taxane

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10‑K

Commission File Number: 000‑51541

GENOMIC HEALTH, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(650) 556‑9300

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act and Title of Class: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well‑known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐  No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐  No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S‑K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10‑K or any amendment to this Form 10‑K. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non‑accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Act). Yes ☐  No ☒

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

As of June 30, 2017, the aggregate market value of voting and non‑voting common stock held by non‑affiliates of the registrant was approximately $646.5 million, based on the closing price of the common stock as reported on The Nasdaq Global Select Market for that date.

There were 35,324,394 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on February 28, 2018.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Items 10 (as to directors and Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance), 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III incorporate by reference information from the registrant’s proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the solicitation of proxies for the registrant’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on June 6, 2018.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

ITEM 1.  Business.

This report contains forward‑looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this report, the words “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “estimates,” “plans,” “believes,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward‑looking statements. These are statements that relate to future periods and include statements about our expectation that, for the foreseeable future, a significant amount of our revenues will be derived from our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test; the factors that may impact our financial results; our ability to achieve sustained profitability; our business strategy and our ability to achieve our strategic goals; our expectations regarding product revenues and the sources of those revenues; the amount of future revenues that we may derive from Medicare patients or categories of patients; our belief that we may become more dependent on Medicare reimbursement in the future; our plans to pursue reimbursement on a case‑by‑case basis; our ability, and expectations as to the amount of time it will take, to achieve reimbursement from third‑party payors and government insurance programs for new indications of tests, new tests or in new markets; the potential impact of changes in reimbursement levels for our tests; our expectations regarding our international expansion and opportunities; the potential effects of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations and our efforts to hedge such effects; our beliefs with respect to the benefits and attributes of our tests or collaborations or tests we may seek to develop or collaborate on in the future; the factors we believe drive demand for our tests and our ability to sustain or increase such demand; our success in increasing patient and physician demand as a result of our direct sales approach and our salesforce’s capacity to sell our tests; plans for, and the timeframe for the development or commercial launch of future tests, test enhancements or new technologies; the factors that we believe will drive reimbursement and the establishment of coverage policies; the capacity of our clinical reference laboratory to process tests and our expectations regarding capacity; our dependence on collaborative relationships to develop tests and the success of those relationships; whether any additional tests will result from our collaborations or license agreements; the applicability of clinical results to actual outcomes; our estimates and assumptions with respect to disease incidence and potential market opportunities; the occurrence, timing, outcome or success of clinical trials or studies; our expectations regarding timing of the announcement or publication of research results; the benefits of our technology platform; the economic benefits of our tests to the healthcare system; the ability of our tests to impact treatment decisions; our beliefs regarding our competitive position; our expectations regarding new and future technologies, including non‑invasive test technology, and their potential benefits; our belief that multi‑gene analysis provides superior analytical information; our beliefs regarding the benefits of genomic analysis in various patient populations; our expectations regarding our research and development, general and administrative and sales and marketing expenses and our anticipated uses of our funds; our expectations regarding capital expenditures; our ability to comply with the requirements of being a public company; our expectations regarding billing and collections; our ability to attract and retain experienced personnel; the adequacy of our product liability insurance; our anticipated cash needs and our estimates regarding our capital requirements; our expected future sources of cash; our compliance with federal, state and foreign regulatory requirements; the potential impact resulting from the regulation of our tests by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and other similar non‑U.S. regulators; our belief that our tests are properly regulated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA; the impact of new or changing policies, regulation or legislation, or of judicial decisions, on our business and reimbursement for our tests; the impact of seasonal fluctuations on our business; our belief that we have taken reasonable steps to protect our intellectual property; the impact of changing interest rates; our beliefs regarding unrecognized tax benefits or our valuation allowance; the impact of accounting pronouncements and our critical accounting policies, judgments, estimates, models and assumptions on our financial results; the impact of the economy on our business, patients and payors; and anticipated trends and challenges in our business and the markets in which we operate.

Forward‑looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those risks discussed in Item 1A of this report, as well as our ability to develop and commercialize new products and product enhancements; the risk of unanticipated delays in research and development efforts; the risk that we may not obtain or maintain reimbursement for our existing tests or any future tests we may develop; the risk that reimbursement pricing or coverage may change; the risks and uncertainties associated with the regulation of our tests by the FDA or regulatory agencies outside of the U.S.; the success of our new technology; the results of clinical studies; the applicability of clinical results to actual outcomes; the impact of new legislation or regulations, or of judicial decisions, on our business; our ability to compete against third parties; the success of our collaborations; our ability to obtain capital when needed; the economic environment; and our history of operating losses. These forward‑looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. We expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to update any forward‑looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

This report contains statistical data attributable to both the Kantar Health, Inc.’s CancerMPact epidemiology database (December 2015) and the American Cancer Society, Global Cancer Facts and Figures, 2016, or data that we derived from these sources. These sources generally indicate that they believe their information is reliable but do not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of their information. Although we believe that the sources are reliable, we have not independently verified their data.

In this report, all references to “Genomic Health,” “we,” “us,” or “our” mean Genomic Health, Inc.

Genomic Health, the Genomic Health logo, Oncotype, Oncotype DX, Recurrence Score, DCIS Score, Genomic Prostate Score, Oncotype SEQ, Oncotype IQ, Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect, Oncotype SEQ Liquid Select, and Genomic Intelligence Platform are trademarks or registered trademarks of Genomic Health, Inc. We also refer to trademarks of other corporations and organizations in this report.

Company Overview

Genomic Health is a global provider of genomic-based diagnostic tests that address both the overtreatment and optimal treatment of early stage cancer, one of the greatest issues in healthcare today. With our Oncotype DX IQ Genomic Intelligence Platform we are applying our world-class scientific and commercial expertise and infrastructure to lead the translation of clinical and genomic big data into clinically actionable results for treatment planning throughout the cancer patient's journey, from [screening and surveillance, through] diagnosis, treatment selection and monitoring. Our Oncotype IQ Genomic Intelligence Platform is currently comprised of our flagship line of Oncotype DX gene expression tests, as well as our expanded platform of additional liquid- and tissue-based tests, including our recently launched Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test.

Our testing services are made available through our clinical reference laboratory located in Redwood City, California, which is accredited under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, and certified by the College of American Pathologists, or CAP.

In 2017, approximately 1.7 million people in the United States and 15.3 million people worldwide were diagnosed with cancer. Common types of cancer include breast, prostate, lung and colon. Cancer treatment decisions may include whether to perform surgery and whether to administer chemotherapy, radiation therapy or utilize other targeted therapies.

To treat cancer effectively, physicians diagnose and gauge the stage of a patient’s disease to determine the best course of therapy. For many cancer patients, surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy are commonly used as treatment options, with varying degrees of benefit and side effects that may not always justify the cost of the therapy or the physical and mental burden patients endure.

Historically, physicians have used tumor pathology grade and stage when predicting whether a cancer will recur, as the key determinant in treatment decisions. Because tumor pathology grade and staging are heavily dependent on visual assessment and human interpretation, physicians and patients may make treatment decisions that rely on subjective and qualitative information and may not account for the molecular nature of the patient’s cancer. As a result, many patients may be misclassified as high risk for disease recurrence when in fact they are low risk or, conversely, low risk for disease recurrence when they are high risk, resulting in over‑treatment for some and under‑treatment for others.

We offer our tissue-based invasive breast, DCIS, prostate and colon Oncotype DX tests as clinical laboratory services, where we analyze the expression levels of genes in tumor tissue samples and provide physicians with a gene expression profile expressed as a single quantitative score. We refer to this score as a Recurrence Score for our invasive breast cancer and colon cancer tests, a DCIS Score for our ductal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS test, and a Genomic Prostate Score, or GPS, for our prostate cancer test. These tests utilize a quantitative genomic analysis known as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, or RT‑PCR, in standard tumor pathology specimens to provide tumor‑specific information, or the “oncotype” of a tumor. Our Oncotype DX cancer tests further analyze the expression levels of multiple genes across multiple biological pathways to predict cancer aggressiveness. We have also introduced non-invasive liquid biopsy tests that we plan to continue delivering through our Oncotype IQ Genomic Intelligence Platform. 

The Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test has extensive clinical evidence validating its ability to predict the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence and the likelihood of chemotherapy benefit. We also provide an Oncotype DX test for patients with DCIS, a pre‑invasive form of breast cancer. Our Oncotype DX colon cancer test is the first multigene expression test developed to assess the risk of recurrence in patients with stage II disease, and is also available for use in patients with

stage III disease treated with oxaliplatin‑containing adjuvant therapy. Finally, our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test has demonstrated that the multi‑gene Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score assessed in prostate needle biopsy tumor tissue, is a predictor of adverse pathology, that is, the likelihood of aggressive disease upon prostatectomy, for patients with early‑ or intermediate-stage prostate cancer.

We have expanded in both the U.S. and international markets and continue to publish new studies supporting the clinical validity, clinical utility and positive health economics of our Oncotype DX tests. As of January 2018, we have published more than 120 peer-reviewed papers and completed over 100 clinical studies involving more than 65,000 breast, colon and prostate cancer patients worldwide. In the United States, our Oncotype DX breast cancer test is the only test incorporated in published American Society of Clinical Oncologists, or ASCO, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or NCCN, breast cancer treatment guidelines for patients with node negative, or N-, breast cancer that is estrogen receptor positive, or ER+, and/or progesterone receptor positive, or PR+. The test is also recognized in international guidelines issued by the St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Expert Panel and European Society for Medical Oncology, or ESMO. In addition, in guidance that is currently in the course of a routine triennial review, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England recommended Oncotype DX as the only multi‑gene breast cancer test for use in clinical practice to guide chemotherapy treatment decisions for certain patients with early‑stage, N-, hormone receptor‑positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, or HER2, negative, invasive breast cancer. Also, each of the Gynecologic Oncology Working Group (AGO) in Germany and the Japan Breast Cancer Society updated their guidelines to recommend Oncotype DX as the only breast cancer gene expression test to predict chemotherapy benefit in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. Finally, the Oncotype DX breast cancer test is included in the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer, or AJCC, Cancer Staging Manual, a guidebook that serves to ensure consistent cancer diagnoses and data collection across the range of U.S. cancer care providers and facilities. The AJCC Cancer Staging Manual identifies Oncotype DX as the only multi-gene assay that provides Level I evidence to determine formal staging of breast cancer patients. Specifically, the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, hormonal status (ER, PR) and HER2 status have been added to nodal status, tumor size and tumor grade as standard AJCC criteria for staging breast cancer.

As of December 31, 2017, more than 19,000 physicians in over 90 countries had ordered more than 850,000 Oncotype DX tests. We have a direct commercial presence with employees and consultants in the United States and certain other countries, and our tests are also available outside of the United States through a network of distributors. See our consolidated financial statements and the related notes in Item 8 of this Annual Report for segment-related information.

Scientific Background

Use of Genomics to Understand Cancer

Genetics and genomics are playing an increasingly critical role throughout all stages of cancer care. While genomics and genetics may sound similar and are related, each focuses on different information. Genetics involve the study of individual genes and how genes pass on hereditary traits from one generation to the next and how new traits may develop from genetic mutations or changes. Examples of traits include physical traits, predisposition to certain conditions or drug metabolism. Certain genes, which normally help control healthy cell growth, can pass on predispositions to certain types of diseases, including cancer.

Cancer can result from inheriting mutated genes or from developing mutations in otherwise normal cells. Such mutations can be the cause of cancer. For most solid tumors, there is great heterogeneity between patients in the tumor mutations that are observed, regardless of the cause. The ability to detect mutations and their functional results and to understand whether the mutation contributes to disease can be crucial to better diagnosis and ultimately more rational and effective treatment.

Genomics on the other hand, is the study of complex sets of genes, such as the entire set of genes of an organism, their germline and somatic genetics, their expression and their function in a particular organism or disease, such as cancer. Genomics can be used to understand diseases at the molecular level. Diseases can occur when mutated or defective genes inappropriately activate or block molecular pathways that are important for normal biological function.

The key to utilizing genomics in cancer is identifying specific sets of genes and gene interactions that are important in diagnosing different subsets of cancers. Using our RT‑PCR platform, we have performed studies linking the likelihood of recurrence or response to therapy to the pattern of gene expression in tumors. We used these results to develop our Oncotype DX tests that quantify gene expression within an individual’s tumor, allowing physicians to better understand what treatments are most likely to work for an individual patient or how likely a cancer is to recur.

Our Oncotype DX tests utilize existing technologies, such as RT‑PCR, in concert with information technologies to optimize and integrate them into new processes. We are incorporating new technologies in our research and development laboratory, and expect to continue to extend the capabilities of various technologies into proprietary platforms to create new products.

Extract RNA from FPE‑Tumor Biopsies

Our Oncotype DX product development process includes quantifying the relative amounts of ribonucleic acid, or RNA, in fixed paraffin-embedded, or FPE, tissue. We have developed proprietary technology, intellectual property and know‑how for this process and continue to develop new and improved technologies for optimized and automated methods for extraction and analysis of RNA from FPE tissue.

Amplify and Detect Diminished Amounts of RNA Consistently

We currently use RT‑PCR as the basis for our tissue-based Oncotype DX breast, colon and prostate cancer tests. This technology uses reverse transcription, or RT, coupled to a polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, along with fluorescent detection methods to quantify the relative amount of RNA in a biological specimen. We believe our technology platform has the following advantages:

Analyze Thousands of Biomarkers from Small Amounts of Biological Material

The methods and know‑how we have developed allow us to expand RT‑PCR technology to a scale that enables screening of hundreds of genes at a time while using minimal amounts of tissue. With continued investment in instrumentation, automation, and informatics we believe that our technology will be capable of continued increases in throughput.

We have developed technologies for assaying low liquid volumes and amplifying trace amounts of RNA in order to develop products that can evaluate minimal amounts of tissue, including breast core biopsies and prostate needle biopsies.

Our proprietary methods also include the extraction of DNA from FPE tissue and blood and subsequent complete and targeted genome analyses by next-generation sequencing, or NGS. We have explored the combination and superimposition of certain whole transcriptome derived RNA information (standardized expression; univariate biomarker direction of association) on genomic information to reveal the genomic landscapes of cancers.

Technology

Next Generation Technologies

When the presence of tumor-derived DNA in blood or urine is high and persists or increases over time, the cancer is likely growing and a new course of treatment may be appropriate. We plan on monitoring this tumor-derived DNA through a variety of technologies to expand our focus beyond early‑stage treatment decision support toward patients with later‑stage disease to help guide therapeutic choices, monitor progression and response to therapeutics, and monitor disease recurrence. We may pursue additional research and development opportunities and leverage our existing and future collaborations using other analytes such as circulating tumor cells, or CTCs, RNA, and proteins. Additionally, we may also use a number of other technologies across our various development programs and to implement our products. While early‑stage cancer continues to represent a significant opportunity with near‑term revenue potential, we believe we also have an opportunity to expand our business further along the patient’s cancer journey, both through our research and development process and strategic collaborations.

Advanced Information Technology

We have developed computer programs to automate our RT‑PCR assay processes. We have also developed and optimized laboratory information management systems to track our gene‑specific reagents, instruments, assay processes and the data generated. Similarly, we have automated data analysis, storage and process quality control. We use statistical methods to optimize and monitor assay performance and to analyze data from our development studies. We are investigating methods to further automate our workflow.

We are also working with a number of different technologies, such as digital PCR and detection and capture methods for CTCs and circulating tumor DNA, or ctDNA, to expand our capabilities, and continue to develop methods to enable genomic testing using a variety of biological materials such as blood and urine.

Oncotype DX Tests

Our tissue-based Oncotype DX tests utilize our RT‑PCR approach to improve cancer treatment decisions. Our diagnostic approach correlates gene expression to clinical outcomes and provides an individualized analysis of each patient’s tumor. We have built an infrastructure that allows us to move from research into development through to processing actual patient samples in our clinical reference laboratory. We have optimized this technology for quantitative gene expression on FPE tissue by developing methods and processes for screening hundreds of genes at a time using minimal amounts of tissue.

We believe that our multi‑gene analysis, as opposed to single‑gene analysis, provides a more powerful approach to distinguish cancer as being more or less likely to recur or progress. This information ultimately allows the physician and patient to choose a course of treatment that is individualized for each patient.

We currently offer Oncotype DX tests as clinical laboratory services, utilizing existing technologies such as RT‑PCR and information technologies and optimize and integrate them into new processes. We expect to continue to extend the capabilities of the various components of our process to develop effective products, including providing these products through different technology platforms. Our technologies allow us to analyze tumor tissue samples in our clinical reference laboratory and provide physicians with genomic information specific to the patient’s tumor. We analyze tissues that are handled, processed and stored under routine clinical pathology laboratory practices.

We believe our tests provide information that has the following benefits:

Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Tests

Oncotype DX for Early-Stage, Invasive Breast Cancer

Our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test is designed to help identify those patients with higher risk disease who are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy and to identify those patients with lower risk disease who may receive minimal clinical benefit from chemotherapy.

In 2017, approximately 249,000 people in the United States and 1.9 million people worldwide were diagnosed with breast cancer, including both invasive and the pre‑invasive form, DCIS. Breast cancer tumors are classified as stage 0, I, II, III or IV. Stage 0, which includes DCIS, generally refers to a pre‑invasive tumor with reduced risk of recurrence. DCIS is typically not treated with chemotherapy but may be treated with lumpectomy or mastectomy, followed by radiation therapy and hormonal therapy. Stage 0, I and II are generally referred to as early stage breast cancer, and stage III and IV are generally referred to as late stage breast cancer.

Following diagnosis, a physician determines the stage of the breast cancer by examining the pathology of the tumor, the size of the tumor, nodal status, referred to as N+, where the tumor has spread to the lymph nodes, and N−, where the tumor has not spread to the lymph nodes, and the extent to which the cancer has spread to other parts of the body.

Prior to the inclusion of our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test in clinical guidelines, standard treatment guidelines weighed the stage of the cancer and additional factors to predict cancer recurrence and determine treatment protocol such as estrogen receptor status, referred to as ER+, where estrogen receptors are present, and ER−, where estrogen receptors are not present, the abundance of HER2, genes or protein in the tumor, the age of the patient, and the histological type and grading of the tumor as reported by the pathologist.

Because these diagnostic factors have limited capability to predict future recurrence and treatment benefit, and some are subjective, a large percentage of breast cancer patients received aggressive treatment while others were undertreated. Most early stage breast cancer patients have N−, ER+ tumors. These patients have been demonstrated to respond well to hormonal therapy, such as tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Identifying which of these patients to treat with radiation therapy or chemotherapy was a difficult decision.

Development of Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Test and Scientific Studies

To develop our Oncotype DX breast cancer test, we evaluated 250 genes in three independent clinical studies which identified a 21‑gene panel whose composite gene expression profile can be represented by a Breast Recurrence Score. Our clinical validation study with the NSABP B‑14 population, published by The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2004, demonstrated that the Breast Recurrence Score correlated with an individual’s likelihood of distant recurrence within 10 years of invasive breast cancer diagnosis. The NSABP B-14 study also demonstrated that the incremental survival benefit of chemotherapy in N−, ER+ patients also treated with tamoxifen is only 4%. Moreover, our study with the NSABP B‑20 population, published in the Journal of Oncology in May 2006, demonstrated that the Breast Recurrence Score also correlates with the likelihood of chemotherapy benefit for invasive breast cancer patients.

We expanded the utility of our Oncotype DX breast cancer test to patients diagnosed with N+ breast cancer that may not benefit from chemotherapy or may have other health issues that increase the risk of chemotherapy treatment. Results from studies of our Oncotype DX breast cancer test in N+ patients utilizing tumor samples from chemotherapy treated patients (anthracycline plus Cytoxan or anthracycline plus Taxotere), completed in collaboration with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, or ECOG, and Aventis, Inc., were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2008. The results of this study suggest that the Breast Recurrence Score result of our test provides accurate recurrence risk information for patients with

ER+ breast cancer, regardless of whether they are N+ or N−. In December 2007, we presented results from a second study conducted in conjunction with SWOG, that reinforced the conclusion that chemotherapy does not appear to benefit patients with either 1‑3 or 4 or more positive nodes for disease‑free survival over 10 years, if their tumors had a low Breast Recurrence Score result. The results were published in The Lancet Oncology in December 2009.

We conducted studies of our Oncotype DX breast cancer test with clinical samples from postmenopausal women with invasive breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors. Aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen are both used as standard treatment for early stage ER+ breast cancer patients. In March 2010, the Journal of Clinical Oncology published results from a European study using our test to analyze tumor samples from over 1,200 patients in the ATAC (Arimedix, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial, which established the wide use of aromatase inhibitors for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor‑positive breast cancer. The study demonstrated that, along with other standard measures such as tumor size, our Oncotype DX breast cancer test contributes independently to provide a more complete picture of prognosis for N− and N+ patients treated with aromatase inhibitors.

In 2015, the results of two large independent prospective studies were announced. In September 2015, initial results from the TAILORx trial demonstrated that a group of trial participants with a Breast Recurrence Score of 10 or less who received hormonal therapy alone without chemotherapy had less than 1% chance of recurrence at five years. In December 2015, we announced results from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute, a large population-based observational study based on the SEER registry of more than 40,000 node-negative and 4,500 node-positive patients, demonstrating breast cancer specific mortality at five years was less than 0.5% in node-negative disease and 1% in node positive disease (up to three positive nodes) where the patient’s Breast Recurrence Score result was less than 18.

