Posts Tagged ‘innovations in cancer detection’

Live Conference Coverage @MedCity news Converge 2018 Philadelphia: Early Diagnosis Through Predictive Biomarkers, NonInvasive Testing, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)

5:00 – 5:45 PM Early Diagnosis Through Predictive Biomarkers, NonInvasive Testing

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.


Diagnosing cancer early is often the difference between survival and death. Hear from experts regarding the new and emerging technologies that form the next generation of cancer diagnostics.

Moderator: Heather Rose, Director of Licensing, Thomas Jefferson University
Bonnie Anderson, Chairman and CEO, Veracyte @BonnieAndDx
Kevin Hrusovsky, Founder and Chairman, Powering Precision Health @KevinHrusovsky

Bonnie Anderson and Veracyte produces genomic tests for thyroid and other cancer diagnosis.  Kevin Hrusovksy and Precision Health uses peer reviewed evidence based medicine to affect precision medicine decision.

Bonnie: aim to get a truth of diagnosis.  Getting tumor tissue is paramount as well as properly preserved tissue.  They use deep RNA sequencing  and machine learning  in their clinically approved tests.

Kevin: Serial biospace entrepreneur.  Two diseases, cancer and neurologic, have been diseases which have been hardest to get reproducible and validated biomarkers of early disease.  He concentrates on protein biomarkers.

Heather:  FDA has recently approved drugs for early disease intervention.  However the use of biomarkers can go beyond patient stratification in clinical trials.

Kevin: 15 approved drugs for MS but the markers are scans looking for brain atrophy which is too late of an endpoint.  So we need biomarkers of early disease progression.  We can use those early biomarkers of disease progression so pharma can target those early biomarkers and or use those early biomarkers of disease progression  for endpoint

Bonnie: exciting time in the early diagnostics field. She prefers transcriptomics to DNA based methods such as WES or WGS (whole exome or whole genome sequencing).  It was critical to show data on the cost savings imparted by their transcriptomic based thryoid cancer diagnostic test for payers to consider this test eligible for reimbursement.

Kevin: There has been 20 million  CAT scans for  cancer but it is estimated 90% of these scans led to misdiagnosis. Biomarker  development  has revolutionized diagnostics in this disease area.  They have developed a breakthrough panel of ten protein biomarkers in serum which he estimates may replace 5 million mammograms.

All panelists agreed on the importance of regulatory compliance and the focus of new research should be on early detection.  In addition they believe that Dr. Gotlieb’s appointment to the FDA is a positive for the biomarker development field, as Dr. Gotlieb understands the potential and importance of early detection and prevention of disease.  Kevin also felt Dr. Gotlieb understands the importance of incorporating biomarkers as endpoints in clinical trials.  Over 750 phase 1,2, and 3 clinical trials use biomarker endpoints but the pharma companies still need to prove the biomarkers clinical relevance to the FDA.They also agreed it would be helpful to involve advocacy groups in putting more pressure on the healthcare providers and policy makers on this importance of diagnostics as a preventative measure.

In addition, the discovery and use of biomarkers as disease endpoints has led to a resurgence of Alzheimer’s disease drug development by companies which have previously given up on these type of neurodegenerative diseases.

Kevin feels proteomics offers great advantages over DNA-based diagnostics, especially in cancer such as ovarian cancer, where a high degree of specificity for a diagnostic test is required to ascertain if a woman should undergo prophylactic oophorectomy.  He suggests that a new blood-based protein biomarker panel is being developed for early detection of some forms of ovarian cancer.

Please follow on Twitter using the following #hash tags and @pharma_BI









And at the following handles:




Please see related articles on Live Coverage of Previous Meetings on this Open Access Journal

LIVE – Real Time – 16th Annual Cancer Research Symposium, Koch Institute, Friday, June 16, 9AM – 5PM, Kresge Auditorium, MIT

Real Time Coverage and eProceedings of Presentations on 11/16 – 11/17, 2016, The 12th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston

Tweets Impression Analytics, Re-Tweets, Tweets and Likes by @AVIVA1950 and @pharma_BI for 2018 BioIT, Boston, 5/15 – 5/17, 2018

BIO 2018! June 4-7, 2018 at Boston Convention & Exhibition Center


Read Full Post »

The Incentive for “Imaging based cancer patient’ management”

Author and Curator: Dror Nir, PhD

It is generally agreed by radiologists and oncologists that in order to provide a comprehensive work-flow that complies with the principles of personalized medicine, future cancer patients’ management will heavily rely on “smart imaging” applications. These could be accompanied by highly sensitive and specific bio-markers, which are expected to be delivered by pharmaceutical companies in the upcoming decade. In the context of this post, smart imaging refers to imaging systems that are enhanced with tissue characterization and computerized image interpretation applications. It is expected that such systems will enable gathering of comprehensive clinical information on cancer tumors, such as location, size and rate of growth.

