2'13: -UNH covers Afirma (27m)

-Aetna covers Afirma (22m)

Q3'13: Humana covers Afirma

Q4'13: Cigna covers Afirma (13m)

Q1'14: EmblemHealth covers Afirma

Q2'14: Premera Blue Cross covers Afirma

Q4'14: Blue Shield of California covers

Afirma (3m)

Q1'16: Percepta approved in NY

Q1'17: -Noridian LCD for Percepta (17m)-Palmetto LCD for

Percepta

Q2'17: Anthem covers Afirma (40m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Q1'12

Q2'12

Q3'12

Q4'12

Q1'13

Q2'13

Q3'13

Q4'13

Q1'14

Q2'14

Q3'14

Q4'14

Q1'15

Q2'15

Q3'15

Q4'15

Q1'16

Q2'16

Q3'16

Q4'16

Q1'17

Q2'17

Q3'17

Q4'17

Test

volu

me

(thou

sand

tes

ts)

Afirma and Percepta (Veracyte)

Source: Company releases

Cologuard Quarterly Test Volume

Q4'14: Cologuard NCD effective

Q1'15: Cologuard additional insurer

coverage

Q3'15: BCBS RI covers Cologuard

Q1'16: -Anthem BC of California covers Cologuard (4.5m)-Anthem BCBS of Georgia and BC of

Virginia cover Cologuard

Q2'16: -Harvard Pilgrim and Johns

Hopkins Health Plans cover Cologuard

-Anthem coverage for Cologuard in IN, OH,

KY, MO, WI

Q3'16: Cologuard additional insurer

coverage (cumulative 82m commercial)

Q4'16: TRICARE covers Cologuard

Q1'17: -Humana covers Cologuard-Aetna expands

Cologuard coverage

Q2'17: UNH covers Cologuard

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Q4'14 Q1'15 Q2'15 Q3'15 Q4'15 Q1'16 Q2'16 Q3'16 Q4'16 Q1'17 Q2'17 Q3'17 Q4'17

Test

volu

me

(thou

sand

tes

ts)

Cologuard (EXACT Sciences)

24

Reimbursement Success Stories – Case Study Afirma

Indeterminate Patients 94,000Thyroid Surgery $10,000

Total Cost $940,000,000

Indeterminate Patients 94,000Afirma GEC $3,500

Cost $329,000,000Indeterminate Benign 47,000

Ultrasound (3 per year) $900Cost $42,300,000

Indeterminate Suspicious 47,000Thyroid Surgery $10,000

Cost $470,000,000Total Cost $841,300,000

Direct Annual Savings $98,700,000

Sources: Company reports and William Blair & Company, L.L.C. estimates

Lower Cost and Improved Quality-Adjusted Life

Cost Savings and Quality of Life

Without Afirma GEC

With Afirma GEC

Annual Cost Savings

0.0% 0.0%7.5%

92.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Worse QALYIncreases Costs

Worse QALYDecreases Costs

Better QALYIncreases Costs

Better QALYDecreases Costs

25

Companies/Investors Have Invested a Lot in Bringing Value-Added Tests to Market

Source: Company reports, William Blair estimates

Diagnostic Services: 2017 Revenue and Net Income by Company

$771

$341

$266 $259

$153

$72 $68 $48 $72

($4)

($114)

$11

($161)

($31)

($123)

($55)

($400)

($200)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

MYGN GHDX EXAS NEO FMI VCYT NVTA Care Dx

US$

Milli

ons

Revenue Net income

26

Reimbursement – 2016/2017 Was “Depths of Despair”

• In late 2015, CMS opted to use the code-stack methodology for new 2016 CPT codes, which drove a market cap loss of $1.5 billion (almost 10%) for the space

• CMS reversed this decision two months later (opting to gapfill)

• Genomic Sequencing Procedure (GSP) codes priced below expectations (most at ~$600)

• PAMA pricing was published (worse than expected)

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Feb-15 May-15 Aug-15 Nov-15 Feb-16 May-16 Aug-16 Nov-16 Feb-17 May-17 Aug-17 Nov-17 Feb-18

Note: Diagnostic Services average includes FMI, DGX, NEO, LH, GHDX, MYGN, NVTA, and VCYT