Clinical Decision Studies and Health Economic Benefits of Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Test

We have conducted numerous clinical decision studies intended to support the adoption and reimbursement of our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test, both in the United States and in numerous countries outside of the United States. Among these studies is a meta-analysis of seven studies with a total of 912 patients that demonstrated a consistent and large impact of the Recurrence Score on invasive breast cancer adjuvant treatment decisions. In these studies, physicians who use the Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test in clinical practice changed their treatment decisions in over a third of patients, leading to an overall reduction in chemotherapy use of approximately 28% with the use of the Breast Recurrence Score. The Breast Recurrence Score also led to the addition of chemotherapy to hormonal treatment in approximately 4% of patients who, prior to obtaining a Breast Recurrence Score, were considered low risk but were subsequently identified by their Recurrence Score as having high risk disease. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the Breast Recurrence Score provides key information for treatment decision making that cannot be ascertained from traditional measures.

In addition to clinical decision studies, we sponsor third party studies conducted by researchers affiliated with academic institutions to examine the health economic implications of our Oncotype DX breast cancer test. One such study, which was conducted in the United States and published in The American Journal of Managed Care in May 2005, demonstrated that our test provided a more accurate classification of risk than the NCCN guidelines in place at that time as measured by 10-year distant recurrence free survival. Based on these results, a model was designed to forecast quality adjusted survival and expected costs, or the net present value of all costs of treatment until death, if our Oncotype DX breast cancer test was used in patients classified as low risk or high risk by NCCN guidelines. The model, when applied to a hypothetical population of 100 patients with the demographic and disease characteristics of the patients entered in the NSABP B-14 Study, demonstrated an increase to quality adjusted survival in this population of 8.6 years and a reduction in projected aggregate costs of approximately $200,000. Furthermore, the model showed that as the expected costs and anticipated toxicity of chemotherapy regimens increase, the use of the Breast Recurrence Score test result to identify which patients would benefit from chemotherapy should lead to larger reductions in projected overall costs. According to this model, if all early stage invasive breast cancer patients and their physicians used our test and acted on the information provided by the Breast Recurrence Score test result, there would be significant economic benefit to the healthcare system.

These studies reinforce the impact of the Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test on changing treatment decisions for invasive breast cancer patients and demonstrate its cost effectiveness across multiple healthcare systems. We plan to conduct or support additional clinical decision studies and health economic studies of our breast cancer test with clinical researchers domestically and abroad as we expand distribution of our test.

Oncotype DX for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) Stage 0, Pre-Invasive Breast Cancer

In December 2011, we further expanded the utility of our Oncotype DX tests to include DCIS patients. The DCIS test provides an individualized prediction of the 10‑year risk of local recurrence (DCIS or invasive carcinoma), represented by a DCIS Score result, to help guide treatment decision‑making in women with DCIS treated by local excision, with or without tamoxifen. In the United States alone, one out of every five new breast cancer patients each year is diagnosed with DCIS. After breast‑conserving surgery, local recurrences of DCIS or a new invasive breast cancer occur in 20‑25% of patients at 10 years, on average, with surgery alone. The addition of radiation therapy and its attendant costs has been shown in clinical trials to reduce local recurrence risk, but has not been shown to prolong survival.

Development of Oncotype DX DCIS Test and Scientific Studies

Development of our Oncotype DX DCIS test was based on published results for the Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test that showed similarity in the expression profiles of the invasive Breast Recurrence Score genes between DCIS and invasive breast cancer when both are present within the same patient tumor. The DCIS Score algorithm was developed based on published data obtained from the Kaiser Permanente and NSABP B‑14 studies in which the proliferation gene group was found to predict distant recurrence regardless of whether adjuvant tamoxifen therapy was given.

In 2011, we presented positive results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, or ECOG, E5194 DCIS clinical validation study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS. The study demonstrated that a pre‑specified Oncotype DX DCIS Score can predict the risk of local recurrence, defined as either the development of a new invasive breast cancer or the recurrence of DCIS in the same breast. The study further demonstrated that 75% of patients have a low DCIS Score and may be able to forego radiation therapy. Conversely, the study demonstrated that patients with a high DCIS Score had a 27% likelihood of local recurrence, of which approximately half were likely to develop a new invasive breast cancer. The DCIS Score also demonstrated consistent association with local recurrence across subgroups regardless of lesion size, grade, surgical margins, or menopausal status. This information can assist physicians and patients in deciding on the appropriate course of treatment based on a more complete understanding of the recurrence risk involved. In May 2013, this clinical validation study was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 

In 2014, we announced positive top line results of an additional clinical validation study conducted in collaboration with the Ontario DCIS Study Group to confirm and extend the observations of the first DCIS clinical validation study. Representing the largest genomic study in DCIS to date, the results confirmed and extended the conclusions of the previously published validation study. Additionally, for the first time, the Oncotype DX DCIS Score was shown to predict the risk of local recurrence in a group of patients treated with radiation therapy in clinical practice. In December 2014, we presented the study results at the SABCS.

Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Test

In 2017, approximately 98,000 people in the United States and one million people worldwide were diagnosed with colon cancer. Colon cancer tumors are classified as stage 0, I, II, III or IV. Stage 0 generally refers to a pre‑invasive tumor with reduced risk of recurrence that is typically not treated with chemotherapy but may be treated with surgery.

Following diagnosis, a physician determines the stage of the colon cancer by examining the following the pathology of the tumor, the size of the tumor, nodal status, and the extent to which the cancer has spread to other parts of the body.

Standard treatment guidelines weigh the stage of the cancer and additional factors to predict cancer recurrence and determine treatment protocol including the age of the patient, the histological type and grading of the tumor as reported by the pathologist, the level of mismatch repair, also known as microsatellite instability, and T‑stage, an index of tumor penetration through the bowel.

In 2017, stage II and stage III colon cancer affected approximately 28,000 and 29,000 people, respectively, in the United States, and the current treatment paradigm is unclear. The decision to treat patients with chemotherapy following surgery is based on an assessment of how likely their disease is to recur. However, accurately identifying those patients with high recurrence risk is a critical issue for physicians because the available markers to determine likelihood of disease recurrence are limited, resulting in both over‑treatment and under‑treatment of patients following surgery. Research indicates that the survival benefit of chemotherapy treatment is only 5% in stage II disease and 10% in stage III disease, however all chemotherapy‑treated colon cancer patients are at risk of significant drug‑related toxicity. While there are existing clinical markers associated

generally with higher risk in colon cancer patients, there was no clinically validated genomic test available that predicted the likelihood of recurrence for individual patients prior to the availability of our test.

Development of Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Test and Scientific Studies

In developing our colon cancer test, we used the same rigorous clinical development strategy and standardized quantitative technology designed for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test. We developed our gene panel by identifying 761 cancer‑related genes through review of existing research literature and computer analysis of genomic databases. The NSABP conducted three development studies and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation conducted one development study, which we funded, analyzing the 761 candidate genes in over 1,800 patients with stage II colon cancer. Detailed analysis of gene expression and colon cancer recurrence was performed to identify specific genes with the potential to predict the likelihood of cancer recurrence and response to chemotherapy.

We selected a final set of 12 genes which were then independently evaluated in a validation study of over 1,400 stage II colon cancer patients. Gene expression was quantified by RT‑PCR from manually micro-dissected FPE primary colon cancer tissue, and recurrence‑free interval, disease‑free survival and overall survival were analyzed.

In 2009, we presented positive results from this clinical validation study. In 2010, we presented additional results from a study demonstrating that the Oncotype DX colon cancer test result and number of nodes examined are independent predictors of recurrence in stage II colon cancer and both should be considered when assessing individual recurrence risk in this patient population. In June 2011, a second large study confirming that the Oncotype DX colon cancer test independently predicts individualized recurrence risk for stage II colon cancer was presented.

We believe these studies and publications will help to support adoption of and further reimbursement for our Oncotype DX colon cancer test.

Clinical Decision Studies and Health Economic Benefits of Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Test

In January 2012, we presented positive results of the first clinical decision-making study of the Oncotype DX colon cancer test that show that a colon Recurrence Score result has a significant impact on treatment recommendations for stage II colon cancer patients. The data demonstrated that knowledge of a patient’s Recurrence Score changes medical oncologists’ treatment recommendations in 29% of cases, with two‑thirds of the changes being decreases in treatment intensity, further confirming the test’s clinical utility as an independent predictor of recurrence in stage II colon cancer.

As with our breast cancer test, we sponsor third‑party studies conducted by researchers affiliated with academic institutions to examine the health economic implications of our Oncotype DX colon cancer test. The results of one such study, announced in January 2013, demonstrated after receiving the colon Recurrence Score for their stage II colon cancer patients, physician recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with low risk of recurrence decreased by 22%, resulting in direct medical care cost savings of $4,200 per patient.

In November 2013, positive results from the Partnership for Health Analytic Research clinical utility analysis of the Oncotype DX colon cancer test were published, demonstrating that use of our test changed treatment recommendations in 29% of stage II colon cancer patients.

These studies reinforce the impact of the Oncotype DX colon cancer test on changing treatment decisions for stage II and stage III colon cancer patients and demonstrate its cost effectiveness.

Oncotype DX Prostate Cancer Test

The tissue-based Oncotype DX prostate cancer test analyzes 17 genes across four biological pathways from tumor tissue removed during biopsy to provide an individual Genomic Prostate Score, that, in combination with other clinical factors, further clarifies a man's risk prior to treatment intervention. The test enables confident treatment decisions and an opportunity for low-and intermediate-risk patients to avoid prostatectomy or radiation - and their side effects - while identifying men who need immediate invasive treatment.

In 2017, approximately 228,000 men in the United States and 1.2 million men worldwide were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The vast majority of these patients receive aggressive treatment, including surgery and radiation therapy, and more than

half of these patients suffer incontinence and/or impotence after surgery. Less than 10% of patients choose active surveillance even though, for most prostate cancer patients, their disease will not cause clinical symptoms or death.

Development of Oncotype DX Prostate Cancer Test and Scientific Studies

In 2011, we presented positive full results from our prostate cancer gene identification study. The study, which applied the same RT‑PCR technology used in our Oncotype DX invasive breast and colon cancer tests, identified 295 genes strongly associated with clinical recurrence of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. In June 2012, we presented results of our first development study in prostate tissue obtained from needle biopsies. The study, an analysis of biopsy samples from men with conventionally defined low/intermediate risk prostate cancer, showed that genes and biological pathways associated with clinically‑aggressive prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens can be reliably measured by quantitative RT‑ PCR from fixed prostate needle biopsies.

In 2012, we announced positive top line results from a clinical validation study of our tissue biopsy‑based prostate cancer test. As a result of this clinical validation study meeting its primary end point, we launched our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test in May 2013, and made the test available worldwide. The test provides a GPS that predicts disease aggressiveness in men with low risk disease. This test may be used to improve treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients, in conjunction with the Gleason score, or tumor grading. In May 2014, the positive results from our two development studies, as well as our clinical validation study of diagnostic biopsies from 395 men who were candidates for active surveillance were published, demonstrating that the use of the GPS can potentially increase the percentage of men who could confidently choose active surveillance from 20% to 30%.

We use our proprietary RT‑PCR process for analyzing very small amounts of prostate tissue obtained by needle biopsy to determine, whether a patient has high grade disease or disease that has extended beyond the prostate—versus low grade disease or disease confined to the prostate. Our test is intended to address the well‑known limitations of biopsy sampling, which leads to overtreatment based on the potential of a patient’s tumor being upgraded or upstaged following radical prostatectomy. Our test allows more patients to appropriately select active surveillance, avoiding radical surgery and its lifelong complications.

In August 2014, we announced positive top line results of a second Oncotype DX prostate cancer clinical validation study, demonstrating the ability of our test’s GPS to predict multiple clinical endpoints related to disease aggressiveness among low/intermediate risk patients, as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. The study also confirmed the earlier validation study presented in 2013 and published in May 2014. The results from this clinical validation study were presented at ESMO in September 2014, and at the Society of Urologic Oncology meeting in December 2014.

In November 2016, in collaboration with Kaiser Permanente, we demonstrated that the Oncotype DX prostate cancer test is a strong predictor of the development of metastasis and prostate cancer death in patients with early-stage prostate cancer, which met the primary study endpoint. With these results, the Oncotype DX prostate cancer test became the first genomic test validated in all major short- and long-term end points: adverse pathology, biochemical recurrence, metastasis and prostate cancer-specific death.

Clinical Decision Studies and Health Economic Benefits of Oncotype DX Prostate Cancer Test

In December 2014, we announced results of the first Oncotype DX prostate cancer test decision impact study, which showed that the use of the test significantly changed urologists’ treatment recommendations across patient risk categories, leading to an overall decrease in treatment intensity and a substantial increase in the number of men for whom active surveillance would be recommended. Additionally, use of the test increased physician confidence in treatment planning. We also announced results from two studies of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer test demonstrating its value in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer to enable physicians and patients to avoid over- and under-treatment of the disease.

In April 2015, Urology Practice published the positive results of our prostate cancer test’s decision impact study. This prospective study involving 158 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients showed that incorporation of our test’s GPS changed modality and/or intensity of treatment recommendations in 26% of patients across multiple urology practice settings. Additionally, 85% of urologists were more confident in their treatment recommendation following review of the patient’s GPS.

In July 2015, a second utility study focused on the Oncotype DX prostate cancer test was published in Urology Practice. This study analyzed the medical charts from 211 men diagnosed with prostate cancer across 10 different sites and compared physician recommendations and the actual treatment received between patients who received the Oncotype DX

prostate cancer test and those who did not. The observed net increase in physicians recommending active surveillance was consistent with the previously published prospective clinical study in Urology Practice. In addition, when actual treatment received was determined, patients who received an Oncotype DX GPS had an absolute increase of 24% and a relative increase of 56% in use of active surveillance when compared to patients in the same practices with similar traditional risk factors but without an Oncotype DX GPS.

In May 2015, the MolDx program of Palmetto, GBA, or Palmetto, released a draft local coverage determination, or LCD, supporting reimbursement for the Oncotype DX prostate cancer test for men with very low and low risk disease, as defined by NCCN guidelines. In August 2015, Palmetto issued its final LCD for our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test, approving nationwide coverage of our prostate cancer test for qualified Medicare patients throughout the United States. Palmetto initiated reimbursement for our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test for patients with low- and very-low-risk disease effective October 2015 and for patients with favorable intermediate-risk disease effective October 2017.

We expect to continue to invest substantial resources related to continued clinical studies and the global adoption of and reimbursement for our prostate cancer test.

Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect Test

In June 2016, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Epic Sciences, Inc., or Epic Sciences, under which we have been granted exclusive distribution rights to commercialize the Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test in the United States.

The Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test is performed by Epic Sciences in its centralized laboratory in San Diego, California, which is accredited under CLIA and certified by CAP. This blood-based test detects the V7 variant of the androgen receptor, or AR, protein in the nucleus of CTCs, and provides information to help guide treatment selection in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC.

Development of Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect Test and Scientific Studies

In January 2017, investigators from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Epic Sciences published findings in European Urology, that only nuclear localization of AR-V7 protein in CTCs from mCRPC patient blood samples is predictive of therapeutic benefit. Previous work by the same team, reported in JAMA Oncology, demonstrated that nuclear localized AR-V7 protein in CTCs was predictive of a 76% reduction of risk of death for mCRPC patients who received taxane chemotherapy versus Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors. We began making the Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test available through a clinical utility program in July 2017, and commercially available in February 2018.

We believe that this collaboration is complementary to our product development efforts for our other Oncotype tests and allows us to leverage our commercial channel in a way that we believe may generate growth across our business in the United States. We may also pursue additional collaboration opportunities that are intended to complement our expanding product portfolio.

Commercial Collaborations

In September 2017, we entered into an exclusive license and development agreement with Biocartis N.V., or Biocartis, a molecular diagnostics company based in Belgium, to develop and commercialize an in vitro diagnostic, or IVD, version of the Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test on Biocartis' Idylla platform that can be performed locally by laboratory partners and in hospitals around the world. The Idylla platform offers a unique solution in the localization of complex molecular diagnostics. Using Biocartis’ proprietary Idylla platform, we intend to enable local pathology labs to generate Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score results. Under the terms of the license and development agreement, we have an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, license to develop and commercialize an IVD version of our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test on Biocartis’ Idylla platform, and an option to expand the collaboration to include additional tests in oncology and urology. We have primary responsibility for developing, validating and registering our IVD tests to be performed on the Idylla platform, and are also responsible for manufacturing and commercialization activities with respect to such tests.

 In November 2017, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Cleveland Diagnostics, Inc., or Cleveland Diagnostics, a biotechnology company based in Cleveland, Ohio, whereby we were granted exclusive global rights to develop and commercialize early- and late-stage cancer diagnostic tests based on Cleveland Diagnostics’ proprietary IsoPSA reagent

and solvent interaction analysis technology platform.  We intend to develop and commercialize our first test based on the IsoPSA technology as an IVD blood-based test that can be integrated into the workflow of any urology laboratory practice to distinguish cancer-related PSA isoforms from benign isoforms to detect prostate cancer more precisely than standard PSA testing alone.

Product Development

We internally developed our tissue-based tests generally using the following multi‑phased clinical development program that we are also using to develop future products for breast, prostate and other cancers:

Product Development Opportunities

In addition to developing products to address new cancer areas, we seek to expand the clinical utility and addressable patient populations for our existing tests, including expanding our current test offerings to include tests that are performed as IVDs. These developments efforts may lead to a variety of possible new products covering various treatment decisions, including risk assessment, screening and prevention, early disease diagnosis, adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant disease treatment, metastatic disease treatment selection and patient monitoring.

Breast Cancer

We have continued to conduct and present a variety of development studies to expand the reach of our products for breast cancer. For example, we presented results from a clinical study summarizing the gene signatures of male patients for whom the Oncotype DX breast cancer test was used to guide chemotherapy treatment, indicating that breast cancer in men displays similar gene signatures to female breast cancer. We also presented a study demonstrating that there were significant differences in gene expression between hormone receptor negative, or triple negative, breast cancer compared with hormone receptor positive disease.

Other studies presented include results of our clinical outcomes study for biomarker discovery using NGS. In addition to re‑confirming the original 21 Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer genes originally identified by RT‑PCR, this study also revealed more than 1,800 new biological relationships associated with breast cancer recurrence. In addition, the results of a large study of early‑stage, node‑positive breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline‑containing chemotherapy as part of the NSABP B‑28 trial were also presented, supporting the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score results as a predictor of distant recurrence, disease‑free survival and overall survival in this patient population.

At the December 2013 SABCS, we presented results of a study examining our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test and two other commercially available genomic tests, in which we evaluated whether the information those tests provide is equivalent to the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score results. Specifically, the results indicated a more than 44% discordance with the other assays studied when they were compared to Oncotype DX, highlighting the potential of these other tests to misclassify and mistreat patients if they are used to determine chemotherapy treatment. Two additional studies were presented at the December 2013 SABCS, including one demonstrating the importance of accurate assessment of ER status to ensure appropriate hormonal treatment, and one that presented the results of a pilot clinical study that demonstrated the feasibility of the large ongoing clinical trial of early endocrine sensitivity prediction by the Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test and conventional parameters in clinical practice.

Colorectal Cancer

We have conducted a variety of development studies that could support certain additional opportunities in colon cancer. For example, in the NSABP C‑07 clinical trial, which validated the Oncotype DX colon cancer test as a predictor of recurrence in stage III disease, we also performed a gene identification study which analyzed over 700 new genes, and identified 16 genes as being predictive of oxaliplatin benefit for use in patients with stage III disease.

In 2013, we conducted a clinical validation study to identify the potential use of our Oncotype DX colon cancer test in patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, a cancer that has pathologic features similar to colon cancer and was diagnosed in approximately 40,000 patients in the United States in 2014. The study, conducted by the Department of Surgery at the Leiden University Medical Centre, evaluated the Oncotype DX colon cancer score and recurrence risk in rectal cancer patients.

Prostate Cancer

In August 2014, we announced positive top line results of a second clinical study, demonstrating the ability of our test’s GPS to predict multiple clinical endpoints related to disease aggressiveness among low/intermediate risk patients. The study also confirmed the earlier validation study published in May 2014. The results from the clinical validation study were presented at ESMO in September 2014, and at the Society of Urologic Oncology meeting in December 2014.

We plan to continue conducting development studies to support the relationship of our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test and its benefit in predicting prostate cancer clinical recurrence and biochemical recurrence, as well as its ability to add value in following patients on active surveillance. Also, as with breast and colon cancer, we will explore opportunities to expand the use of genomic testing in prostate cancer to address additional populations. These additional populations may include high-risk patients, based on clinical and pathologic features at the time of diagnosis, the large number of patients with negative biopsies, and patients who receive treatment with radical prostatectomy or radiation who may be considering additional adjuvant therapy with some of the new treatment modalities that are available for advanced disease.

Pipeline Products

In addition to extending the market opportunities for our existing tests, we are also developing products to address new cancer areas. These development efforts may lead to possible new products covering various treatment decisions, including risk assessment, screening and prevention, early disease diagnosis, adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant disease treatment, metastatic disease treatment selection and patient monitoring.