What is the main incentive for promoting cancer patients’ management based on smart imaging? 

It promises to enable personalized cancer patient management by providing the medical practitioner with a non-invasive and non-destructive tool to detect, stage and follow up cancer tumors in a standardized and reproducible manner. Furthermore, applying smart imaging that provides valuable disease-related information throughout the management pathway of cancer patient will eventually result in reducing the growing burden of health-care costs related to cancer patients’ treatment.

Let’s briefly review the segments that are common to all cancer patients’ pathway: screening, treatment and costs.


Screening for cancer: It is well known that one of the important factors in cancer treatment success is the specific disease staging. Often this is dependent on when the patient is diagnosed as a cancer patient. In order to detect cancer as early as possible, i.e. before any symptoms appear, leaders in cancer patients’ management came up with the idea of screening. To date, two screening programs are the most spoken of: the “officially approved and budgeted” breast cancer screening; and the unofficial, but still extremely costly, prostate cancer screening. After 20 years of practice, both are causing serious controversies:

In trend analysis of WHO mortality data base [1], the authors, Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A and Vatten LJ, argue that breast cancer mortality in neighboring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment is the same: “The contrast between the time differences in implementation of mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality”.

In prostate cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up [2],  the authors,Schröder FH et. al. argue regarding prostate cancer patients’ overdiagnosis and overtreatment: “To prevent one death from prostate cancer at 11 years of follow-up, 1055 men would need to be invited for screening and 37 cancers would need to be detected”.

The lobbying campaign (see picture below)  that AdmeTech (http://www.admetech.org/) is conducting in order to raise the USA administration’s awareness and get funding to improve prostate cancer treatment is a tribute to patients’ and practitioners’ frustration.




Treatment: Current state of the art in oncology is characterized by a shift in  the decision-making process from an evidence-based guidelines approach toward personalized medicine. Information gathered from large clinical trials with regard to individual biological cancer characteristics leads to a more comprehensive understanding of cancer.

Quoting from the National cancer institute (http://www.cancer.gov/) website: “Advances accrued over the past decade of cancer research have fundamentally changed the conversations that Americans can have about cancer. Although many still think of a single disease affecting different parts of the body, research tells us through new tools and technologies, massive computing power, and new insights from other fields that cancer is, in fact, a collection of many diseases whose ultimate number, causes, and treatment represent a challenging biomedical puzzle. Yet cancer’s complexity also provides a range of opportunities to confront its many incarnations”.

Personalized medicine, whether it uses cytostatics, hormones, growth inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and loco-regional medical devices, proves more efficient, less toxic, less expensive, and creates new opportunities for cancer patients and health care providers, including the medical industry.

To date, at least 50 types of systemic oncological treatments can be offered with much more quality and efficiency through patient selection and treatment outcome prediction.

Figure taken from presentation given by Prof. Jaak Janssens at the INTERVENTIONAL ONCOLOGY SOCIETY meeting held in Brussels in October 2011

For oncologists, recent technological developments in medical imaging-guided tissue acquisition technology (biopsy) create opportunities to provide representative fresh biological materials in a large enough quantity for all kinds of diagnostic tests.


Health-care economics: We are living in an era where life expectancy is increasing while national treasuries are over their limits in supporting health care costs. In the USA, of the nation’s 10 most expensive medical conditions, cancer has the highest cost per person. The total cost of treating cancer in the U.S. rose from about $95.5 billion in 2000 to $124.6 billion in 2010, the National Cancer Institute (www.camcer.gov) estimates. The true sum is probably higher as this estimate is based on average costs from 2001-2006, before many expensive treatments came out; quoting from www.usatoday.com : “new drugs often cost $100,000 or more a year. Patients are being put on them sooner in the course of their illness and for a longer time, sometimes for the rest of their lives.”

With such high costs at stake, solutions to reduce the overall cost of cancer patients’ management should be considered. My experience is that introducing smart imaging applications into routine use could contribute to significant savings in the overall cost of cancer patients’ management, by enabling personalized treatment choice and timely monitoring of tumors’ response to treatment.



  1. 1.      BMJ. 2011 Jul 28;343:d4411. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4411
  2. 2.      (N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 15;366(11):981-90):

Read Full Post »