Nov. 21, 2016: final gap-fill rates published for new CPT codes

Jun. 17, 2016: CMS publishes final PAMA rule

Jun. 10, 2016: CMS publishes preliminary gap-fill codes for 2016 codes

Nov. 17, 2015: CMS revises and gap-fills new codes

Sep. 25, 2015: CMS opts to cross walk-new CPT codes

Sep. 25, 2015: proposed PAMA rule published

Jul. 8, 2015: Preliminary PFS shows FISH increase

Oct. 2, 2015: Draft LCD for CGP in advanced non-small cell lung

Dec. 23, 2016: Final LCD for CGP in advanced non-small cell lung

Dec. 23, 2016: Three draft LCD for CGP in advanced colorectal, melanoma, and ovarian

Dec. 1, 2017: FMI gets PMA/draft NCD

Mar. 16, 2018: FMI gets finalized NCD

27

NGS Reimbursement Has Progressed Slowly

PayeraNumber of

policiesNumber of tests within policies

Percentage of policies covering all included tests

Percentage of policies covering none of included

tests

Percentage of policies covering some but not all included tests

Payer no.1 7 48 43 29 29

Payer no. 2 15 116 13 60 27

Payer no. 3 4 40 25 25 50

Payer no. 4 15 54 13 73 13

Payer no. 5 14 55 29 36 36

Total 55 313 22 51 27

Multigene test policy coverage by payer

Source: Phillips, Kathryn A et al. “Payer Coverage Policies for Multigene Tests.” Nature biotechnology 35.7 (2017): 614–617. PMC. Web. 13 Apr. 2018.

• Medicare via Palmetto and the CMS via most recent NCD has been “a more willing payer”

• Coverage polices for sequence-based tests/panels across private payers varies meaningfully, although we are seeing some progress

• Cigna began covering whole exome sequencing in 2015 for certain indications • UNH began covering whole exome sequencing in 2017

28

Increased Focus on “Lab Test Management”

• Increased payer focus on lab management programs • July 2017 - Anthem launched its “Genetic Testing Solution” via AIM Specialty Health for

fully and self-insured members; required medical necessity review for all genetic tests • October 2017 – UnitedHealthcare targets national implementation of its prior

authorization program for genetic tests

Source: 2017 Genentech Oncology Trend Report

Most payers do not actively manage lab testing vendors/platforms

29

What Are Investor Hot Buttons?

30

New Medicare NGS National Coverage Determination

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Price (Normalized)

Sources: Company reports and FactSet

Jan. 12, 2015: Investment from Roche

Oct. 2, 2015: Draft LCD for CGP in advanced non– small-cell lung

Dec. 21, 2015: FMI gets coverage for advanced non–small-cell lung by UNH

Aug. 2, 2016: FDA accepts FMI for parallel review

Dec. 23, 2016: Final LCD for CGP in advanced non–small-cell lung Dec. 23, 2016: Three draft LCD for CGP in advanced colorectal, melanoma, and ovarian

Dec. 1, 2017: FMI gets PMA/draft NCD

Mar. 16, 2018: FMI gets finalized NCD

Foundation Medicine (FMI) Normalized Stock Price Bristol TMB data

31

New Medicare NGS National Coverage Determination

Still a number of outstanding questions: • Will there be a pathway for clearance for NGS-based assays for CDX indication? • Does one, pan-cancer CDx indication imply coverage under the NCD? • Will private payers follow suit? • Do we even need biomarkers if pharma is successful with all-comers strategy?

A number of companies have pointed to plans to pursue FDA approval/clearance:

32

Source: Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits, 2006-2017

Distribution of Health Plan Enrollment for Covered Worker by Plan Type

2% 3% 3% 3% 7% 8% 8% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9%2% 3% 4% 6%6%

9%12% 11% 14%

15%19% 19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

HAS-Qualified HDHP HDHP/HRA

Consumer Now a Key Buyer of Healthcare

Highest 20%

Highest 20%

33

Focus on Garnering Consumer “Mindshare”

Source: The Advisory Board Company

Retail Clinics Expected to Grow

34

Big Data – Use of AI and Machine Learning

Source: StartUp Health; Insights Digital Health Funding Report Q1 2018

35

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES

Please contact us at +1 800 621 0687 or https://williamblair.bluematrix.com/sellside/Disclosures.action?ajax&page=ajax/williamblairDisclosures.jsp&firmId=18877 for all disclosures.

Q&A

https://www.genentech-forum.com/trend-reports.html https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/global-oncology-trends-2017-advances-complexity-and-cost Pharmaceutical Outsourcing & Services: CRO Industry Update: Results From Spring 2018 Survey of Biopharmaceutical Sponsors - 04/06/18 10:00AM Life Sciences: Conclusions From NGS Survey Conducted in Collaboration With Genome Web (n=303) - 01/04/18 11:17PM