Potential new products may address a variety of specific clinical needs by leveraging one or multiple technological capabilities including NGS and digital PCR. Additionally, we believe potential new products can be implemented in the form of non‑invasive tests performed on blood or urine, similar to the Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test.

We have also begun development of an IVD version of the Oncotype DX breast cancer test on Biocartis' Idylla platform that can be performed locally by laboratory partners and in hospitals around the world. Finally, we also plan to

continue to expand our product footprint through collaborations, including the development of additional prostate tests using technology licensed to us from our collaboration with Cleveland Diagnostics.

As new clinical evidence continues to be introduced, we intend to incorporate such evidence into additional iterations of these tests, which could include additional genes or updated interpretations of genes already included in such tests.

Commercial Operations

United States

Our commercial infrastructure, including our sales force, managed care group, and patient support network, is critical to our future success. We continue to build a strong domestic sales, marketing and reimbursement effort by interacting directly with medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists, urologists, pathologists and payors. Because oncology and urology are distinct concentrated specialties, we believe that a focused marketing organization and specialized sales force with regional and local experience in the U.S. for each of oncology and urology is necessary to effectively serve both specialties. We employ a direct sales approach that targets oncologists, cancer surgeons and urologists, and utilizes medical education and scientific liaisons who target key opinion leaders. We also plan to continue conducting clinical studies with the objective of having results published in peer‑reviewed journals. We believe the combination of these approaches is our best means to increase patient and physician demand and the number of favorable reimbursement coverage decisions by third‑party payors. Due to significant overlap between breast and colon oncologists and surgeons, we believe our current oncology salesforce has sufficient capacity to market our Oncotype DX breast and colon cancer tests. In 2017, we continued to expand our urology sales team in the United States to market our prostate cancer test to urologists, and we believe our current urology salesforce has sufficient capacity to market our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test. Going forward, we intend to leverage our existing sales capabilities and channels to introduce and commercialize new products, such as the Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect.

Our managed care group works with our contract and reimbursement teams to encourage adoption of our tests under payor medical policy and to ensure our tests are appropriately reimbursed. These teams, along with our customer service group and patient support network, handle benefits investigation, preauthorization, and other administrative matters for patients who use our tests. We have the infrastructure, if needed, to appeal claims for our tests that are denied by third‑party payors. In addition, we provide patient and physician education through our website, material provided to local advocacy groups, local, national and social media campaigns and materials provided to oncologists, urologists and surgeons.

All internally developed Oncotype tests are currently processed in our clinical reference laboratory facilities in Redwood City, California. The Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test, which was designed and validated by Epic Sciences, is performed in its CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited clinical reference laboratory facility in San Diego, California. Our current clinical laboratory processing capacity in Redwood City is approximately 150,000 tests annually, and it has significant expansion capacity with incremental increases in laboratory personnel and equipment, including expansion capacity for laboratory facilities. We believe that we currently have sufficient capacity to process all of our tests. We have recently completed the construction of an additional laboratory facility on our Redwood City, California campus that will increase capacity for sample processing and research and development. We may require additional facilities in the future as we expand our business and believe that additional space, when needed, will be available on commercially reasonable terms.

International

We have a direct commercial presence with employees in Canada, Japan and six European countries. Additionally, we have exclusive distribution agreements for one or more of our Oncotype DX tests with distributors covering more than 90 countries outside of the United States.

We believe our future success is dependent on our ability to continue to expand our international commercial presence and achieve adequate reimbursement for our tests. However, there are significant differences between countries that need to be considered. For example, regulatory or reimbursement requirements vary from country to country, and different countries may have a public healthcare system, a combination of public and private healthcare system or a cash‑based payment system. Treatment costs outside of the United States may be lower, which may impact the cost savings of our tests, and therefore impact the reimbursement amount we can achieve in certain countries.

We expect that international sales of our tests will be heavily dependent on the availability of reimbursement and sample access. In many countries, governments are primarily responsible for financing diagnostic tests. Governments often

have significant discretion in determining whether a test will be reimbursed at all, and if so, how much will be paid. In addition, certain countries such as China have prohibitions against exporting tissue samples, which will limit our ability to offer our tests in those countries without local laboratories or a method of test delivery that does not require samples to be transported to our U.S. laboratory.

Coverage, Coding and Reimbursement

U.S. Coverage

Medicare coverage for our tests is currently subject to the discretion of the local Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs. Palmetto, the MAC that establishes the coverage and coding policies for the majority of our tests under Medicare, developed the Molecular Diagnostic Services Program, or MolDx, to identify and establish Medicare coverage for molecular diagnostic tests that fall within the scope of its Molecular Diagnostic Test LCD. To obtain coverage under the MolDx program, developers of molecular diagnostic tests must submit a detailed dossier of analytical and clinical data to substantiate that a test meets Medicare’s requirements for coverage. To date, Palmetto has determined that our invasive breast and colon cancer tests will be covered, and that our prostate cancer test will be covered for patients with specified risk levels. Coverage determinations for our tests made by Palmetto under the MolDx program have been adopted by Noridian Healthcare Solutions, the MAC that processes Medicare claims submitted by us.

In December 2015, Palmetto determined that it was appropriate to establish a unique identifier code and independent coverage for the Oncotype DX DCIS test. We obtained that unique identifier code for the Oncotype DX DCIS test, and have submitted to Palmetto additional validation and clinical utility data generated since its previous decision in May 2013, to cover our Oncotype DX DCIS test for all qualified Medicare patients with DCIS. On January 19, 2017, Palmetto announced that it would cover the Oncotype DX DCIS test under a new LCD with Coverage with Data Development, or CDD, for tests performed beginning March 6, 2017. Between January 26, 2017 and March 5, 2017, Palmetto provided coverage consistent with the criteria under the LCD.

The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, codified coverage rules for laboratory tests by requiring that any Medicare local coverage policy be issued in accordance with the requirements for the LCD process.

PAMA also authorizes CMS to consolidate coverage policies for clinical laboratory tests among one to four laboratory-specific MACs. These same contractors may also be designated to process claims if CMS determines that such a model is appropriate. To date, CMS has not exercised this authority, however, if the MolDx Program is eliminated, or the administrator of the program is changed, it could impact Medicare coverage for our current tests and our ability to obtain Medicare coverage for products for which we do not currently have coverage or any products that we may launch in the future.

State Medicaid programs typically make their own decisions with respect to coverage for our tests. Similarly, private payors make their own decisions whether to cover our tests.

Coding and Reimbursement

We have specific Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, codes for our Oncotype DX invasive breast and colon cancer tests. Our other tests, however, are currently billed with an unlisted procedure code. Providers use an unlisted procedure code to bill for a service when no existing specific code accurately describes the service.

Reimbursement for clinical laboratory tests may come from several sources, including commercial third‑party payors, such as insurance companies and health maintenance organizations, government payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid in the United States, patient self‑pay and, in some cases, from hospitals or referring laboratories who, in turn, may bill third‑party payors for testing.

Reimbursement of our tests by third‑party payors is essential to our commercial success. Where there is a payor policy, contract or agreement in place, we bill the third‑party payor, the hospital or referring laboratory and/or the patient (for deductibles and coinsurance or copayments, where applicable) in accordance with established policy, contract or agreement terms. Where there is no payor policy in place, we pursue third-party reimbursement on behalf of each patient on a case‑by‑case basis. Our efforts on behalf of these patients involve a substantial amount of time and expense, and bills may not be paid for many months, if at all. Furthermore, if a third‑party payor denies coverage after final appeal, it may take a substantial amount of time to collect from the patient, if we are able to collect at all.

We received a specific CPT code for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test effective January 1, 2015. Medicare established a national limitation amount for this code under the gapfill process that maintained the contractor amount then in effect through 2017. The new rate calculated using the methodology required under PAMA was adopted in January 2018 and represents an increase of approximately 12% as compared to the 2017 rate.  

We also received a specific CPT code for our Oncotype DX colon cancer test, effective January 1, 2016. For 2016, Medicare claims were paid at the rate established by the local MACs under the gapfill process. Medicare established a national limitation amount for this code that maintained the contractor amount through 2017. The new rate calculated using the methodology required under PAMA was adopted in January 2018 and represents a less than 1% reduction as compared to the 2017 rate.

There have also been recent and substantial changes to the payment structure for physicians, including those passed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA, which was signed into law on April 16, 2015. MACRA created the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System which, beginning in 2019, more closely aligns physician payments with composite performance on performance metrics similar to three existing incentive programs (i.e., the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-based modifier program and the Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use program) and incentivizes physicians to enroll in alternative payment methods. At this time, we do not know whether these changes to the physician payment systems will have any impact on orders or payments for our tests.

Under PAMA, many laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenues from payments made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, or the Physician Fee Schedule, will be required to report private payor payment rates and volumes for their tests. CMS will use the rates and volumes reported by laboratories to develop Medicare payment rates for the tests equal to the volume-weighted median of the private payor payment rates for the tests. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil money penalties. Rates for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests” must be reported annually; rates for other diagnostic tests must be reported every three years.

The payment rates calculated under PAMA apply effective January 1, 2018. In general, any reductions to payment rates compared to rates paid under the CLFS in 2017 resulting from the new methodology are limited to 10% per test per year in each of the years 2018 through 2020 and to 15% per test per year in each of the years 2021 through 2023. Rates for 2021 through 2023 will be established following collection of data on private payor rates from the first half of 2019 that will be reported in the first quarter of 2020. The initial payment rate under PAMA for a new advanced diagnostic laboratory test will be set at the “actual list charge” for the test as reported by the laboratory, for a period not to exceed nine months. If the actual list charge exceeds private payor rates by more than 30%, CMS will have the ability to recoup excess payments made during the initial nine-month payment period.

In June 2016, CMS issued a final rule that outlines how the agency will implement the PAMA payment system. We believe the reporting policy articulated in the final rule requires us to report information annually on rates paid by private payors for each of our Oncotype DX tests if we seek designation for our tests as advanced diagnostic laboratory tests. Under the criteria outlined in the final rule, we believe all of our Oncotype DX tests are eligible for designation as advanced diagnostic laboratory tests, although we may or may not seek to have our existing tests designated as advanced diagnostic laboratory tests. In the final rule, CMS finalized a six-month data collection period for all tests (including advanced diagnostic laboratory tests), spanning the first six months of each data collection year. CMS also provided that the data collection period would be immediately followed by a six-month period during which we may verify and validate our private payor rate data before the data is due to CMS between January 1 and March 31 of the following year.

With respect to pricing of existing tests, CMS further defines the rate-setting methodology by indicating that it will assess every payment rate, by payor, submitted by laboratories and to determine the median of the payment rates for each test,  listing each distinct private payor rate the same number of times in the array as its volume. The PAMA rate-setting process follows the current timeline for CLFS rate-setting, which is publication of preliminary rates in September with final rates published in November to become effective the following January, and will update the payment rates every three years, or annually for advanced diagnostic laboratory tests. Any reductions to payment rates resulting from the new methodology are limited to 10% per test per year in each of the years 2018 through 2020 and to 15% per test per year in each of 2021 through 2023.

With respect to pricing of new advanced diagnostic laboratory tests, the initial payment rate, for a period not to exceed nine months, will be set at the “actual list charge” for the test as reported by the laboratory. The “actual list charge” is the lowest publicly available price on the first date at which the test is available for purchase by a private payor, as evidenced by sources such as websites, test registries or price listings for patients. If the actual list charge exceeds the rate calculated using the new

methodology by more than 30%, CMS will recoup excess payments made during the initial nine-month payment period.

In 2014, CMS began to bundle payment for most clinical laboratory tests together with other services performed during hospital outpatient visits under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, or HOPPS. While CMS exempted molecular diagnostic tests from this bundling provision, it is possible that CMS could propose to bundle payment for such tests in the future. Our tests are generally not furnished in the hospital outpatient setting, and insofar as they are furnished in that setting they likely would be considered molecular tests if billed under specific procedure codes, but it is possible that payment for our tests could be bundled if furnished in a hospital outpatient setting in the future.

In the 2018 Medicare HOPPS Final Rule, CMS finalized revisions to its billing rules that will allow us to directly bill Medicare more frequently. Specifically, under the revised billing rules, a laboratory that performs molecular pathology tests on specimens collected during a hospital outpatient stay may bill Medicare directly for such tests if the test was performed following a hospital outpatient's discharge from the hospital outpatient department. To the extent these revisions to Medicare’s billing policy permit us to bill Medicare directly for tests previously billed to hospitals under the previous Medicare billing rules, we will no longer bill hospitals for such tests. We continue to be subject to previous Medicare billing rules, however, where we perform tests on specimens collected during a hospital inpatient stay.

On several occasions Congress has considered various cost reduction alternatives, including imposing a 20% co‑insurance amount on clinical laboratory services, which would require beneficiaries to pay a portion of the cost of their clinical laboratory testing. Although these changes have not been enacted at this time, Congress could decide to impose these or other fee reductions or taxes at some point in the future. If so, these additional coinsurance payments for our Oncotype DX tests could be difficult to collect and any new fee reductions or taxes would impact our revenues.

State Medicaid agencies will assign a reimbursement rate equal to or less than the prevailing Medicare rate, often determined by state law as a percentage of the Medicare reimbursement rate.

International Coverage and Reimbursement

The majority of our international Oncotype DX breast and colon cancer test revenues come from direct payor reimbursement, payments from our distributors, and patient self‑pay. We have obtained coverage for our invasive breast cancer test outside of the United States, including coverage for certain patients in Canada, France, Ireland, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. We expect that broadening coverage and reimbursement for our Oncotype DX breast, colon and prostate cancer tests outside of the United States will take years.

Oncotype DX Invasive Breast Cancer Test

We expect to continue to focus substantial resources on pursuing global adoption of and reimbursement for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test. We believe increased demand for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test is the result of our ongoing commercial efforts, expanded utility for new breast cancer patient groups, continued publication of peer-reviewed articles on studies we sponsored, conducted or collaborated on that support the use of and reimbursement for the test, clinical presentations at major symposia, and the inclusion of our breast cancer test in clinical practice guidelines for N−, ER+ invasive disease. However, this increased demand is not necessarily indicative of future growth rates, and we cannot provide assurance that this level of increased demand can be sustained or that publication of articles, future appearances or presentations at medical conferences, increased commercial efforts or expansion of utility to new breast cancer patient groups will have a similar impact on demand for our invasive breast cancer test in the future. Sequential quarterly demand for our breast cancer test may also be impacted by other factors, including the economic environment and seasonal variations that have historically impacted physician office visits, any shift in commercial focus, patient enrollment in clinical studies and the number of clinical trials in process by cooperative groups or makers of other tests conducting experience studies. 

Most national and regional third‑party payors in the United States, along with the designated regional Medicare contractor for our tests, have issued positive coverage determinations for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test for patients with N−, ER+ invasive disease through contracts, agreements or policy decisions. The local carrier with jurisdiction for claims submitted by us for Medicare patients also provides coverage for our invasive breast cancer test for ER+ patients with N+ disease (up to three positive lymph nodes) and invasive breast cancer patients where a lymph node status is unknown or not accessible due to a prior surgical procedure, or when the test is used to guide a neoadjuvant treatment decision. Additionally, some payors provide policy coverage for the use of our test in ER+ patients with N+ disease, including lymph node micro‑metastasis. However, we may not be able to obtain reimbursement coverage from other payors for our test for breast cancer patients with N+, ER+ disease.

We have established limited reimbursement coverage for the use of our Oncotype DX DCIS test for some private third‑party payors. In many instances our test is covered under existing breast cancer coverage policies with the addition of the indicated diagnosis code for DCIS. We also received an LCD with Coverage with Data Development for our DCIS test in March 2017, and we intend to continue to devote resources to gaining Medicare and expanded private reimbursement for this test in its intended patient population. We believe it may take several years to achieve reimbursement with a majority of third‑party payors for the use of our DCIS test. However, we cannot predict whether, or under what circumstances, payors will reimburse for this test.

We have established coverage for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test in more than 90% of state Medicaid programs for N− disease. In addition, the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense hospitals have processes in place that provide coverage for this test.

Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Test

We are working with public and private payors and health plans to secure coverage for our Oncotype DX colon cancer test based upon our published and presented results in clinical validation studies and the completed and ongoing studies designed to demonstrate the treatment decision impact of the test in clinical practice. In September 2011, the local carrier with jurisdiction for claims submitted by us for Medicare patients established coverage for our colon cancer test for patients with stage II colon cancer. Additionally, the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense hospitals and a few additional private payors provide coverage and reimbursement. We intend to pursue reimbursement while seeking to obtain formal coverage policies with payors and expect that this test will continue to be reviewed on a case‑by‑case basis until policy decisions have been established. We believe it may take several years to achieve additional reimbursement with third‑party payors for our colon cancer test. However, we cannot predict whether, or under what circumstances, payors will reimburse for this test.

Oncotype DX Prostate Cancer Test

We expect to continue to focus substantial resources on pursuing global adoption of and reimbursement for our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test. We believe the key factors that will drive adoption of this test include publication of the clinical validation study conducted in collaboration with the University of California, San Francisco and other studies we sponsored, conducted or collaborated on that support the use of and reimbursement for the test, clinical presentations at major symposia and our ongoing commercial efforts.

In August 2015, Palmetto issued its final LCD, approving nationwide coverage of our prostate cancer test for qualified male Medicare patients with low and very low risk disease, as defined by NCCN guidelines, throughout the United States. The LCD includes specific requirements for certification and training of physicians who order the test and requirements for collection and reporting of specific data elements related to the use of our test and patient outcomes. Palmetto initiated reimbursement of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer test for patients with low-risk disease effective October 2015.

In August 2017, Palmetto issued its final LCD, recommending Medicare coverage for use of our prostate cancer test in qualified patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as defined by American Urological Association, or AUA, guidelines. Effective October 2017, Palmetto expanded their reimbursement coverage of our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test to include qualified patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Other than Medicare coverage, we have obtained some reimbursement coverage from third‑party payors for our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test. As a new test, our prostate cancer test may be considered investigational by payors and therefore may not be covered under their reimbursement policies. Consequently, we intend to pursue case‑by‑case reimbursement and expect that this test will continue to be reviewed on this basis until policy decisions have been made by individual payors. We plan to work with public and private payors and health plans to secure coverage for this Oncotype DX prostate cancer test based upon clinical evidence demonstrating the utility of the test. We believe it may take several years to achieve reimbursement with a majority of third‑party payors for our prostate cancer test. However, we cannot predict whether, or under what circumstances, payors will reimburse for this test. We plan to hire additional commercial, scientific, technical and other personnel to support this process.

Competition

We compete in a rapidly evolving and highly competitive industry, and there are a number of private and public companies that offer products or have conducted research to profile genes and gene expression in breast, colon and prostate

cancer, including companies such as Agendia Inc., BioTheranostics, Exact Sciences, Inc. GenomeDx Biosciences Inc., Hologic Inc., Myriad Genetics Inc. (and its Sividon Diagnostics subsidiary), NanoString Technologies Inc., NeoGenomics, Inc., and Qiagen N.V. As we look to expand our research, development and commercialization efforts, we may face competition from companies such as Danaher Corporation (and its Cepheid, Inc. subsidiary), Exosome Diagnostics, Inc., Foundation Medicine, Grail, Guardant Health, MDxHealth, Metamark Genetics, Inc., Natera Inc. and Personal Genome Diagnostics, Inc. Historically, our principal competition for our Oncotype DX tests has also come from existing diagnostic methods used by pathologists and oncologists, and such traditional diagnostic methods can be difficult to change or supplement. We also compete with companies offering capital equipment and kits or reagents to local pathology laboratories. These kits are used directly by the pathologist, which facilitates adoption more readily than tests like ours that are performed outside the pathology laboratory.

We also potentially face competition from commercial laboratories with strong distribution networks for diagnostic tests, such as Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. Other potential competitors include companies that develop diagnostic tests such as Roche Diagnostics, a division of Roche Holding, Ltd, Siemens AG, as well as other companies and academic and research institutions.

In our prostate cancer market, we face comparatively greater competition than in our breast cancer market, including competition from products which were on the market prior to our product launch and which are supported by clinical studies and published data. This existing direct and indirect competition for tests and procedures may make it difficult to gain additional market share, impact our ability to obtain reimbursement or result in a substantial increase in resources necessary for us to continue to successfully commercialize our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test.

As more information regarding cancer genomics becomes available to the public, we anticipate that more products aimed at identifying targeted treatment options will be developed and that these products may compete with ours. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our tests in countries where we did not apply for patents, where our patents have not issued or where our intellectual property rights are not recognized and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their test by physicians or patients in other countries. Many of our present and potential competitors have widespread brand recognition and substantially greater financial and technical resources and development, production and marketing capabilities than we do. Others may develop lower‑priced, less complex tests that could be viewed by physicians and payors as functionally equivalent to our tests.

We believe that we compete primarily on the basis of the value of the quantitative information our Oncotype DX tests provide; the clinical validation of the utility of our tests; the level of adoption and reimbursement coverage for our tests; the inclusion of our tests in clinical practice guidelines; our ability to commercialize products through our clinical development platform; our ability to expand our sales efforts into new areas of medical practice as we launch new products; our collaborations with clinical study groups; the quality of our clinical reference laboratory; and the level of customer service we provide.

While we believe that we compete favorably with respect to these factors, in order to continue to do so we must continue to innovate and adopt advanced technology; successfully market, sell and enhance our Oncotype DX tests for use in types of cancer other than breast, colon and prostate; obtain peer-reviewed publications of our clinical studies in a timely manner; continue to obtain positive reimbursement determinations; continue to expand in countries outside of the United States; continue to develop our technological and clinical operations; encourage physician participation in Medicare-required information collection efforts; and, successfully expand our reach into additional product markets including through collaborations with third parties.

Regulation

United States

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA)

We and our collaboration partners are required to hold certain federal, state and local licenses, certificates and permits to conduct our business. Under CLIA, we are required to hold a certificate applicable to the types of tests we perform and to comply with standards covering personnel qualifications, facilities administration, quality systems, inspections and proficiency testing.

We have a current Certificate of Accreditation under CLIA to perform high complexity testing and are accredited by the College of American Pathologists, or CAP. To renew our CLIA certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every

two years to assess compliance with program standards and may be subject to additional inspections without prior notice. The standards applicable to the tests we perform may change over time. We cannot assure that we will operate profitably should it become substantially costlier to comply with regulatory requirements in the future.

If our laboratory is out of compliance with CLIA requirements, we may be subject to sanctions such as suspension, limitation or revocation of our CLIA certificate, as well as directed plan of correction, state on‑site monitoring, civil money penalties, civil injunctive suit or criminal penalties. CMS may also cancel our laboratory’s approval to receive Medicare payments if we are found to be out of compliance with CLIA requirements. If we are to be found out of compliance with CLIA program requirements and sanctions are imposed, our business could be harmed.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Diagnostic test kits that are sold and distributed through interstate commerce are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. Devices subject to FDA regulation must undergo pre‑market review prior to commercialization unless the device is exempt from such review. In addition, manufacturers of medical devices must comply with various regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and regulations promulgated under that Act, including quality system regulations, unless they are exempt. Entities that fail to comply with FDA requirements can be liable for criminal or civil penalties, such as recalls, detentions, orders to cease manufacturing, and restrictions on labeling and promotion, among other potential sanctions.

Clinical laboratory tests like ours are regulated under CLIA, as administered by CMS, as well as by applicable state laws. Clinical laboratory tests that are developed and validated by a laboratory for its own use, which are referred to as laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, are generally not currently subject to FDA regulation, although reagents or software provided by third parties and used to perform LDTs may be subject to regulation. We do not believe that our current tests are diagnostic kits and believe that they are properly classified as LDTs. As a result, we believe our current tests should not be subject to regulation at this time under established FDA policies. The container we provide for collection and transport of tumor samples from a pathology laboratory to our clinical reference laboratory may be considered a medical device subject to regulation but is currently exempt from pre‑market review by the FDA.

At various times since 2006, the FDA has issued guidance documents or announced draft guidance regarding initiatives that may require varying levels of FDA oversight of our tests. In October 2014, the FDA issued draft guidance that sets forth a proposed risk-based regulatory framework that would apply varying levels of FDA oversight to LDTs. The FDA has indicated that it does not intend to implement its proposed framework until the draft guidance documents are finalized. On January 13, 2017, the FDA published a discussion paper in which the FDA outlined a substantially revised possible approach to the oversight of LDTs. The discussion paper explicitly states that it is not a final version of the 2014 draft guidance and that it does not represent the FDA’s formal position. It is unclear at this time if or when the FDA will finalize its plans to end enforcement discretion for LDTs, and even then, the new regulatory requirements are expected to be phased-in over time. However, the FDA may decide to regulate certain LDTs on a case-by-case basis at any time. 

Legislative proposals addressing oversight of genetic testing and LDTs have been introduced in previous Congresses and we expect that new legislative proposals will be introduced from time to time in the future. We cannot provide any assurance that FDA regulation, including pre-market review, will not be required in the future for our tests, whether through finalization of guidance issued by the FDA, new enforcement policies adopted by the FDA or new legislation enacted by Congress. It is possible that legislation will be enacted into law or guidance could be issued by the FDA which may result in increased regulatory burdens for us to continue to offer our tests or to develop and introduce new tests.

We cannot predict the ultimate form of any statutes, regulations or guidance and the potential impact on our existing tests, our tests in development or materials used to perform our tests. If pre‑market review is required, our business could be negatively impacted until such review is completed and clearance or approval is obtained, and the FDA could require that we stop selling our tests pending pre‑market clearance or approval. If our tests are allowed to remain on the market but there is uncertainty about the regulatory status of our tests, if they are labeled investigational by the FDA, or if labeling claims the FDA allows us to make are more limited than the claims we currently make, orders or reimbursement may decline. The regulatory review process may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical trials and submitting a pre‑market clearance notice or filing a pre-market approval application with the FDA. If pre‑market review is required by the FDA, there can be no assurance that our tests will be cleared or approved on a timely basis, if at all, nor can there be assurance that the labeling claims cleared or approved by the FDA will be consistent with our current claims or adequate to support continued adoption of and reimbursement for our tests. Ongoing compliance with FDA regulations would increase the cost of conducting

our business, and subject us to inspection by the FDA and to the regulatory requirements of the FDA, and potentially subject us to penalties for failure to comply with these requirements.

We may also decide voluntarily to pursue FDA pre‑market review of our tests if we determine that doing so would be appropriate from a strategic reimbursement or other standpoint. In November 2017, CMS published a draft national coverage determination, or NCD, for NGS tests for patients with advanced cancer.  Under this NCD, CMS proposes to provide full coverage for FDA-approved tests performed in patients that fall within that test’s FDA-approved labeling, but places significant limits on coverage for NGS-based tests offered as LDTs, effectively limiting coverage of NGS tests to those that are FDA-approved.  

While we qualify all materials used in our tests according to CLIA regulations, we cannot be certain that the FDA will not enact rules or guidance that could impact our ability to purchase certain materials necessary for the performance of our tests, such as products labeled for research use only. Should the availability of any of the reagents obtained by us from vendors and used in conducting our tests be affected by future regulatory actions, our business could be adversely affected by those actions, including increasing the cost of testing or delaying, limiting or prohibiting the purchase of reagents necessary to perform testing.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, required the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to issue regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information. HIPAA’s privacy and security requirements are broad in scope and apply to “covered entities,” which include healthcare providers like us who transmit health information in connection with electronic healthcare transactions. In 2009, HIPAA was amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH. The implementing regulations of HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, were last modified in 2013 and resulted in significant changes to the privacy, security, breach notification, and enforcement requirements with which we must comply. Among these changes, covered entities are now vicariously liable for violations of HIPAA that result from acts or omissions of their business associates where the business associate is an agent of the covered entity and was acting within the scope of its agency, regardless of whether the covered entity and business associate entered into a business associate agreement in compliance with HIPAA. Penalties for violations of HIPAA include civil money and criminal penalties.

As a covered entity, we are required to develop and maintain extensive policies and procedures to comply with the HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification requirements. We may not use or disclose protected health information in any form, including electronic, written, or oral, in a way that is not permitted under HIPAA, and we are required to implement security measures to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health information that we create, receive, maintain, or transmit. While we have some flexibility in determining which security safeguards are reasonable and appropriate to implement for our operations, it nonetheless requires significant effort and expense to ensure continuing compliance with the HIPAA security rule. Moreover, the requirements under HIPAA’s privacy, security, and breach notification regulations may change periodically and could have an effect on our business operations if compliance becomes substantially costlier than under current requirements. We are also required to comply with the administrative simplification standards under HIPAA when we conduct the electronic transactions regulated by HIPAA, including by using standard code sets and formats and standardized identifiers for health plans and providers.

In addition to HIPAA, a number of state and international laws impose requirements regarding the protection of health or other personal information that are applicable to our operations. Many state laws are not preempted by HIPAA because they are more stringent or are broader in scope than HIPAA. Further, we are required to comply with international personal data protection laws and regulations. Under the current European Union Data Protection Directive, or E.U. Directive, we are required to self-certify as to our adherence to its principles of data protection and security. Effective May 25, 2018, the E.U. Directive will be superseded by the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, a more prescriptive, detailed, and punitive regulation.  While companies are afforded some flexibility in determining how to comply with the GDPR’s various requirements, it has and will continue to require significant effort and expense to ensure continuing compliance with the GDPR. Moreover, the requirements under the GDPR as to documentation, breach notification, access rights, and security, and breach notification regulations may change periodically or may be modified by E.U. national law, and could have an effect on our business operations if compliance becomes substantially costlier than under current requirements. It is possible that each of these privacy laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. If so, this could result in government imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, which could adversely affect our business.

Complying with these various laws could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices and compliance procedures in a manner adverse to our business.

Under the E.U. Directive, and the GDPR, personal information about E.U. citizens can only be transferred from the E.U. to countries with adequate data protection. The U.S.-E.U. Privacy Shield, or the Privacy Shield, has been open to registrants as of August 1, 2016. We have self-certified compliance with the Privacy Shield, which we believe will mitigate customer concerns about overseas data transfers. However there continue to be concerns about whether the Privacy Shield will face additional challenges (similar to those that invalidated the Safe Harbor Framework), and it is not guaranteed that companies who have self-certified under the Privacy Shield will be free of additional ongoing scrutiny by E.U. data protection authorities.

Federal and State Physician Self‑Referral Prohibitions

We are subject to the federal physician self‑referral prohibitions, commonly known as the Stark Law. We are also subject to similar restrictions under the self-referral prohibitions of certain states in which we operate. Such state laws are generally interpreted by regulators and the courts in a manner similar to the Stark Law. Together these restrictions generally prohibit us from billing a patient or any governmental or private payor for any test when the physician ordering the test, or any member of such physician’s immediate family, has a financial interest in or compensation arrangement with us, unless the arrangement meets an exception.

For example, under the personal services exception of both the Stark Law and California’s Physician Ownership and Referral Act, or PORA, billing for tests is permitted when the orders for such tests came from physicians whose compensation arrangement with us is for personal services and meets certain written contractual requirements. We have compensation arrangements with a number of physicians for personal services, such as speaking engagements and consulting services. We have structured these arrangements with terms intended to comply with the requirements of the personal services exception of the Stark Law and PORA. However, we cannot be certain that regulators would find these arrangements to be in compliance with the exceptions of the Stark Law, PORA or similar laws in other states. If the arrangements were found to not be in compliance with these exceptions and prohibited referrals were made, we would be required to refund any payments we received pursuant to a prohibited referral to the patient, the payor or the Medicare program, as applicable.

Sanctions for a violation of the Stark Law include the following:

These prohibitions apply regardless of the reasons for the financial relationship and the referral. No finding of intent to violate the Stark Law is required for a violation. In addition, knowing violations of the Stark Law may also serve as the basis for liability under the Federal False Claims Act, which prohibits the knowing presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. Government or knowingly retaining an overpayment from the U.S. Government.

Further, a violation of the self-referral prohibitions of states in which we operate could lead to additional liability. For example, a violation of PORA is a misdemeanor and could result in civil penalties and criminal fines. While we believe we comply with the Stark Law, PORA and similar laws of other states, it is possible that our claims for tests ordered by physicians with whom we have a financial relationship could be subject to regulatory scrutiny at some point in the future, and we cannot provide assurance that we will be found to be in compliance following any such regulatory review.

Federal and State Anti‑Kickback Laws

The federal Anti‑kickback Law makes it a felony for a provider or supplier, including a laboratory, to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any federal health care program. A violation of the Anti‑kickback Law may result in criminal penalties including fines of up to

$100,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Convictions under the Anti‑kickback Law result in mandatory exclusion from federal health care programs. In addition, HHS has the authority to impose civil assessments and fines and to exclude health care providers and others engaged in prohibited activities from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs. Actions that violate the Anti‑kickback Law or similar laws may also involve liability under the Federal False Claims Act.

Although the Anti‑kickback Law applies only to federal health care programs, a number of states in which we operate have passed statutes generally similar to the Anti‑kickback Law. For example, both California’s general anti-kickback statute, Business and Professions Code Section 650, and its Medi‑Cal anti‑kickback statute, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 14107.2, have been interpreted by the California Attorney General and California courts in generally the same way that HHS and courts have interpreted the federal Anti‑kickback Law. A violation of Section 650 is punishable by imprisonment and fines of up to $50,000. A violation of Section 14107.2 is punishable by imprisonment and fines of up to $10,000.

Federal and state law enforcement authorities may scrutinize arrangements between health care providers and potential referral sources to ensure that the arrangements are not designed as a mechanism to induce patient care referrals and opportunities. Law enforcement authorities, the courts and Congress have also demonstrated a willingness to look behind the formalities of a transaction to determine the underlying purpose of payments between health care providers and actual or potential referral sources. Generally, courts have taken a broad interpretation of the scope of the Anti‑kickback Law, holding that the statute may be violated if merely one purpose of a payment arrangement is to induce future referrals.

In addition to statutory exceptions to the Anti‑kickback Law, regulations provide for a number of safe harbors to the law. If an arrangement meets all the provisions of a safe harbor, it is deemed not to violate the Anti‑kickback Law. An arrangement must fully comply with each element of an applicable safe harbor in order to qualify for protection. However, failure to meet the terms of the safe harbor does not render an arrangement illegal. Rather, the arrangement must be evaluated under the language of the statute, taking into account all facts and circumstances.

Among the Anti‑kickback Law safe harbors that may be relevant to us is the discount safe harbor. The discount safe harbor potentially applies to discounts provided by providers and suppliers, including laboratories, to physicians or institutions where the physician or institution bills the payor for the test, not when the laboratory bills the payor directly. If the terms of the discount safe harbor are met, the discounts will not be considered prohibited remuneration under the Anti‑kickback Law. This safe harbor may therefore be potentially applicable to our agreements to sell tests to hospitals where the hospital submits a claim to the payor.

Another safe harbor to the Anti-kickback Law that may be relevant to us is the personal services safe harbor. This safe harbor provides that remuneration paid to a referral source for personal services will be deemed not to violate the Anti‑kickback Law provided all the elements of that safe harbor are met. One element is that, if the agreement is intended to provide for the services of the physician on a periodic, sporadic or part‑time basis, the agreement must specify the schedule of such intervals, their precise length, and the exact charge for such intervals. Our personal services arrangements with some physicians do not meet the specific requirement of this safe harbor in that the agreements do not specify exactly the schedule of the intervals of time to be spent on the services. The reason for this is that the nature of the services, such as speaking engagements, does not lend itself to exact scheduling and therefore meeting this element of the personal services safe harbor is impractical. However, as noted above, failure to meet the terms of the safe harbor does not render an arrangement illegal, as such arrangements are evaluated under the language of the statute, taking into account all facts and circumstances.

Many state anti-kickback statutes have analogous exceptions or safe harbors to those of the Anti-kickback Law. As noted above, these state anti-kickback statutes have generally been interpreted consistently with the Anti‑kickback Law.

While we believe that we are in compliance with the Anti‑kickback Law and similar anti-kickback statutes in the states in which we operate, there can be no assurance that our relationships with physicians, hospitals and other customers will not be subject to investigation or a successful challenge under such laws. If imposed for any reason, sanctions under these laws could have a negative effect on our business.

Many other countries in which we offer our tests also have anti‑kickback regulations, which are discussed below.

Other Federal and State Fraud and Abuse Laws

In addition to the requirements discussed above, there are several other health care fraud and abuse laws that could have an impact on our business. For example, provisions of the Social Security Act permit Medicare and Medicaid to exclude an entity that charges the federal health care programs substantially in excess of its usual charges for its services. The terms “usual charge” and “substantially in excess” are ambiguous and subject to varying interpretations.

Further, as stated above, the Federal False Claims Act prohibits a person from knowingly submitting a false claim or making a false record or statement in order to secure payment or retain an overpayment by the federal government. In addition to actions initiated by the government itself, the statute authorizes actions to be brought on behalf of the federal government by a private party having knowledge of the alleged fraud. These lawsuits are known as qui tam or whistleblower lawsuits. Because complaints related to such actions are initially filed under seal, the action may be pending for some time before the defendant is even aware of the action. If the government is ultimately successful in obtaining redress in the matter or if the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining redress without the government’s involvement, then the whistleblower plaintiff will receive a percentage of the recovery.

Finally, the Social Security Act includes its own provisions that prohibit the filing of false claims or submitting false statements in order to obtain payment. Violation of these provisions may result in fines, imprisonment or both, and possible exclusion from Medicare or Medicaid programs. Many states also have analogous false claims prohibitions, including California, which has a false claims provision applicable to all payors.

Laboratory Licensing

In addition to federal certification requirements for laboratories under CLIA, certain state laws, including those of California, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Florida, require us and certain laboratories with whom we collaborate to maintain certain licenses to either operate in the state or accept specimens from the state. These laws establish standards for the day‑to‑day operation of our clinical reference laboratory and those of certain of our collaborators, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control. In addition, California laws require us to participate in a state-approved proficiency testing program, which involves testing of known specimens to verify the accuracy and reliability of our laboratory’s tests. We maintain a license in good standing with the California Department of Public Health, the New York State Department of Health, and relevant authorities in Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

If our clinical laboratory is out of compliance with California standards, the California Department of Public Health may suspend, restrict or revoke our license to operate our clinical laboratory, assess substantial civil money penalties, or impose specific corrective action plans, among other potential penalties. If our laboratory is out of compliance with New York statutory or regulatory standards, the New York State Department of Health may suspend, limit, revoke or annul the laboratory’s New York license, censure the holder of the license or assess civil money penalties, among other potential penalties. If imposed, any such penalties could materially affect our business.

From time to time, we may become aware of other states that require out‑of‑state laboratories to obtain a license in order to accept specimens from the state, and it is possible that other states already have such requirements or will have such requirements in the future. If we identify any other state with such requirements or if we are contacted by any other state advising us of such requirements, we intend to follow instructions from the state regulators as to how we should comply with such requirements.

Environmental Laws

We are subject to regulation under federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental protection and the use, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous substances. The cost of complying with these laws and regulations may be significant. Our activities currently require the controlled use of potentially harmful biological materials, hazardous materials and chemicals. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury to employees or third parties from the use, storage, handling or disposal of these materials. In the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources or any applicable insurance coverage we may have.

International

Many countries in which we offer our tests in have anti‑kickback regulations prohibiting providers from offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any national health care program. In situations involving physicians employed by state‑funded institutions or national health care agencies, violation of the local anti‑kickback law may also constitute a violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA.

The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual, business entity or employee of a U.S. business entity from offering or providing, directly or through a third party, including the distributors we rely on in certain markets, anything of value to a foreign government official with corrupt intent to influence an award or continuation of business or to gain an unfair advantage, whether or not such conduct violates local laws. In addition, it is illegal for a company that reports to the SEC to have false or inaccurate books or records or to fail to maintain a system of internal accounting controls. We are also required to maintain accurate information and control over sales and distributors’ activities that may fall within the purview of the FCPA, its books and records provisions and its anti‑bribery provisions.

The standard of intent and knowledge in the Anti‑Bribery cases is minimal, and intent and knowledge are usually inferred from that fact that bribery took place. The accounting provisions do not require intent. Violations of the FCPA’s anti‑bribery provisions for corporations and other business entities may result in a fine of up to $2 million and officers, directors, stockholders, employees, and agents are subject to a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Other countries, including the United Kingdom and other OECD Anti‑Bribery Convention members, have similar anti‑corruption regulations, such as the United Kingdom Bribery Act.

When marketing our tests outside of the United States, we are subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing human clinical testing, export of tissue, marketing approval for our products and performance and reporting of tests on a local basis. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, differ from those in the United States and may require us to perform additional pre‑clinical or clinical testing. In many countries outside of the United States, coverage, pricing and reimbursement approvals are also required in order for our tests to be made available to patients.

Patents and Proprietary Technology

We rely on a combination of patents, patent applications, copyrights and trademarks, as well as contracts, such as confidentiality, material data transfer, license and invention assignment agreements, to protect our intellectual property rights. We also rely upon trade secret laws to protect unpatented know‑how and continuing technological innovation.

As of December 31, 2017, we had 40 issued patents in the United States and 349 issued patents outside of the United States, which includes validated patents issued by the European Patent Office in key European Union countries, covering genes and methods that are components of the Oncotype DX breast, colon and prostate cancer tests or research methods and platform technologies. In addition, we have a number of pending patent applications in the United States and in other countries, including provisional and non‑provisional filings. Our issued U.S. patents expire at various times between 2023 and 2033. Some of these U.S. patent applications also have corresponding pending or granted applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and other jurisdictions. In these patent applications, we have either sole or joint ownership positions. In certain cases where joint ownership positions were created, we have negotiated contractual provisions providing us with the opportunity to acquire exclusive rights under the patent applications. Under some patent applications, we have elected to allow exclusive options to lapse without exercising the option. The joint ownership agreements generally are in the form of material data transfer agreements that were executed at the onset of our collaborations with third parties.

Our patent applications relate to two main areas: gene expression and sequencing technology methods, and gene biomarkers and methods for predicting cancer recurrence and drug response in certain forms of cancer.

We have in the past, and may in the future, receive notices of claims of infringement and misappropriation or misuse of other parties’ proprietary rights and may from time to time receive additional notices. Assertions of misappropriation, infringement or misuse, or actions seeking to establish the validity of our patents could materially or adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

An adverse determination in litigation or interference proceedings to which we may become a party relating to any patents issued to us in the future, or any patents owned by third parties, could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties

or require us to seek licenses from third parties. Furthermore, if we are found to willfully infringe these patents, we could, in addition to other penalties, be required to pay treble damages. If certain aspects of our Oncotype DX tests or other tests are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of others, we may not be able to redesign our Oncotype DX tests or other tests to avoid infringement, or such redesign may take considerable time, and force us to reassess our business plans or obtain a license in order to continue to utilize the Oncotype DX tests as is, which license may not be available on satisfactory or commercially feasible terms, if at all.

All employees and consultants working for us are required to execute confidentiality agreements in connection with their employment and consulting relationships with us. Confidentiality agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known to others during the course of the employment, consulting or business relationship shall be kept confidential except in specified circumstances. In addition, agreements with employees provide that all inventions conceived by the individual while employed by us are our exclusive property. Despite measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties might copy aspects of our technology or obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary.

Roche License Agreement

 On October 28, 2016, we provided notice of termination of a license agreement with Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., or Roche, whereby we non-exclusively licensed from Roche a number of U.S. patents claiming nucleic acid amplification processes known as PCR, homogeneous polymerase chain reaction, and RT‑PCR. We determined to terminate this license agreement because we believe we satisfied all obligations under the agreement.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses were $62.8 million, $60.2 million and $58.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively. In 2015, we made a one-time $5.5 million payment to wind down a previous license agreement and development program. We also continued to conduct research and development studies in breast, prostate and other cancers, including proprietary platforms that incorporate emerging molecular technologies to develop non‑invasive tests that can be performed on blood or urine.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had 863 employees, including 174 in clinical reference laboratory operations, 144 in research and development, including bioinformatics, 345 in sales and marketing, 100 in information technology and systems and 100 in general and administrative functions. None of our U.S.-based employees are covered by collective bargaining arrangements, and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Available Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in August 2000, and our website is located at www.genomichealth.com. We make available free of charge on our website our annual reports on Form 10‑K, quarterly reports on Form 10‑Q, current reports on Form 8‑K and amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

ITEM 1A.  Risk Factors.

Risks Relating to our Business and Business Strategy

We have a history of net losses, we may incur net losses in the future, and we expect to continue to incur significant expenses to develop and market our tests and enter into collaborations, which may make it difficult for us to achieve sustained profitability.

We have historically incurred substantial net losses. From our inception in August 2000 through December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $245.9 million. We expect to continue to invest in our product pipeline, including our current Oncotype DX tests and future commercialized products, and to invest in our global commercial infrastructure, our laboratory operations, commercial collaborations and next generation sequencing, or NGS, and other technologies. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our research and development expenses were $62.8 million and our selling and marketing expenses were

$157.0 million. We expect our expense levels to continue to increase for the foreseeable future as we seek to globally expand the clinical utility of our Oncotype DX breast and prostate cancer tests, drive adoption of and reimbursement for our Oncotype DX colon cancer and prostate cancer tests and develop and commercialize new tests, including Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect, the in-vitro diagnostic, or IVD, version of our Oncotype DX breast cancer test, and the potential IsoPSA IVD test for high-risk prostate cancer. As a result, we will need to generate significant growth in revenues in order to achieve sustained profitability. Our failure to achieve increased revenue or sustained profitability in the future could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

If third‑party payors, including managed care organizations and Medicare, do not provide reimbursement, breach, rescind or modify their contracts or reimbursement policies or delay payments for our tests, or we are unable to successfully renegotiate reimbursement contracts, our commercial success could be compromised.

Physicians and patients might not order our tests unless third‑party payors, such as managed care organizations as well as government payors such as Medicare and Medicaid and government payors outside of the United States, pay a substantial portion of the test price. Reimbursement by a payor may depend on a number of factors, including a payor’s determination that tests using our technologies are not experimental or investigational, and that they are medically necessary, cost-effective, supported by peer-reviewed publications and included in clinical practice guidelines. There is uncertainty concerning third-party payor reimbursement of any test incorporating new technology, including tests developed using our Oncotype platform.

Our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test has received certain negative assessments in the past relating to technology criteria for clinical effectiveness and appropriateness for use in patients with N+ disease, and our tests may receive similar negative assessments in the future. Since each payor makes its own decision as to whether to establish a policy to reimburse our tests, seeking these approvals is a time-consuming and costly process. To date, we have positive coverage determinations for our Oncotype DX breast cancer test for N‑, ER+ patients from most third‑party payors in the United States through contracts, agreements or policy decisions. We cannot be certain that coverage for this test will be provided in the future by additional third‑party payors or that existing contracts, agreements or policy decisions or reimbursement levels, including tests processed as out of network, will remain in place or be fulfilled within existing terms and provisions. From time to time payors change processes that may affect timely payment. These changes may result in uneven cash flow or impact the timing of revenue recognized with these payors.

We have obtained limited reimbursement from private third-party payors in the United States for our Oncotype DX colon cancer test and for our Oncotype DX breast cancer test for N+ and DCIS patients. Until further clinical data is presented, our N+ and DCIS indication for our breast cancer test and our colon cancer test may be considered investigational by payors and therefore may not be covered under their reimbursement policies.

We have obtained Medicare reimbursement coverage for our prostate cancer test for low and very-low risk patients and for favorable intermediate-risk patients. However, we may not be able to obtain Medicare reimbursement coverage for our prostate cancer test for patients with different risk profiles or obtain other third-party payor reimbursement for patients with colon or prostate cancer or with N+ breast cancer patients that is similar to the coverage we have obtained for our invasive breast cancer test for N-, ER- patients. We believe that it may take several years to achieve reimbursement with a majority of third-party payors for our tests. If we fail to establish broad adoption of and reimbursement for all of our tests and any future tests we may develop, our reputation could be harmed and our future prospects and our business could suffer.

Under the terms of the coverage determinations for our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test, coverage for the test for patients with certain risk profiles is limited to tests ordered by physicians who agree to participate in a Certification and Training Registry, or CTR, and to provide certain information about Medicare beneficiaries who receive our test. If physicians do not timely submit necessary information as part of participating in the CTR, the timeframe in which we are reimbursed and recognize revenue for those tests may be accordingly delayed and negatively affect our results of operations.

Changes in payment rates may result in delays receiving payments and a related increase in accounts receivable balances as payors update their billing systems to reflect the changes. Additionally, on a five-year rotational basis, Medicare requests bids for its regional Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, services. In September 2013, the claims processing function for our jurisdiction transitioned from Palmetto to Noridian Healthcare Solutions, although coverage determinations for our tests remain with Palmetto at this time through the MolDx Program. Future changes in the MAC with jurisdiction over our tests may affect our ability to obtain Medicare coverage and reimbursement for products for which we have coverage, for products for which we do not yet have coverage or for any products we may launch in the future or delay payments.

If we are unable to obtain or maintain reimbursement from both private and public payors for our existing tests or new

tests or test enhancements we may develop in the future, our ability to generate revenues could be limited. We have in the past, and will likely in the future, experience delays and temporary interruptions in the receipt of payments from third-party payors due to modifications in existing contracts or arrangements, contract implementation matters, documentation requirements and other issues, which could cause our revenues to fluctuate from period to period.

Our financial results depend largely on the sales of one test, our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test, and we will need to generate sufficient revenues from this and other tests to run our business and achieve profitability.

For the near future, we expect to continue to derive a substantial majority of our revenues from sales of one test, our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test. While we launched our test for colon cancer in January 2010, we do not expect to recognize significant revenues from this test. We are in various stages of research and development for other tests that we may offer as well as for enhancements to our existing tests. We may not be able to successfully commercialize tests for other cancers or diseases. If we are unable to increase sales of our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test, establish expanded adoption of and reimbursement for our prostate cancer or DCIS tests, or successfully develop and commercialize new products or product enhancements to our currently commercialized tests, our revenues and our ability to achieve sustained profitability would be impaired.

The prices at which our tests are reimbursed may be reduced by Medicare and private and other payors, and any such changes could have a negative impact on our revenues.

Even if we are being reimbursed for our tests, Medicare, Medicaid and other payors may withdraw their coverage policies, cancel their contracts with us at any time, review and adjust the rate of reimbursement, require co-payments from patients or stop paying for our tests, which would reduce our revenues. In addition, insurers, including managed care organizations as well as government payors such as Medicare and Medicaid, have increased their efforts to control the cost, utilization and delivery of healthcare services. These measures have resulted in reduced payment rates for and decreased utilization of clinical laboratory services, as well as an increase in the administrative requirements for reimbursement of claims. Noridian Healthcare Solutions and Palmetto GBA, the MACs, that process Medicare claims and set Medicare coverage policies, respectively, for most tests billed by our laboratory and other MACs review coverage decisions regularly.

The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, implements a substantial new payment system for clinical laboratory tests under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS. Under PAMA, Medicare payment rates for tests are equal to the volume-weighted median of the private payor payment rates for such tests. The payment rates calculated under PAMA apply to our tests effective as of January 1, 2018, and will be reviewed annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests” (and every three years for other tests), based on private payor payment rates and volumes. Laboratories that fail to report or erroneously report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil money penalties. We believe our Oncotype DX tests each meet the criteria to be considered advanced diagnostic laboratory tests. We may or may not, however, seek designation as an advanced diagnostic laboratory test for any of our established tests. There can be no assurance under PAMA that adequate Medicare payment rates will continue to be assigned to our tests.

If we are unable to obtain or maintain adequate reimbursement for our tests outside of the United States, our ability to expand internationally will be compromised.

The majority of our international Oncotype DX breast and colon cancer test revenues come from direct payor reimbursement, payments from our distributors, and patient self‑pay. In many countries outside of the United States, various coverage, pricing and reimbursement approvals are required for our tests to be available to patients. We expect that it will take several years to establish broad coverage and reimbursement for our tests with payors in countries outside of the United States, and our efforts may not be successful. Even if public or private reimbursement is obtained, it may cover competing tests, or the reimbursement may be conditioned upon local performance of the tests or other requirements we may have difficulty satisfying. Reimbursement levels outside of the United States may vary considerably from the domestic reimbursement amounts we receive. In addition, because we rely on distributors to obtain reimbursement for our tests outside of the United States, to the extent we do not have direct reimbursement arrangements with payors, we may not be able to retain reimbursement coverage in certain countries with a particular payor if our agreement with a distributor is terminated or expires, if a distributor fails to pay us or for other reasons. We may also be negatively affected by the financial instability of, and austerity measures implemented by, several countries in the European Union and elsewhere.

We depend on Medicare for a significant portion of our product revenues and if Medicare or other significant payors stop providing reimbursement or decrease the amount of reimbursement for our tests, our revenues could decline.

Reimbursement on behalf of patients covered by Medicare accounted for 22%, 21% and 20% of our product revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Accounts receivable on behalf of patients directly covered by Medicare represented 23%, 24% and 14% of our total accounts receivable at December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. While there were no other third-party payors representing 10% or more of our product revenues for these periods, there have been in the past, and may be in the future, payors accounting for 10% or more of our product revenues. Because the majority of stage II and stage III colon cancer patients and prostate cancer patients in the United States are age 65 and over, and thus eligible for Medicare, we may become more dependent on Medicare reimbursement in the future. It is possible that Medicare or other third-party payors that provide reimbursement for our tests may suspend, revoke or discontinue coverage at any time, may require co-payments from patients, or may reduce the reimbursement rates payable to us. Any such action could have a negative impact on our revenues.

Because of Medicare billing rules or changes in Medicare billing rules and processes, we may not receive reimbursement for all tests provided to Medicare patients or may experience delays of receiving payments.

Effective January 1, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who were hospital outpatients at the time the tumor tissue samples were obtained, we may bill for tests that are performed following an outpatient encounter.  Payment for our Oncotype DX tests performed on Medicare beneficiaries who were hospital inpatients at the time the tumor tissue or blood samples were obtained and whose tests were ordered less than 14 days from discharge must be bundled into the payment that the hospital receives for the services provided. In these circumstances, hospitals are required to furnish services such as our tests as “services furnished under arrangements between a provider and an outside vendor” and only the hospital may bill Medicare for such tests. Under these circumstances, for us to obtain payment for these services, we are required to bill individual hospitals for tests ordered for Medicare beneficiaries. Such hospitals have generally been unwilling to enter into written agreements with us to assume the financial responsibility for these tests ordered for Medicare beneficiaries and consequently we generally cancel such orders when received within the 14-day timeframe when written agreements from such hospitals are not in place.

These billing rules may lead to confusion regarding whether Medicare provides adequate reimbursement for our tests, and could discourage providers from ordering our tests for Medicare patients. In addition, compared to our breast cancer tests, a greater proportion of eligible patients for our colon and prostate tests are covered by Medicare. We cannot assure you that Medicare will continue these billing rules in their current form, that Medicare not will seek to expand the scope of its payment bundling rules in the future, or that other payors will not adopt similar billing rules. In addition, changes in Medicare billing rules and processes could result in delays in receiving payments and any such delays could affect our results of operations.

If our Oncotype laboratory facilities become inoperable, we will be unable to perform our tests and our business will be harmed.

We do not have redundant clinical reference laboratory facilities outside of Redwood City, California for our Oncotype DX tests. Redwood City is situated near active earthquake fault lines. Our facilities and the equipment we use to perform our tests would be costly to replace and could require substantial lead time to repair or replace. Our facilities may be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man‑made disasters, including earthquakes, flooding and power outages, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to perform our tests for some period of time. The inability to perform our tests or the backlog of tests that could develop if our facility is inoperable for even a short period of time may result in the loss of customers or harm our reputation, and we may be unable to regain those customers in the future. Although we possess insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all.

In order to rely on a third party to perform our tests, we could only use another facility with established state licensure and CLIA accreditation under the scope of which Oncotype tests could be performed following validation and other required procedures. We cannot assure you that we would be able to find another CLIA‑certified facility willing to comply with the required procedures, that this laboratory would be willing to perform the tests for us on commercially reasonable terms, or that it would be able to meet our quality standards. In order to establish a redundant clinical reference laboratory outside of our Redwood City, California facilities, we would have to spend considerable time and money securing adequate space, constructing the facility, recruiting and training employees, and establishing the additional operational and administrative infrastructure necessary to support a second facility. We may not be able, or it may take considerable time, to replicate our testing processes or results in a new facility. Additionally, any new clinical reference laboratory facility opened by us would

be subject to certification under CLIA and licensing by several states, including California and New York, which could take a significant amount of time and result in delays in our ability to resume operations. 

We may acquire other businesses, form joint ventures or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of complementary businesses and assets, as well as technology licensing arrangements or other collaborations. We also may pursue strategic alliances that leverage our core technology and industry experience to expand our product offerings or distribution, or make investments in other companies. We have in the past and may in the future experience losses related to the recognition of our portion of the net losses of equity method investees, and we may in the future experience impairment losses related to our investments in companies if we determine that the value of an investment is impaired. Losses related to our investments in other companies could have a material negative effect on our results of operations. We have no experience with respect to acquiring other companies and only recent experience with respect to the formation of strategic alliances and joint ventures. If we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business, and we could assume unknown or contingent liabilities. Any future acquisitions by us also could result in significant write‑offs or the incurrence of debt and contingent liabilities, any of which could harm our operating results. Integration of an acquired company also may require management resources that otherwise would be available for ongoing development of our existing business. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost‑effective basis, or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, technology license, strategic alliance, joint venture or investment. Additionally, although we are not currently a majority investor in any other company, we cannot guarantee that a company in whom we invest in the future will not be considered a variable interest entity, or VIE, under relevant accounting standards and guidance. If an entity in which we invest is determined to be a VIE, and we are determined to be the primary beneficiary of that VIE, we may have to consolidate that entity’s financial results with ours, and such consolidation could have a negative effect on our financial results.

To finance any acquisitions or investments, we may choose to issue shares of our common stock as consideration, which would dilute the ownership of our stockholders. Periods of upheaval in the capital markets and world economy have in the past, and may in the future, cause volatility in the market price of our common stock. If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies for stock. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for acquisitions through public or private financings. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

International expansion of our business exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial, compliance and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States.

Our business strategy incorporates international expansion, including increasing the size of and maintaining direct sales and physician outreach and education capabilities outside of the United States and expanding our relationships with international payors and distributors. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our revenues and results of operations.

We face risks associated with currency exchange rate fluctuations, which could adversely affect our operating results.  

We receive a portion of our revenues and pay a portion of our expenses in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, such as the Euro, the Swiss franc, the British pound and the Canadian dollar. As a result, we are at risk from exchange rate fluctuations between such foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar, which could affect our results of operations. For the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately 9% of our product revenues came from foreign denominated currencies. If the U.S. dollar strengthens against foreign currencies, the translation of these foreign currency denominated transactions will result in decreased revenues and operating expenses and increased net losses. We may not be able to offset adverse foreign currency impact with increased revenues. In September 2017, we entered into forward contracts to mitigate the impact of adverse movements in foreign exchange rates related to the re-measurement of monetary assets and liabilities and hedge our foreign currency exchange rate exposure. Even with this strategy in place to mitigate balance sheet foreign currency risk, we will not eliminate our exposure to foreign exchange rate fluctuations on our financial results. 

If it became necessary and we were unable to raise additional capital on acceptable terms in the future, it may limit our ability to develop and commercialize new tests and technologies and expand our operations.

We expect capital outlays and operating expenditures to increase over the next several years as we expand our infrastructure, commercial operations and research and development activities. Specifically, we may need to raise capital to, among other things, expand and fund the commercialization of our products, increase our selling and marketing efforts, further expand our clinical laboratory operations, technologies and research and development activities, invest in complementary businesses or assets or finance capital expenditures and general and administrative expenses.

Our present and future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including establishing and maintaining reimbursement arrangements with third-party payors, costs associated with expanding our commercial and laboratory operations, spending on research and development activities, costs associated with acquiring, licensing or investing in new technologies or complementary businesses, costs associated with protecting our intellectual property rights, costs associated with international expansion, and the costs and potential delays involved with regulatory clearances and approvals.

We cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain additional funds on acceptable terms, or at all. If we raise funds by issuing equity securities, dilution to our stockholders could result. Any equity or debt securities issued also may provide for rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock and could impose significant restrictions on our operations. If we raise funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, we might be required to relinquish significant rights to our technologies or products, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are not able to secure additional funding when needed, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more research and development programs or selling and marketing initiatives. Any or all of these factors could harm our business, operating results and financial condition.

We may be unable to manage our future growth and operational expansion effectively, which could make it difficult to execute our business strategy.

Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on management, including the need to identify, recruit, train and integrate additional employees. In addition, rapid and significant growth may place strain on our administrative and operational infrastructure, including customer service and our clinical laboratory. Our ability to manage our operations and growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. If we are unable to manage our growth effectively, it may be difficult for us to execute our business strategy.

The implementation and transition to a new enterprise resource planning system to streamline a broad range of business processes and functional areas including order fulfillment, sample processing, customer service, supply chain management, and others has, in some cases, resulted in delays in access to, or could result in errors in, critical business and financial information. Unexpected errors or delays could also harm our ability to operate certain aspects of our business or to file our periodic reports in a timely manner.

We are dependent on our information technology and telecommunications systems, and any failure of these systems could harm our business.

We depend on information technology, or IT, and telecommunications systems for significant aspects of our operations. In addition, our third‑party billing and collections provider is dependent upon telecommunications and data systems provided by outside vendors and information it receives from us on a regular basis. These IT and telecommunications systems support a variety of functions, including test processing, sample tracking, quality control, customer service and support, billing and reimbursement, research and development activities, and our general and administrative activities. Failures or significant downtime of our IT or telecommunications systems or those used by our third‑party service providers could prevent us from processing tests, providing test results to physicians, billing payors, processing reimbursement appeals, handling patient or physician inquiries, conducting research and development activities, and managing the administrative aspects of our business. Any disruption or loss of IT or telecommunications systems on which critical aspects of our operations depend could have an adverse effect on our business and our product revenues.

Security breaches, loss of data and other disruptions could compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business and our reputation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and our third-party billing and collections provider collect and store sensitive data, including legally protected health information, sensitive personal data, credit card information, personally identifiable information about our employees, customers and patients, intellectual property, and our proprietary business information and that of our customers, payors and collaboration partners. We manage and maintain our applications and data utilizing a combination of on‑site systems, managed data center systems and cloud‑based data center systems. These applications and data encompass a wide variety of business-critical information including research and development information, commercial information and business and financial information. We face four primary risks relative to protecting this critical information, including loss of access risk, inappropriate disclosure risk and inappropriate modification risk combined with the risk of our ability to identify and audit our controls over the first three risks.

The secure processing, storage, maintenance and transmission of this critical information is vital to our operations and business strategy, and we devote significant resources to protecting such information. Although we take measures to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure, and that of our third-party billing and collections provider, may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or viruses or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach or interruption could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, similar state data protection regulations, the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, and other regulations, the breach of which could result in significant penalties. Unauthorized access, loss or dissemination could also disrupt our operations, including our ability to process tests, provide test results, bill payors or patients, process claims and appeals, provide customer assistance services, conduct research and development activities, collect, process and prepare company financial information, provide information about our tests and other patient and physician education and outreach efforts through our website, manage the administrative aspects of our business and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our business.

In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health‑related and data protection laws in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory and in flux. For example, in October 2015, the European Court of Justice invalidated the U.S./E.U. Safe Harbor Framework regarding the overseas transfer of E.U. residents’ personal data, under which we held certification. Companies, such as us, who relied upon the invalid Safe Harbor Framework were exposed to additional scrutiny from the E.U. data protection authorities without the protection of the Safe Harbor Framework. The U.S.-E.U. Privacy Shield, or the Privacy Shield, has been open to registrants as of August 1, 2016. We have self-certified with the Department of Commerce for compliance with the Privacy Shield, which we believe will mitigate customer concerns about overseas data transfers. However there continue to be concerns about whether the Privacy Shield will face additional challenges (similar to those that invalidated the Safe Harbor Framework), and it is not guaranteed that companies who have self-certified under the Privacy Shield will be free of additional ongoing scrutiny by E.U. data protection authorities. Compliance with Privacy Shield requirements does not, in addition, equate to compliance with the stringent requirements of the GDPR.  European data protection authorities could interpret or apply European data protection law in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. If so, this could result in prohibitions on processing of data required to perform our tests in Europe or government-imposed fines, or both, which could adversely affect our business. Complying with these various laws could in addition cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices and compliance procedures in a manner adverse to our business.

If we were sued for product liability or professional liability, we could face substantial liabilities that exceed our resources.

The marketing, sale and use of our tests could lead to the filing of product liability claims if someone were to allege that our tests failed to perform as designed. We may also be subject to liability for errors in the test results we provide to physicians or for a misunderstanding of, or inappropriate reliance upon, the information we provide. For example, physicians sometimes order our Oncotype DX breast cancer test for patients who do not have the specific clinical attributes indicated on the report form as those for whom the test provides clinical information validated by studies. It is our practice to offer medical consultation to physicians ordering our test for such patients, including patients with ER‑ breast cancers. A product liability or professional liability claim could result in substantial damages and be costly and time consuming for us to defend. Although we maintain product and professional liability insurance, we cannot assure you that our insurance would protect us from the financial impact of defending against product liability or professional liability claims or any judgments, fines or settlement costs arising out of any such claims. Any product liability or professional liability claim brought against us, with or without merit, could increase our insurance rates or prevent us from securing insurance coverage in the future. Additionally, any product liability lawsuit could cause injury to our reputation, result in the recall of our products, or cause current clinical partners to terminate existing agreements and potential clinical partners to seek other partners, any of which could impact our results of operations.

If we use hazardous materials in a manner that causes injury, we could be liable for damages.

Our activities currently require the use of hazardous materials and medical specimens. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury to employees or third parties from the use, storage, handling or disposal of these materials or specimens. In the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources or any applicable insurance coverage we may have. Additionally, we are subject on an ongoing basis to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products, as well as regulations relating to the safety and health of laboratory employees. The cost of compliance with these laws and regulations may become significant and could negatively affect our operating results.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and must continually implement additional and expensive business systems, procedures and controls to satisfy public company reporting requirements.

As a public reporting company, we are required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other requirements has increased our costs and required additional management resources. We will need to continue to implement additional finance, accounting, and business operating systems, procedures, and controls as we grow our business and organization and to satisfy existing reporting requirements. If we fail to maintain or implement adequate controls, if we are unable to complete the required Section 404 assessment as to the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting in future Form 10-K filings, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified report as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in future Form 10-K filings, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC, Nasdaq or other regulatory authorities which could require additional financial and management resources.

Risks Related to Governmental Regulation

Healthcare policy changes, including legislation reforming the U.S. healthcare system, may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, collectively, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, enacted in March 2010, makes changes that significantly impact the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and clinical laboratories. For example, beginning in 2013 through December 31, 2015, each medical device manufacturer was required to pay sales tax in an amount equal to 2.3% of the price for which such manufacturer sells its medical devices that are listed with the FDA. The medical device tax has been suspended since 2016, but is scheduled to be re-imposed in 2020. Various proposals have been put forth, including by the FDA, to regulate LDTs, as medical devices. Although none of our LDTs, such as our Oncotype DX breast, colon and prostate cancer tests, are currently listed with the FDA, we cannot assure you that the tax will not apply to services such as ours in the future.

Other significant measures contained in the ACA include, for example, coordination and promotion of research on comparative clinical effectiveness of different technologies and procedures, initiatives to revise Medicare payment methodologies, such as bundling of payments across the continuum of care by providers and physicians, and initiatives to promote quality indicators in payment methodologies. The ACA also includes significant new fraud and abuse measures, including required disclosures of financial arrangements with physician customers, lower thresholds for violations and increasing potential penalties for such violations. In addition to the ACA, various healthcare reform proposals have also emerged from federal and state governments. The current U.S. President and other U.S. lawmakers have made statements about potentially repealing and/or replacing the ACA and efforts are currently underway in the U.S. Congress to consider legislative actions to that end. Notably, Congress enacted legislation in 2017 that eliminates the ACA’s individual insurance mandate beginning in 2019, which may significantly impact the number of covered lives participating in exchange plans. We are monitoring the impact of the ACA and proposals to repeal, replace or refine the ACA to enable us to determine the trends and changes that may potentially impact our business over time.

Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, which went into effect for dates of service on or after April 1, 2013, Medicare payments, including payments to clinical laboratories, are subject to a 2% reduction due to implementation of the automatic expense reductions (sequester). Reductions made by the Congressional sequester are applied to total claims payment made. The sequester reductions do not result in a rebasing of the negotiated or established Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Although individual states’ reimbursement methodology has not materially affected the payment rate for our tests recently, we cannot be certain that future changes will not affect payment rates. We also cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. The taxes imposed by new legislation, cost reduction measures and the expansion in government’s role in the U.S. healthcare industry may result in decreased profits to us, lower reimbursements by payors for our products or reduced medical procedure volumes, all of which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, sales of our tests outside the United States make us subject to foreign regulatory requirements and cost‑reduction measures, which may also change over time.

If the FDA were to begin regulating our laboratory developed tests, we could incur substantial costs and time delays associated with meeting requirements for pre‑market clearance or approval or we could experience decreased demand for or reimbursement of our tests.

Clinical laboratory tests like ours are regulated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, as well as by applicable state laws. Diagnostic kits that are sold and distributed through interstate commerce are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. Most LDTs are not currently subject to FDA regulation, although reagents or software provided by third parties and used to perform LDTs may be subject to regulation. We believe that our Oncotype tests are not diagnostic kits and also believe that they are LDTs. As a result, we believe our tests should not be subject to regulation at this time under established FDA policies. The container we provide for collection and transport of tumor samples from a pathology laboratory to our clinical reference laboratory may be a medical device subject to FDA regulation but is currently exempt from pre‑market review by the FDA.

At various times since 2006, the FDA has issued documents outlining its intent to require varying levels of FDA oversight of many LDTs, including our tests. In October 2014, the FDA issued draft guidance that sets forth a proposed risk-based regulatory framework that would apply varying levels of FDA oversight to LDTs. The FDA has indicated that it does not intend to implement its proposed framework until the draft guidance documents are finalized. On January 13, 2017, the

FDA published a discussion paper in which the FDA outlined a substantially revised possible approach to the oversight of LDTs. The discussion paper explicitly states that it is not a final version of the 2014 draft guidance and that it does not represent the FDA’s formal position. It is unclear at this time if or when the FDA will finalize its plans to end enforcement discretion for LDTs, and even then, the new regulatory requirements are expected to be phased-in over time. However, the FDA may decide to regulate certain LDTs on a case-by-case basis at any time.

Legislative proposals addressing oversight of genetic testing and LDTs have been introduced in previous Congresses, and we expect that new legislative proposals will be introduced from time to time in the future. We cannot provide any assurance that FDA regulation, including pre-market review, will not be required in the future for our tests, whether through finalization of guidance issued by the FDA, new enforcement policies adopted by the FDA or new legislation enacted by Congress. It is possible that legislation will be enacted into law or guidance could be issued by the FDA which may result in increased regulatory burdens for us to continue to offer our tests or to develop and introduce new tests.

If pre-market review is required for our current LDTs, our business could be negatively impacted until such review is completed and clearance or approval is obtained, and the FDA could require that we stop selling our tests pending pre‑market clearance or approval. If our tests are allowed to remain on the market but there is uncertainty about the regulatory status of our tests, if they are labeled investigational by the FDA, or if labeling claims the FDA allows us to make are more limited than the claims we currently make, orders or reimbursement may decline. The regulatory approval process may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical trials and submitting a pre‑market clearance notice or filing a pre‑market approval application with the FDA. If pre‑market review is required by the FDA, there can be no assurance that our tests will be cleared or approved on a timely basis, if at all, nor can there be assurance that the labeling claims cleared or approved by the FDA will be consistent with our current claims or adequate to support continued adoption of and reimbursement for our tests. Ongoing compliance with FDA regulations would increase the cost of conducting our business, and subject us to inspection by and the regulatory requirements of the FDA, for example registration and listing and medical device reporting, and penalties in the event we fail to comply with these requirements. We may also decide voluntarily to pursue FDA pre‑market review of our tests if we determine that doing so would be appropriate.

We cannot predict the ultimate timing or form of final FDA guidance, legislation or regulation of LDTs and the potential impact on our existing tests, our tests in development or the materials used to perform our tests. While we qualify all materials used in our tests according to CLIA regulations, we cannot be certain that the FDA will not enact rules or guidance documents which could impact our ability to purchase certain materials necessary for the performance of our tests, such as products labeled for research use only. Should any of the reagents obtained by us from suppliers and used in conducting our tests be affected by future regulatory actions, our business could be adversely affected by those actions, including increasing the cost of testing or delaying and limiting or prohibiting the purchase of reagents necessary to perform testing.

If we were required to conduct additional clinical trials prior to continuing to sell our current tests or launching any other tests we may develop, those trials could result in delays or failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals or clearances, which could harm our business.

If the FDA decides to regulate any of our LDTs, it may require additional pre-market clinical testing before clearing or approving such tests for commercial sales. Such pre-market clinical testing could delay the commencement or completion of other clinical testing, significantly increase our test development costs, delay commercialization of any future tests, and interrupt sales of our current tests. Many of the factors that may cause or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to delay or denial of regulatory clearance or approval. The commencement of clinical trials may be delayed due to insufficient patient enrollment, which is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial.

We may find it necessary to engage contract research organizations to perform data collection and analysis and other aspects of our clinical trials, which might increase the cost and complexity of those trials. We may also depend on clinical investigators, medical institutions and contract research organizations to perform certain aspects of the trials. If these parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, or if the quality, completeness or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or for other reasons, our clinical trials may have to be extended, delayed or terminated. Many of these factors would be beyond our control. We may not be able to enter into replacement arrangements without undue delays or considerable expenditures. If there are delays in testing or approvals as a result of the failure to perform by third parties, our research and development costs would increase, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval for our tests. In addition, we may not be able to establish or maintain relationships with these parties on favorable terms, if at all. Each of these outcomes would harm our ability to market our LDTs, or to achieve sustained profitability.

Our business could be harmed by the loss, suspension, or other restriction on a license, certification, or accreditation, or by the imposition of a fine or penalties, under CLIA, its implementing regulations, or other state, federal and foreign laws and regulations affecting licensure or certification, or by future changes in these laws or regulations.

We and certain laboratories with whom we collaborate are subject to CLIA, a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations mandate specific standards in the areas of personnel qualifications, facilities administration, quality systems, inspections, and proficiency testing. We have a current certificate of accreditation under CLIA to perform testing through our accreditation by the College of American Pathologists, or CAP. To renew this certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Inspectors may also make random inspections of our clinical reference laboratory.

Although we are required to hold a certificate of accreditation or compliance under CLIA to perform high complexity testing, we are not required to hold a certificate of accreditation through CAP. We could alternatively maintain a certificate of accreditation from another accrediting organization or a certificate of compliance through inspection by surveyors acting on behalf of the CLIA program. If our accreditation under CAP were to terminate, either voluntarily or involuntarily, we would need to convert our certification under CLIA to a certificate of compliance (or to a certificate of accreditation with another accreditation organization) in order to maintain our ability to perform our clinical tests and to continue commercial operations. Whether we would be able to successfully maintain operations through either of these alternatives would depend upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the termination of our CAP accreditation, such as whether any deficiencies were identified by CAP as the basis for termination and, if so, whether these deficiencies were addressed to the satisfaction of the surveyors for the CLIA program (or another accrediting organization).

We and certain laboratories with whom we collaborate are also required to maintain a California clinical laboratory license to conduct testing in California. California laws establish standards for day‑to‑day operation of our clinical reference laboratory, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control. In addition, our clinical reference laboratory is required to be licensed on a test‑specific basis by New York State. New York law also mandates proficiency testing for laboratories licensed under New York state law, regardless of whether or not such laboratories are located in New York. Moreover, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Rhode Island require that we hold licenses to test specimens from patients in those states and Florida requires that we hold a license when we receive specimens from clinical laboratories in that state. Other states may have similar requirements or may adopt similar requirements in the future. Finally, we may be subject to regulation in foreign jurisdictions as we seek to expand international distribution of our tests, which may require regulatory review of our tests in order for them to be offered, or may have other limitations such as prohibitions on the export of tissue necessary for us to perform our tests that may limit our ability to distribute outside of the United States.

If we were to lose our CLIA accreditation or California license, whether as a result of a revocation, suspension or limitation, we would no longer be able to sell our tests, which would limit our revenues and harm our business. If we were to lose our license in New York or in other states where we are required to hold licenses, we would not be able to test specimens from those states.

We are subject to numerous U.S. and foreign laws and governmental regulations, and any governmental enforcement action may materially affect our financial condition and business operations.

We are subject to regulation in the United States by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business, as well as in other jurisdictions outside of the United States, including:

The U.S. Attorney’s Offices have increased their scrutiny over the healthcare industry in recent years.  The U.S. Congress, Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Defense have all issued subpoenas and other requests for information to conduct investigations of, and commenced civil and criminal litigation against, healthcare companies, related to financial arrangements with health care providers, regulatory compliance, product promotional practices, and documentation, coding and billing practices.  In addition, the Federal False Claims Act has led to whistleblowers filing numerous qui tam civil lawsuits against healthcare companies, in part, because a whistleblower can receive a portion of any amount obtained by the government through such a lawsuit. 

Governmental enforcement action or qui tam civil litigation against us may result in material costs and occupy significant management resources, even if we ultimately prevail.  In addition, governmental enforcement action may result in substantial fines, penalties or administrative remedies, including exclusion from government reimbursement programs and entry into corporate integrity agreements with governmental agencies, which would entail significant obligations and costs.

We have adopted policies and procedures designed to comply with these laws. In the ordinary course of our business, we conduct internal reviews of our compliance with these laws. Our compliance is also subject to governmental review. The growth of our business and sales organization and our expansion outside of the United States may increase the potential of violating these laws or our internal policies and procedures. The risk of our being found in violation of these or other laws and regulations is further increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action brought against us for violation of these or other laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws and regulations, we may be subject to any applicable penalty associated with the violation, including civil and criminal penalties, damages and fines, we could be required to refund payments received by us, and we could be required to curtail or cease our operations. Any of the foregoing consequences could seriously harm our business and our financial results.

We are subject to increasingly complex taxation rules and practices, which may affect how we conduct our business and our results of operations.

As our business grows, we are required to comply with increasingly complex taxation rules and practices. We are subject to tax in multiple U.S. tax jurisdictions and in foreign tax jurisdictions as we expand internationally. The development of our tax strategies requires additional expertise and may impact how we conduct our business. Our future effective tax rates could be unfavorably affected by changes in, or interpretations of, tax rules and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we do business or by changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and liabilities. Furthermore, we provide for certain tax liabilities that involve significant judgment. We are subject to the examination of our tax returns by federal, state and foreign tax authorities, which could focus on our intercompany transfer pricing methodology as well as other matters. If our tax strategies are ineffective or we are not in compliance with domestic and international tax laws, our financial position, operating results and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Risks Relating to Product Development, Commercialization and Sales of our Products

New test development involves a lengthy and complex process, and we may be unable to commercialize on a timely basis, or at all, any new tests we may develop.

We have tests in development, including an IVD version of our invasive breast cancer test, and devote considerable resources to research and development. There can be no assurance that our new Oncotype tests or IVD versions of our current tests will be capable of reliably predicting the recurrence of cancers with the sensitivity and specificity necessary to be clinically useful and commercially viable. We also cannot be certain that the products we launch will attain widespread use among the intended target of community oncologists. In addition, before we can develop diagnostic tests for new cancers or other diseases and commercialize any new products, we will need to:

Our product development process involves a high degree of risk and may take several years. Our product development efforts may fail for many reasons, including:

Few research and development projects result in commercial products, and success in early clinical trials often is not replicated in later studies. At any point, we may abandon development of a product candidate or we may be required to expend considerable resources repeating clinical trials, which would adversely impact the timing for generating potential revenues from those product candidates. If a clinical validation study fails to demonstrate the prospectively defined endpoints of the study, we might choose to abandon the development of the product or product feature that was the subject of the clinical trial, which could harm our business. In addition, competitors may develop and commercialize competing products faster than we are able to do so.

If we are unable to support demand for our tests, including successfully managing the evolution of our technology and business systems, our business could suffer.

As our test volume grows and we examine additional means through which we can provide our tests, we will need to continue to ramp up our testing capacity, implement increases in scale and related processing, customer service, billing and systems process improvements, and expand our internal quality assurance program, technology and manufacturing platforms to support testing on a larger scale. We will also need additional certified laboratory scientists and other scientific and technical personnel to process higher volumes of our tests. We cannot assure you that any increases in scale, related improvements and quality assurance will be successfully implemented or that appropriate personnel will be available. As additional products are commercialized, we will need to bring new equipment on‑line, implement new systems, technology, controls and procedures and hire personnel with different qualifications. We cannot assure you that any such efforts will not result in delays. Failure to implement necessary procedures, transition to new equipment or processes or to hire the necessary personnel could result in higher cost of processing or an inability to meet market demand. There can be no assurance that we will be able to perform tests on a timely basis at a level consistent with demand, that our efforts to scale our commercial operations will not negatively affect the quality of test results, or that we will be successful in responding to the growing complexity of our testing operations. If we encounter difficulty meeting market demand or quality standards for our tests, our reputation could be harmed and our future prospects and our business could suffer.

We may experience limits on our revenues if physicians or patients decide not to order our tests.

If medical practitioners do not order our Oncotype tests or any future tests developed or offered by us, we will likely not be able to create or maintain demand for our products in sufficient volume for us to achieve sustained profitability. To generate demand, we will need to continue to make oncologists, urologists, surgeons and pathologists aware of the benefits of each type of test through published papers, presentations at scientific conferences and one‑on‑one education by our salesforce. In addition, we will need to demonstrate our ability to obtain and maintain adequate reimbursement coverage from third‑party payors.

Prior to the inclusion of our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test in clinical guidelines for treatment of N−, ER+ breast cancer, guidelines and practices regarding the treatment of breast cancer recommended that chemotherapy be considered in most cases, including many cases in which our test might indicate that, based on our clinical trial results, chemotherapy would be of little or no benefit. For these historical reasons, physicians may be reluctant to order a test that may suggest

recommending against chemotherapy in treating breast cancer. Moreover, our test provides quantitative information not currently provided by pathologists and it is performed at our facility rather than by the pathologist in a local laboratory, so pathologists may be reluctant to support our test. These facts may make it difficult for us to convince medical practitioners to order our test for their patients, which could limit our ability to generate revenues and achieve sustained profitability.

We will need to continue to educate physicians, patients and payors about the benefits and cost‑effectiveness of our tests and to establish reimbursement arrangements for these tests with payors. We have and expect to continue to hire additional commercial, sales, scientific, technical and other personnel to support this process. If our marketing and educational efforts do not result in sufficient physician or patient demand, we may not be able to obtain adequate reimbursement for our tests. If we fail to successfully establish adoption of and additional reimbursement beyond Medicare for our colon and prostate cancer tests, our reputation could be harmed and our business could suffer.

Some patients may decide not to use our Oncotype tests due to their price, all or part of which may be payable directly by the patient if the applicable payor denies reimbursement in full or in part. Even if medical practitioners recommend that their patients use our tests, patients may still decide not to use our tests, either because they do not want to be made aware of the likelihood of recurrence or they wish to pursue a particular course of therapy regardless of test results. Additionally, the current economic environment in the United States and abroad could continue to negatively impact patients, resulting in higher co‑payments and insurance premiums or the loss of healthcare coverage, which may result in delayed medical checkups or an inability to pay for our tests. If only a small portion of the patient population decides to use our tests, we will experience limits on our revenues and our ability to achieve sustained profitability.

Our dependence on distributors for sales of our Oncotype tests outside of the U.S. could limit or prevent us from selling our test in foreign markets and impact our revenue.

As of December 31, 2017, we have entered into exclusive distribution agreements for the sale of our tests with distributors covering more than 90 countries. We may enter into other similar arrangements to distribute our tests in other countries in the future. We intend to continue to grow our business internationally, and to do so we may need to attract additional distributors to expand the territories in which we sell our tests. Despite contractual obligations, distributors may not commit the necessary resources to market and sell our tests to the level of our expectations. If current or future distributors do not perform adequately, or we are unable to enter into arrangements with distributors to market our tests in particular geographic areas, we may not realize long‑term international revenue growth. In addition, our revenue from distributors could be negatively impacted as a result of changes in business cycles, business or economic conditions, reimbursement rates, changes in foreign currency exchange rates that make our tests more expensive in our distributors’ local currencies or other factors that could affect their ability to pay us for tests on a timely basis or at all.

Our rights to use technologies licensed from third parties are not within our control, and we may not be able to sell our products if we lose our existing rights or cannot obtain new rights on reasonable terms.

We license from third parties technology necessary to develop our products. In return for the use of a third party’s technology, we may agree to pay the licensor royalties based on sales of our products. Royalties are a component of cost of product revenues and impact the margins on our tests. We may need to license other technologies to commercialize future products. We may also need to negotiate licenses to patents and patent applications after launching any of our commercial products. Our business may suffer if these licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, determine to unilaterally stop supplying technologies or products subject to a license, or fail to prevent infringement by third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid, if the patents or patent applications are unavailable for license or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms.

If we are unable to develop products to keep pace with rapid technological, medical and scientific change, our operating results and competitive position could be harmed.

In recent years, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. For example, technologies in addition to ours now permit measurement of gene expression in fixed paraffin‑embedded tissue specimens or blood or urine. There have also been advances in methods used to analyze very large amounts of genomic information, specifically NGS. These advances require us to continuously develop our technology, develop new products and enhance existing products to keep pace with evolving standards of care. Our tests could become obsolete unless we continually innovate and expand our products to demonstrate recurrence and treatment benefit in patients treated with new therapies. New treatment therapies typically have only a few years of clinical data associated with them, which limits our ability to perform clinical studies and correlate sets of genes to a new treatment’s effectiveness. Additionally, as new products are developed, evolving industry standards and metrics may slow the widespread adoption of any new products we may introduce. If we are

unable to demonstrate the applicability of our tests to new treatments or to keep pace with new industry standards, sales of our test could decline, which would harm our revenues.

If we are unable to compete successfully, we may be unable to increase or sustain our revenues or achieve sustained profitability.

We compete in a rapidly evolving and highly competitive industry, and there are a number of private and public companies that offer products or have conducted research to profile genes and gene expression in breast, colon and prostate cancer, including companies such as Agendia Inc., BioTheranostics, Exact Sciences, Inc. GenomeDx Biosciences Inc., Hologic Inc., Myriad Genetics Inc. (and its Sividon Diagnostics subsidiary), NanoString Technologies Inc., NeoGenomics, Inc. and Qiagen N.V. As we look to expand our research, development and commercialization efforts, we may face competition from companies such as Danaher Corporation (and its Cepheid, Inc. subsidiary), Exosome Diagnostics, Inc., Foundation Medicine, Grail, Guardant Health, MDxHealth, Metamark Genetics, Inc., Natera Inc. and Personal Genome Diagnostics, Inc. Historically, our principal competition for our Oncotype tests has also come from existing diagnostic methods used by pathologists and oncologists, and such traditional diagnostic methods can be difficult to change or supplement. We also face competition from commercial laboratories with strong distribution networks for diagnostic tests, such as Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. Other potential competitors include companies that develop diagnostic tests such as Roche Diagnostics, a division of Roche Holding, Ltd, and Siemens AG, as well as other companies and academic and research institutions.

In our more recently established prostate cancer market, we face comparatively greater competition than in our breast cancer market, including competition from products which were on the market prior to our product launch and which are supported by clinical studies and published data. This existing direct and indirect competition for tests and procedures may make it difficult to gain market share, impact our ability to obtain reimbursement or result in a substantial increase in resources necessary for us to successfully continue to commercialize our Oncotype DX prostate test and the recently launched Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test.

As more information regarding cancer genomics becomes available to the public, we anticipate that more products aimed at identifying targeted treatment options will be developed and that these products may compete with ours. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our tests in countries where we did not apply for patents, where our patents have not issued or where our intellectual property rights are not recognized and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their test by physicians or patients in other countries. We have changed the list price of our tests in the past and we expect to change prices for our tests in the future. Any increase or decrease in pricing could impact reimbursement of and demand for our tests. Many of our present and potential competitors have widespread brand recognition and substantially greater financial and technical resources and development, production and marketing capabilities than we do. Others may develop lower‑priced tests that could be viewed by physicians and payors as functionally equivalent to our tests, or offer tests at prices designed to promote market penetration, which could force us to lower the list prices of our tests and impact our operating margins and our ability to achieve sustained profitability. Some competitors have developed tests cleared or approved for marketing by the FDA. There may be a marketing differentiation or perception that an FDA‑cleared or approved test is more desirable than Oncotype tests, which are LDTs, and that may discourage adoption of and reimbursement for our tests. If we are unable to compete successfully against current or future competitors, we may be unable to increase market acceptance for and sales of our tests, which could prevent us from increasing or sustaining our revenues or achieving sustained profitability and could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Our research and development efforts will be hindered if we are not able to contract with third parties for access to tissue or complete timely enrollment in future clinical trials.

Under standard clinical practice, tumor biopsies removed from patients are typically chemically preserved and embedded in paraffin wax and stored. Our clinical development relies on our ability to secure access to these archived tumor biopsy samples, as well as information pertaining to their associated clinical outcomes. Generally, the agreements under which we gain access to archival samples are nonexclusive. Other companies study archival samples and often compete with us for access. Additionally, the process of negotiating access to archived samples is lengthy since it typically involves numerous parties and approval levels to resolve complex issues such as usage rights, institutional review board approval, privacy rights, publication rights, intellectual property ownership and research parameters. If we are not able to negotiate access to clinical samples with hospitals, clinical partners, pharmaceutical companies, or companies developing therapeutics on a timely basis, or at all, or if other laboratories or our competitors secure access to these samples before us, our ability to research, develop and commercialize future products will be limited or delayed. Finally, we may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials on a timely basis if we are not able to enroll sufficient numbers of patients in such trials, and our failure to do so could have an adverse effect on our research and development and product commercialization efforts.

If we cannot successfully maintain or manage our current collaborations or enter into new collaborations, our product development could be delayed and our introduction of new products into the market could be adversely affected which could have an adverse effect on our financial results.

We rely on and expect to continue to rely on clinical collaborators to perform a substantial portion of our clinical trial functions. If any of our collaborators were to breach or terminate its agreement with us or otherwise fail to conduct the contracted activities successfully and in a timely manner, the research, development or commercialization of the products contemplated by the collaboration could be delayed or terminated. If any of our clinical collaboration agreements are terminated, or if we are unable to renew those agreements on acceptable terms, we would be required to seek alternatives. We may not be able to negotiate agreements with alternate collaborators on acceptable terms, if at all, and these collaborations may not be successful.

In the past, we have entered into clinical trial collaborations with highly regarded organizations in the cancer field. Our success in the future depends in part on our ability to enter into agreements with other leading cancer organizations. This can be difficult due to internal and external constraints placed on these organizations. Some organizations may limit the number of collaborations they have with any one company so as to not be perceived as biased or conflicted. Organizations may also have insufficient administrative and related infrastructure to enable collaborations with many companies at once, which can prolong the time it takes to develop, negotiate and implement collaboration. Additionally, organizations often insist on retaining the rights to publish the clinical data resulting from the collaboration. We have found the publication of clinical data in peer‑reviewed journals to be a crucial step in commercializing and obtaining reimbursement for tests such as ours, and our inability to control when, if ever, results are published may delay or limit our ability to derive sufficient revenues from any product that may result from a collaboration.

We have only recent experience in commercializing products through collaborations with third parties, which includes our commercial collaboration with Epic Sciences, our in-licensing rights granted by Cleveland Diagnostics, and our license and development agreement with Biocartis.  The collaboration with Epic Sciences poses a number of risks, including, among others, whether we will be able to obtain adequate reimbursement for Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect with both public and private payors, whether our commercial channel will be successful in creating market demand for Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect, whether Epic Sciences is able to obtain and maintain appropriate state laboratory licensure, and whether our information technology and reporting systems are adequately and securely integrated with those of Epic Sciences. We are also subject to legal, regulatory, and governmental risks with regards to the performance and delivery of Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect tests, given that Epic Sciences is a centralized CLIA laboratory performing such tests. 

The loss of key members of our senior management team or our inability to attract and retain highly skilled scientists, software engineers, clinicians and salespeople could adversely affect our business.

Our success depends largely on the skills, experience and performance of key members of our executive management team and others in key management positions. The efforts of each of these persons together will be critical to us as we continue to develop our technologies and testing processes, continue our international expansion and transition to a company with multiple commercialized products. If we were to lose one or more of these key employees, we may experience difficulties in competing effectively, developing our technologies and implementing our business strategies.

Our research and development programs, commercial laboratory operations and information technology infrastructure depend on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled scientists, technicians and engineers, including licensed laboratory technicians, chemists, biostatisticians and software engineers. We may not be able to attract or retain qualified scientists, technicians and software engineers in the future due to the competition for qualified personnel among life science and technology businesses, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. We also face competition from universities and public and private research institutions in recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientific personnel. In addition, our success depends on our ability to attract and retain salespeople with extensive experience in oncology and urology and close relationships with medical oncologists, urologists, surgeons, pathologists and other hospital personnel. All of our employees in the United States are at-will, which means that either we or the employee may terminate their employment at any time. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, our business and operating results could be harmed.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers or, in many cases, a sole supplier, for some of our laboratory instruments and materials and may not be able to find replacement suppliers or immediately transition to alternative suppliers.

We rely on many sole suppliers to supply and service some of the laboratory equipment on which we perform our tests. We believe that there are relatively few equipment manufacturers that are currently capable of supplying and servicing the equipment necessary for our tests. Although we have identified alternative suppliers, transition to a new supplier would be time consuming and expensive, and there can be no assurance that we would be able to secure alternative equipment and bring that equipment on line without experiencing interruptions in testing. If we should encounter delays or difficulties in securing the quality and quantity of equipment we require for our tests, we may need to reconfigure our test processes, which could result in an interruption in sales. If any of these events occur, our business and operating results could be harmed.

We also rely on several sole suppliers for certain laboratory reagents and materials which we use to perform our tests. While we have developed alternate sourcing strategies for these materials, we cannot be certain that these strategies will be effective. If we should encounter delays or difficulties in securing these laboratory materials, if the materials do not meet our quality specifications, or if we cannot obtain acceptable substitute materials, an interruption in test processing could occur. Any such interruption may significantly affect future product revenues.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to maintain intellectual property protection, our competitive position could be harmed.

Our ability to compete and to achieve sustained profitability is impacted by our ability to protect our proprietary discoveries and technologies. We currently rely on a combination of issued patents, patent applications, copyrights, trademarks, and confidentiality, material data transfer, license and invention assignment agreements to protect our intellectual property rights. We also rely upon trade secret laws to protect unpatented know‑how and continuing technological innovation. Our intellectual property strategy is intended to develop and maintain our competitive position.

Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents, and we cannot assure you that our issued patents or any patents that might ultimately be issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, will protect our technology. In addition, we do not file patent applications in every country nor is patent protection available in every country. We may face competition internationally in jurisdictions where we do not have intellectual property protection. Any patents that may be issued to us might be challenged by third parties as being invalid or unenforceable, or third parties may independently develop similar or competing technology that avoids our patents.

We cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent the misappropriation and use of our intellectual property, particularly in foreign countries where the laws may not protect our proprietary rights as fully as in the United States.

If patent regulations or standards are modified, such changes could have a negative impact on our business.

From time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may change the standards of patentability and validity of patents within the genomic diagnostic space, and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business. In addition, competitors may develop their own versions of our test in countries where we did not apply for patents or where our patents have not issued and compete with us in those countries, including encouraging the use of their test by physicians or patients in other countries.

There have been several cases involving “gene patents” and diagnostic claims that have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2012, the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Laboratories, or Prometheus, found a patented diagnostic method claim unpatentable because the relationship between a metabolite concentration and optimized dosage was a patent‑ineligible “law of nature.” In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in ACLU v. Myriad Genetics, or Myriad, that an isolated genomic DNA sequence is not patent eligible while cDNA is eligible. Both the Prometheus and Myriad decisions affect the legal concept of subject matter eligibility by seemingly narrowing the scope of the statute defining patentable inventions.

In December 2014, the USPTO published revised guidelines for patent examiners to apply when examining process claims for patent eligibility in view of several recent Supreme Court decisions, including Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. The guidance indicates that claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an

abstract idea that do not meet the eligibility requirements should be rejected as non‑statutory, patent ineligible subject matter. We cannot assure you that our patent portfolio will not be negatively impacted by the decisions described above, rulings in other cases or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO.

Additional substantive changes to patent law, whether new or associated with the America Invents Act, may affect our ability to obtain, enforce or defend our patents. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the new law will ultimately have on the cost of prosecuting our patent applications, our ability to obtain patents based on our discoveries and our ability to enforce or defend our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may face intellectual property infringement claims that could be time‑consuming and costly to defend, and could result in our loss of significant rights and the assessment of treble damages.

We have in the past, and may in the future, receive notices of claims of infringement and misappropriation or misuse of other parties’ proprietary rights and may from time to time receive additional notices. Some of these claims may lead to litigation. We cannot assure you that we will prevail in such actions, or that other actions alleging misappropriation or misuse by us of third‑party trade secrets, alleging infringement by us of third‑party patents and trademarks or challenging the validity of our patents, will not be asserted or prosecuted against us. If there is a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to pay substantial damages (including treble damages if that infringement were found to be willful) to the party claiming infringement, develop non‑infringing technology, stop selling our tests or using technology that contains the allegedly infringing intellectual property or enter into royalty or license agreements that may not be available on acceptable or commercially practical terms, if at all. Our failure to develop non‑infringing technologies or license the proprietary rights on a timely basis could harm our business.

We may also initiate claims to defend our intellectual property or to seek relief on allegations that we use, sell, or offer to sell technology that incorporates third-party intellectual property. Intellectual property litigation, regardless of outcome, is expensive and time‑consuming, could divert management’s attention from our business and have a material negative effect on our business, operating results or financial condition. In addition, revising our tests to include the non‑infringing technologies would require us to re‑validate our tests, which would be costly and time consuming. Also, we may be unaware of pending third-party patent applications that relate to our tests. Parties making infringement claims on future issued patents may be able to obtain an injunction that could prevent us from selling our tests or using technology that contains the allegedly infringing intellectual property, which could harm our business.

It is possible that a third party or patent office might take the position that one or more patents or patent applications constitute prior art in the field of genomic-based diagnostics. In such a case, we might be required to pay royalties, damages and costs to firms who own the rights to these patents, or we might be restricted from using any of the inventions claimed in those patents.

ITEM 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

ITEM 2.  Properties.

We currently lease approximately 180,700 square feet of laboratory and office space in Redwood City, California under operating leases that expire between March 2021 and March 2023, with options for us to extend the term of each lease for an additional five years. We also lease approximately 7,500 square feet of office space in Geneva, Switzerland under an operating lease that expires in May 2021. Additionally, we have offices in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom with short‑term rental agreements. We may need additional facilities in the future as we expand our business and believe that additional space, when needed, will be available on commercially reasonable terms.

ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings.

We were not a party to any material legal proceedings at December 31, 2017, or at the date of this report. We may from time to time become involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.

ITEM 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The names of our executive officers and their ages as of March 1, 2018, are as follows:

Kimberly J. Popovits has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since January 2009, and as Chairman of the Board since March 2012. Prior to that, Ms. Popovits served as our President and Chief Operating Officer since February 2002 and as a director since March 2002. From November 1987 to February 2002, Ms. Popovits served in various roles at Genentech, Inc., a biotechnology company, most recently serving as Senior Vice President, Marketing and Sales from February 2001 to February 2002, and as Vice President, Sales from October 1994 to February 2001. Prior to joining Genentech, she served as Division Manager, Southeast Region, for American Critical Care, a division of American Hospital Supply, a supplier of health care products to hospitals. Ms. Popovits serves as a director of MyoKardia, Inc., a precision medicine company. Ms. Popovits holds a B.A. in Business from Michigan State University.

G. Bradley Cole has served as our Chief Financial Officer since June 2014, and from July 2004 until January 2011. Mr. Cole also served as our Chief Operating Officer from January 2009 until March 2018. Prior to these roles, Mr. Cole served as Executive Vice President, Operations from January 2008 until January 2009. Mr. Cole also served as our Secretary from February 2005 until July 2012. From December 1997 to May 2004, he served in various roles at Guidant Corporation, a medical device company, most recently serving as Vice President, Finance and Business Development for the Endovascular Solutions Group from January 2001 until May 2004. From July 1994 to December 1997, Mr. Cole was Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Endovascular Technologies, Inc., a medical device company that was acquired by Guidant Corporation. From December 1988 to February 1994, he served as Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Applied Biosystems Incorporated, a life sciences systems company. Mr. Cole holds a B.S. in Business from Biola University and an M.B.A. from San Jose State University.

Phillip Febbo, M.D., has served as our Chief Medical Officer since August 2013. From July 2010 to August 2013, Dr. Febbo served as Director of Applied Genomics at the University of California, San Francisco. While at UCSF, Dr. Febbo was the Co-Leader of the Prostate Cancer Program at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Program Principal Investigator of the Translational Research Program for the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. From September 2004 to June 2010, Dr. Febbo served as Associate Professor of Medicine and Molecular Genetics and Microbiology at Duke University Medical Center’s Institute of Genome Sciences and Policy. Dr. Febbo holds a B.A. in Biology from Dartmouth College and an M.D. from the University of California, San Francisco, and completed his internal medicine residency at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Laura Leber Kammeyer has served as our Chief Communications Officer since December 2014. Prior to that, Ms. Kammeyer served as our Senior Vice President, Communications beginning in November 2002. From 1992 to 2001, Ms. Kammeyer served in various roles at Genentech, Inc., a biotechnology company, most recently as Vice President, Corporate Communications. Ms. Kammeyer holds a Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Kim McEachron has served as our Chief People Officer since December 2014. Prior to that, Ms. McEachron served as our Senior Vice President, Human Resources from March 2012 to November 2014. From November 2010 to January 2012, Ms. McEachron served as the Vice President of Human Resources, Engagement and Inclusion for Medtronic, a medical technology company, for their Cardiac and Vascular division. Ms. McEachron holds a B.A. in Sociology and Anthropology from Carleton College and a Master’s degree in Industrial Relations from the University of Minnesota.

Frederic Pla, Ph.D., has served as our Chief Operating Officer since March 2018. Prior to that, Dr. Pla served as our Chief Business and Product Development Officer from January 2015 to March 2018. From July 2005 to February 2014, Dr. Pla served in various roles at Life Technologies Corporation (now part of Thermo Fisher Scientific), a global life sciences company, most recently serving as Vice President, Corporate Business Development from July 2008 to February 2014, and as

Vice President and General Manager of the Diagnostics Business from July 2005 to July 2008. Prior to joining Life Technologies, Dr. Pla served in various roles at GE Healthcare, most recently serving as General Manager for the Enterprise IT and Cardiology IT businesses. Dr. Pla holds an Engineering degree from the University of Technology of Compiegne, France, a Master’s degree from The University of Southampton, United Kingdom and a Ph.D. in Acoustics from the Pennsylvania State University.

Jason W. Radford has served as our Chief Legal Officer since May 2015. From May 2014 to May 2015, Mr. Radford served as Executive Vice President and General Counsel at Accumen Inc. Prior to joining Accumen, he served in various roles in the legal department at Life Technologies Corporation (now part of Thermo Fisher Scientific), a global life sciences company, from March 2010 to March 2014 including Division Lead Counsel for the Genetic and Medical Sciences business. Before joining Life Technologies, Mr. Radford was an attorney in the Corporate and Securities Group of DLA Piper LLP, where he served as outside counsel to public and private companies in a variety of commercial transactions. Mr. Radford holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, a J.D. from Boston College Law School and an M.B.A. from the Wallace E. Carroll Graduate School of Management at Boston College.

Steven Shak, M.D., has served as our Chief Scientific Officer since January 2015 and has also served as our Executive Vice President of Research and Development from July 2012 to December 2014 and as our Chief Medical Officer from December 2000 to August 2013. From July 1996 to October 2000, Dr. Shak served in various roles in Medical Affairs at Genentech, most recently as Senior Director and Staff Clinical Scientist. From November 1989 to July 1996, Dr. Shak served as a Director of Discovery Research at Genentech, where he was responsible for Pulmonary Research, Immunology, and Pathology. Prior to joining Genentech, Dr. Shak was an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology at the New York University School of Medicine. Dr. Shak holds a B.A. in Chemistry from Amherst College and an M.D. from the New York University School of Medicine, and completed his post‑doctoral training at the University of California, San Francisco.

James Vaughn has served as our Chief Commercial Officer since December 2014. Prior to that, Mr. Vaughn served as our Senior Vice President, Worldwide Commercial from August 2011 to December 2014, and as our Vice President, International, from November 2008 to August 2011. From July 2004 to November 2008, Mr. Vaughn served as our Managed Care and Western U.S. Sales Director. Prior to 2004, Mr. Vaughn served as Vice President of Cerus Corporation, a biomedical products company, and held a number of positions in sales, sales management, and marketing. Mr. Vaughn holds a B.S. in Pharmacy from Creighton University and an M.B.A. from Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Business.

PART II

ITEM 5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Our common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, is traded on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “GHDX.” The following table sets forth the range of high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated:

According to the records of our transfer agent, we had 44 stockholders of record as of February 28, 2018.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock, and we do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We expect to retain any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. Our board of directors will determine future cash dividends, if any. There are currently no contractual restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

Stock Performance Graph

The following information is not deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent we specifically incorporate it by reference into such a filing.

Set forth below is a line graph showing the cumulative total stockholder return (change in stock price plus reinvested dividends) assuming the investment of $100 on December 31, 2012 in each of our common stock, the Nasdaq Market Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index for the period commencing on December 31, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2017. The comparisons in the table are required by the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not intended to forecast or be indicative of future performance of our common stock.

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*

AMONG GENOMIC HEALTH, THE NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX

AND THE NASDAQ BIOTECHNOLOGY INDEX

ITEM 6.  Selected Financial Data.

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2017 and 2016 and the selected consolidated statements of operations data for each year ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are included elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013 and the selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this report. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in the future.

ITEM 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in Item 8 of this report. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of future results.

Business Overview

We are a global healthcare company that provides clinically-actionable genomic information to personalize cancer treatment. We develop and globally commercialize genomic-based clinical laboratory services that analyze the underlying biology of cancer, allowing physicians and patients to make individualized treatment decisions. We are translating significant amounts of genomic data that will be useful for treatment planning throughout the cancer patient’s journey, from diagnosis to treatment selection and monitoring. We offer our Oncotype tests as clinical laboratory services, where we analyze the expression levels of genes in tumor tissue samples and provide physicians with a quantitative gene expression profile expressed as a single quantitative score, which we call a Recurrence Score for invasive breast cancer and colon cancer, a DCIS Score for ductal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS, and a Genomic Prostate Score, or GPS, for prostate cancer.

In January 2004, we launched our first Oncotype DX test, which is used to predict the likelihood of cancer recurrence and the likelihood of chemotherapy benefit in early stage invasive breast cancer patients. In January 2010, we launched our second Oncotype DX test, the first multigene expression test developed to assess risk of recurrence in stage II colon cancer patients. In late December 2011, we made Oncotype DX available for patients with DCIS, a pre-invasive form of breast cancer. In June 2012, we extended our offering of the Oncotype DX colon cancer test to patients with stage III disease treated with oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant therapy. In May 2013, we launched our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test, which is used to predict disease aggressiveness in men with low and intermediate risk disease. In July 2017, the Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or mCRPC, became available as part of a clinical utility program, and we commercially launched the test in February 2018. As of February 28, 2018, the list price of our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer and DCIS tests in the United States was $4,620, the list price of our Oncotype DX colon cancer test was $4,420, the list price of our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test was $4,520 and the list price of the Oncotype DX AR-V7 Nucleus Detect test was $3,950. There was no increase in 2017 to the list prices of our Oncotype DX invasive breast, colon and prostate cancer tests and our DCIS test. The substantial majority of our historical revenues have been derived from the sale of Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer tests ordered by physicians in the United States. 

For the year ended December 31, 2017, more than 126,740 Oncotype test reports were delivered for use in treatment planning, compared to more than 118,750 and 107,030 test reports delivered for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. All of our internally-developed tests are conducted at our clinical reference laboratory in Redwood City, California. Our clinical reference laboratory processing capacity is currently approximately 150,000 tests annually, and has significant expansion capacity with incremental increases in laboratory personnel and equipment. The Oncotype DX breast, colon, and prostate cancer tests analyze different genes. However, all of the tests performed in our laboratory are based on a similar Oncotype DX reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, or RT-PCR, platform and require both histology and pathology assessments. We believe that we currently have sufficient capacity to process current demand for our tests.

We expect our continued commercialization efforts of our tests will result in increased costs for laboratory testing, including staffing-related costs, incremental sales and marketing personnel to introduce our products to physicians and patients, costs for clinical utility studies and costs associated with obtaining reimbursement coverage.

We depend upon third-party payors, both public and private, to provide reimbursement for our tests. Accordingly, we have and expect to continue to focus substantial resources on obtaining and maintaining reimbursement coverage from third-party payors.  Sales of our tests in the United States and other countries are dependent upon the coverage decisions and reimbursement policies established by government healthcare programs and private health insurers. Market acceptance of our tests has and will continue to depend upon the ability to obtain an appropriate level of coverage for, and reimbursement from, third-party payors for our tests. We have had Medicare coverage for our Oncotype DX invasive breast cancer test since 2006 and for our Oncotype DX colon cancer test since 2011. In October 2015, we obtained Medicare coverage for our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test for patients with low and very-low risk as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or NCCN, guidelines. Under the terms of the coverage determination for our prostate cancer test, reimbursement for such patients is limited to tests ordered by physicians who agree to participate in a Certification Training Registry and to provide certain information about Medicare beneficiaries who receive our test, also referred to as Coverage with Data Development, or CDD.  In August 2017, Palmetto GBA, a Medicare Administrative Contractor that processes Medicare claims and sets Medicare

coverage policies for certain tests performed by our laboratory, issued its final local coverage determination, or LCD, recommending Medicare coverage for use of our prostate cancer test in qualified patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Effective October 2017, Palmetto expanded their reimbursement coverage of our Oncotype DX prostate cancer test to include qualified patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

On December 16, 2015, Palmetto informed us that they believe it was appropriate to establish a unique identifier code and independent coverage for the Oncotype DX DCIS test. We have obtained a unique identifier code for this test, and we submitted to Palmetto additional validation and clinical utility data generated since its previous decision in May 2013, to cover the Oncotype DX DCIS test for all qualified Medicare patients with DCIS. The Oncotype DX DCIS test became covered under a new LCD with Coverage with Data Development for services furnished beginning in March 2017.

We have continued to expand our business, both in the United States and internationally. There are significant differences between countries that need to be considered. For example, operational requirements generally vary from country to country, and different countries may have a public healthcare system, a combination of public and private healthcare system or a cash-based payment system. We have a direct commercial presence with employees in Canada, Japan and six European counties, including our European headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Additionally, we have exclusive distribution agreements for the sale of our breast and colon cancer tests with distributors covering more than 90 countries outside of the United States.

As our international business expands, our financial results become more sensitive to the effect of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. For example, in countries where we have a direct commercial presence, our tests are sold in local currency, which results in foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations affecting our U.S.-dollar reported revenues. In other markets where we sell our tests in U.S. dollars to distribution partners, the demand for our tests may be impacted by the change in U.S. dollar exchange rates affecting partners’ costs or local market price adjustments.

We expect that international sales of our Oncotype tests will be heavily dependent on the availability of reimbursement and sample access. In many countries, governments are primarily responsible for reimbursing diagnostic tests. Governments often have significant discretion in determining whether a test will be reimbursed at all, and if so, on what conditions, for which other competing products, and how much will be paid. In addition, certain countries, such as China, have prohibitions against exporting tissue samples which will limit our ability to offer our tests in those countries without local laboratories or a method of test delivery which does not require samples to be transported to our U.S. laboratory.

The majority of our international Oncotype DX breast and colon cancer test revenues come from direct payor reimbursement, payments from our distributors and patient self-pay. We have obtained some coverage, which varies substantially from country to country, for our breast cancer test outside of the United States, including in Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

We established reimbursement with NHS England following NICE’s recommendation for our breast cancer test, and in 2015 we began to receive payments from NHS England trusts with whom we have completed contractual arrangements. In 2014, the Gynecologic Oncology Working Group in Germany updated their guidelines to recommend Oncotype DX as the only breast cancer gene expression test to predict chemotherapy benefit in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. We expect that it will take several years to establish broad coverage and reimbursement for our Oncotype DX breast, colon and prostate cancer tests with payors in countries outside of the United States and there can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful.

Economic Environment

Continuing concerns over entitlement and health care reform efforts, regulatory changes and taxation issues, and geopolitical issues have contributed to uncertain expectations both for the U.S. and global economies. These factors, combined with uncertainties in business and consumer confidence and continued concerns regarding the stability of some European Union member countries, have contributed to the expectations of slower domestic and global economic growth in the near term. We periodically evaluate the impact of the economic environment on our cash management, cash collection activities and volume of tests delivered.

As of the date of this report, we have not experienced a loss of principal on any of our short-term marketable securities, and we expect that we will continue to be able to access or liquidate these investments as needed to support our business activities. We periodically monitor the financial position of our significant third-party payors, which include Medicare and managed care companies. As of the date of this report, we do not expect the current economic environment to have a material

negative impact on our ability to collect payments from third-party payors in the foreseeable future. We believe the economic environment and changes in the healthcare system continued to impact product payment cycles, growth in tests delivered and product revenue generated during the year ended December 31, 2017. We intend to continue to assess the impact of the economic environment on our business activities. If the economic environment does not improve or deteriorates, our business including our patient population, government and third-party payors and our distributors and suppliers could be negatively affected, resulting in a negative impact on our product revenues.

U.S. Healthcare Reimbursement and Regulatory Environment

The healthcare industry has undergone significant change driven by various efforts to reduce costs, both in the U.S. and in many foreign countries. The effect of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, or any future changes to the ACA on our business is uncertain and, could among other things limit the use of our tests and reduce reimbursement. We also expect that pricing of medical products and services will remain under pressure as alternative payment models such as bundling, value-based purchasing and accountable care organizations develop in the United States. Additionally, the ACA requires medical device manufacturers to pay a 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of certain medical devices that are listed with the FDA starting in January 2013; this tax has been suspended through 2019, but is scheduled for re-imposition in 2020. Various proposals have been put forth, including by the FDA, to regulate laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, as medical devices.  Although none of our LDTs, such as our Oncotype DX breast, colon and prostate cancer tests, are currently listed with the FDA, we cannot assure you that the tax will not apply to services such as ours in the future.

In addition, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA requires CMS to implement a substantial new payment system for certain clinical laboratory tests, which became effective in 2018. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenues from payments made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, or the Physician Fee Schedule will be required to report every three years (or annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests”), private payor payment rates and volumes for their tests. CMS will use the rates and volumes reported by laboratories to develop Medicare payment rates for the tests equal to the volume-weighted median of the private payor payment rates for the tests.

There have also been recent and substantial changes to the payment structure for physicians, including those passed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA, which was signed into law on April 16, 2015. MACRA created the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System which, beginning in 2019, more closely aligns physician payments with composite performance for the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-based modifier program and the Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use program, and incentivizes physicians to enroll in alternative payment methods. At this time, we do not know whether these changes to the physician payment systems will have any impact on orders or payments for our tests.

Changes in Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) services

On a five-year rotational basis, Medicare requests bids for its regional MAC services. In September 2013, the claims processing function for our jurisdiction transitioned from Palmetto GBA, to Noridian, our current MAC. Palmetto GBA under their MolDx Program is continuing to establish coverage and coding policies for molecular diagnostic tests performed in our jurisdiction, including our tests, which is not subject to the same five-year rotation as for regional MAC services. The elimination of the MolDx Program or a change in the administrator of that program could impact the current coverage for our existing tests and our ability to obtain Medicare coverage for products for which we do not yet have coverage or any products we may launch in the future, or delay payments for our tests.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

This discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results could therefore differ materially from those estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We believe the following critical accounting policies reflect our more significant estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of our financial statements.  There have been no material changes to our critical accounting policies during the year ended December 31, 2017, other than the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-09 described below.

Revenue Recognition

We determine whether revenue is recognized on an accrual basis when test results are delivered or on a cash basis when cash is received from the payor. Our revenues for tests performed are recognized on an accrual basis when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. When evaluating whether the fee is fixed or determinable and collectible, we consider whether we have sufficient history to reliably estimate the total fee that will be received from a payor and a payor’s individual payment patterns. Based upon at least several months of payment history, we review the number of tests paid against the number of tests billed and the payor’s outstanding balance for unpaid tests to determine whether payments are being made at a consistently high percentage of tests billed and at appropriate amounts given the arrangement or contracted payment amount. The estimated accrual amounts per test, recorded upon delivery of a patient report, are calculated for each accrual payor and are based on the arrangement or contracted price adjusted for individual payment patterns resulting from co-payment amounts and excluded services in healthcare plans.

To the extent all criteria set forth above are not met, including where there is no evidence of payment history at the time test results are delivered, product revenues are recognized on a cash basis when cash is received from the payor.

We enter into exclusive distribution agreements for the sale of one or more of our Oncotype DX tests with distributors outside of the United States. In these countries, the distributor generally provides us with certain marketing and administrative services within its territory. As a condition of these agreements, the distributor generally pays us an agreed upon fee per test and we process the tests. The same revenue recognition criteria described above generally apply to tests delivered through distributors. To the extent all criteria set forth above are not met when test results are delivered, product revenues are generally recognized when cash is received from the distributor.

Test revenue recognized on an accrual basis is recorded upon delivery of each test performed, net of any contractual discount, at the amount that we expect to collect. We determine the amount we expect to collect on a per payor, per contract or arrangement basis, based on our analysis of historical average payments. This average amount is typically lower than the agreed upon amount due to several factors, such as the amount of patient co-payments, the existence of secondary payors and claim denials. We typically review our analysis annually, or at the time a contractual price change is implemented or when information comes to our attention that leads us to believe an adjustment may be warranted.

As of December 31, 2017, amounts outstanding for tests delivered, net of write-downs and adjustments, which were not recognized as revenue upon delivery because our accrual revenue recognition criteria were not met and which had not been collected totaled approximately  $70.4 million.  We cannot provide any assurance as to when, if ever, and to what extent these amounts will be collected.

From time to time, we receive requests for refunds of payments, generally due to overpayments made by third‑party payors. Upon becoming aware of a refund request, we establish an accrued liability for tests covered by the refund request until such time as we determine whether or not a refund is due. If we determine that a refund is due, we credit cash and reduce the accrued liability. Accrued refunds were $87,000 and $487,000 at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Contract revenues are generally derived from studies conducted with biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies and are recognized on a contract-specific basis. Under certain contracts, revenues are recognized as costs are incurred or assays are processed. We may exercise judgment when estimating full-time equivalent level of effort, costs incurred and time to project completion. For certain contracts, we utilize the performance-based method of revenue recognition, which requires that we estimate the total amount of costs to be expended for a project and recognize revenue equal to the portion of costs expended to date. The estimated total costs to be expended are necessarily subject to revision from time-to-time as the underlying facts and circumstances change.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

We accrue an allowance for doubtful accounts against our accounts receivable based on estimates consistent with historical payment experience. Our allowance for doubtful accounts is evaluated quarterly and adjusted when trends or

significant events indicate that a change in estimate is appropriate. Historically, the amounts of uncollectible accounts receivable that have been written off have been consistent with management’s expectations. We cannot assure you that we will not experience higher than expected write-offs in the future. As of December 31, 2017, and 2016, our allowance for doubtful accounts was $3.9 million and $4.5 million, respectively. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” for additional information, including a summary of accounts receivable aging by payor mix.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

We recorded a net loss of $3.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to net losses of $13.9 million and $33.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. On a basic and diluted basis, net loss per share was $0.11, $0.42 and $1.03 for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We may incur net losses in future periods due to future spending and fluctuations in our business, and we may not achieve or maintain sustained profitability in the future.

Revenues

We derive our revenues primarily from product sales and, to a lesser extent, from contract research arrangements. We operate in one industry segment. As of December 31, 2017, the substantial majority of our product revenues have been derived from the sale of our Oncotype invasive breast cancer test. Payors are billed upon generation and delivery of test results to the physician. Product revenues are recorded on a cash basis unless a contract or arrangement to pay is in place with the payor at the time of billing and collectability is reasonably assured. Contract revenues are derived from studies conducted with biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies and are recorded as contractual obligations are completed.

The year over year increases in product revenues resulted, in part, from increased adoption. Test volume increased by 7% for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016. Of the growth in test volume, approximately 4% was from breast cancer tests and 3% from prostate cancer tests delivered worldwide. Test volume increased by 11% for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015. Of the growth in test volume, approximately 10% was from breast cancer tests delivered worldwide. In addition, the stronger U.S. dollar in 2016 and 2015 resulted in a negative impact on product revenues as described below.  

International product revenue increased to $53.1 million or by 13% for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 due to revenue growth in Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, offset by the impact of a stronger U.S. dollar compared to the United Kingdom pound. International product revenues increased to $46.8 million or by 13% for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015 due to revenue growth in the United Kingdom and Japan offset by the impact of a stronger U.S. dollar on the translation of revenue from foreign denominated currencies.

Approximately $242.4 million, or 71%, of product revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017, was recorded on an accrual basis and recognized at the time the test results were delivered, compared to $231.3 million, or 71%, and $211.7 million, or 74%, of product revenues for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. For all periods, the balance of product revenues was recognized upon cash collection as payments were received. The timing of recognition of revenues related to third-party payors may cause fluctuations in product revenues from period to period.

Product revenues related to Medicare patients for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $75.2 million, or 22%, of product revenues, compared to $70.2 million, or 21%, and $58.9 million or 20%, of product revenues for the years ended

December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. No other third‑party payors comprised product revenues of 10% or more for those years.

Contract revenues were $299,000 for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $950,000 and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. We expect that our contract revenues will continue to fluctuate based on the number and timing of studies being conducted.

Cost of Product Revenues

Cost of product revenues includes the cost of materials, direct labor, equipment and infrastructure expenses associated with processing tissue samples (including sample accessioning, histopathology, anatomical pathology, paraffin extraction, RT- PCR, quality control analysis and shipping charges to transport tissue samples) and license fees. Infrastructure expenses include allocated facility occupancy and information technology costs. Costs associated with performing our tests are recorded as tests are processed. Costs recorded for tissue sample processing represent the cost of all the tests processed during the period regardless of whether revenue was recognized with respect to that test. Historically, royalties for licensed technology calculated as a percentage of product revenues and fixed annual payments relating to the launch and commercialization of Oncotype DX tests are recorded as license fees in cost of product revenues at the time product revenues are recognized or in accordance with other contractual obligations. For the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the decrease in license fees is primarily due to the satisfaction of certain royalty payment obligations for the license of PCR patents under a license agreement with Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., or Roche, during 2016.  In previous periods, license fees were generally calculated as a percentage of product revenues; however, the percentage change in license fees does not correlate exactly to the percentage change in product revenues because certain agreements contain provisions for fixed annual payments and other agreements have tiered rates and payments that may be capped at annual minimum or maximum amounts. As a result of the termination of the Roche license agreement during the year ended December 31, 2016, we expect license fees expense to be consistent with the levels recognized during the year ended December 31, 2017 in future periods.

Tissue sample processing costs increased $758,000 or 1%, in 2017 compared to 2016. The increase was primarily due to a $2.4 million increase in materials and reagents primarily due to a 7% increase in test volumes, a $2.3 million increase in personnel-related expenses due to increased headcount, an increase of $440,000 in infrastructure costs and a $437,000 increase in the cost of contract labor, offset by a $4.3 million decrease of net cost allocations and a $554,000 decrease in bonus expense. Tissue sample processing costs increased $7.6 million, or 17%, in 2016 compared to 2015, driven primarily by increases in test volume of 11% in 2016, as well as an increase in information technology cost allocation associated with the implementation of new systems.

We expect the cost of product revenues to increase in future periods as we process more tests.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses represent costs incurred to develop our technology, our proprietary liquid platform and continuous process improvement, and carry out clinical studies. Research and development expenses include personnel related expenses, reagents and supplies used in research and development laboratory work, collaboration expenses, infrastructure expenses, including allocated overhead and facility occupancy costs, contract services and other outside costs.

The $2.7 million, or 4%, increase in research and development expenses for 2017 compared to 2016 was primarily due to a $3.4 million increase in collaboration expenses, a $2.9 million increase in personnel-related expense, a $902,000 increase in reagents and laboratory supplies and a $609,000 increase in stock-based compensation offset by a $4.6 million decrease in allocated information technology, facilities and other costs, and a $629,000 decrease in other costs. The $6.8 million of collaboration expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 includes a $3.2 million one-time upfront license and option fee under the exclusive license and development agreement with Biocartis. Exclusive of this one-time expense, collaboration expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016 increased by $200,000, or 6%.

The $2.9 million increase in personnel-related expenses was primarily attributable to a $3.7 million increase in salaries, benefits and related expenses due to increased headcount during the year and higher benefits costs offset by a decrease of $943,000 in bonuses. The $4.6 million decrease in allocated information technology, facilities and other costs is primarily due to $2.5 million increase in research and development support allocated to other functional areas and a $2.1 million decrease in post-implementation projects for our enterprise resource planning system completed in 2016. 

The $1.7 million, or 3%, increase in research and development expenses for 2016 compared to 2015 was primarily due to a $3.0 million increase in personnel-related expense, a $3.1 million increase in allocated information technology facilities and other costs and a $692,000 increase in stock-based compensation partially offset by a $4.8 million decrease in collaboration expenses and a $560,000 decrease in reagents and laboratory supplies. The $8.1 million of collaboration expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015 includes a one-time $5.5 million cost for the wind-down of a license agreement and development program. Exclusive of this one-time expense, research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to the year ended December 31, 2015 increased by $7.2 million, or 14%.

We expect our research and development expenses, exclusive of the one-time expenses described above, to increase in future periods due to increased investment in our new product pipeline for breast, prostate and other cancers.

Selling and Marketing Expenses