Already-existing clinical laboratory blood test may be new standard for detecting Alzheimer’s biomarkers
In Sweden, an independent study of an existing blood test for Alzheimer’s disease—called ALZpath—determined that this diagnostic assay appears to be “just as good as, if not surpass, lumbar punctures and expensive brain scans at detecting signs of Alzheimer’s in the brain,” according to a report published by The Guardian.
Alzheimer’s disease is one of the worst forms of dementia and it affects more than six million people annually according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Clinical laboratory testing to diagnose the illness traditionally involves painful, invasive spinal taps and brain scans. For that reason, researchers from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden wanted to evaluate the performance of the ALZpath test when compared to these other diagnostic procedures.
Motivated to seek a less costly, less painful, Alzheimer’s biomarker for clinical laboratory testing, neuroscientist Nicholas Ashton, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, led a team of scientists that looked at other common biomarkers used to identify changes in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients. That led them to tau protein-based blood tests and specifically to the ALZpath blood test for Alzheimer’s disease developed by ALZpath, Inc., of Carlsbad, Calif.
In their JAMA article, they wrote, “the pTau217 immunoassay showed similar accuracies to cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in identifying abnormal amyloid β (Aβ) and tau pathologies.”
In an earlier article published in medRxiv, Ashton et al wrote, “Phosphorylated tau (pTau) is a specific blood biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, with pTau217 considered to have the most utility. However, availability of pTau217 tests for research and clinical use has been limited.”
Thus, the discovery of an existing pTau217 assay (ALZpath) that is accessible and affordable is a boon to Alzheimer’s patients and to the doctors who treat them.
“The ALZpath pTau217 assay showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying elevated amyloid (AUC, 0.92-0.96; 95%CI 0.89-0.99) and tau (AUC, 0.93-0.97; 95%CI 0.84-0.99) in the brain across all cohorts. These accuracies were significantly higher than other plasma biomarker combinations and equivalent to CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] biomarkers,” an ALZpath press release noted.
“This is an instrumental finding in blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s, paving the way for the clinical use of the ALZpath pTau217 assay,” stated Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD (above), Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study. “This robust assay is already used in multiple labs around the globe.” Clinical laboratories may soon be receiving doctors’ orders for pTau217 blood tests for Alzheimer’s patients. (Photo copyright: University of Gothenburg.)
Study Details
Ashton’s team conducted a cohort study that “examined data from three single-center observational cohorts.” The cohorts included:
“Participants included individuals with and without cognitive impairment grouped by amyloid and tau (AT) status using PET or CSF biomarkers. Data were analyzed from February to June 2023,” the researchers wrote.
These trials from the US, Canada, and Spain featured 786 participants and featured “either a lumbar puncture or an amyloid PET scan to identify signs of amyloid and tau proteins—hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease,” The Guardian reported, adding that results of the University of Gothenburg’s study showed that the ALZpath pTau217 blood test “was superior to brain atrophy assessments, in identifying signs of Alzheimer’s.”
“80% of individuals could be definitively diagnosed on a blood test without any other investigation,” Ashton told The Guardian.
Diagnosis Needed to Receive Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments
“If you’re going to receive [the new drugs], you need to prove that you have amyloid in the brain,” Ashton told The Guardian. “It’s just impossible to do spinal taps and brain scans on everyone that would need it worldwide. So, this is where the blood test [has] a huge potential.”
Even countries where such drugs were not yet available (like the UK) would benefit, Ashton said, because the test, “Could potentially say that this is not Alzheimer’s disease and it could be another type of dementia, which would help to direct the patient’s management and treatment routine.”
However, Ashton himself noted the limitations of the new findings—specifically that there is no success shown yet in Alzheimer’s drugs being taken by symptom-free individuals.
“If you do have amyloid in the brain at 50 years of age, the blood test will be positive,” he said. “But what we recommend, and what the guidelines recommend with these blood tests, is that these are to help clinicians—so someone must have had some objective concern that they have Alzheimer’s disease, or [that] their memory is declining,” he told The Guardian.
Experts on the Study Findings
“Blood tests could be used to screen everyone over 50-years old every few years, in much the same way as they are now screened for high cholesterol,” David Curtis, MD, PhD, Honorary Professor in the Genetics, Evolution and Environment department at University College London, told The Guardian.
“Results from these tests could be clear enough to not require further follow-up investigations for some people living with Alzheimer’s disease, which could speed up the diagnosis pathway significantly in future,” Richard Oakley, PhD, Associate Director of Research and Innovation at the Alzheimer’s Society, UK, told The Guardian.
Though Oakley found the findings promising, he pointed out what should come next. “We still need to see more research across different communities to understand how effective these blood tests are across everyone who lives with Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.
“Expanding access to this highly accurate Alzheimer’s disease biomarker is crucial for wider evaluation and implementation of AD blood tests,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“ALZpath makers are in discussions with labs in the UK to launch it for clinical use this year, and one of the co-authors, Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, is making the assay available for research use as part of the ‘biomarker factory’ at UCL,” The Guardian reported.
In the US, to be prescribed any of the available Alzheimer’s medications, a doctor must diagnose that the patient has amyloid in the brain. A pTau217 diagnostic blood test could be used to make such a diagnosis. Currently, however, the test is only available “for research studies through select partner labs,” Time reported.
“But later this month, doctors in the US will be able to order the test for use with patients. (Some laboratory-developed tests performed by certain certified labs don’t require clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration.),” Time added.
It may be that the University of Gothenburg study will encourage Alzheimer’s doctors in the UK and around the world to consider ordering pTau217 diagnostic blood tests from clinical laboratories, rather than prescribing spinal taps and brains scans for their Alzheimer’s patients.
Study findings could lead to new clinical laboratory testing biomarkers designed to assess for male infertility
Clinical laboratories are increasingly performing tests that have as their biomarkers the DNA and enzymes found in human microbiota. And microbiologists and epidemiologists know that like other environments within the human body, semen has its own microbiome. Now, a study conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has found that the health of semen microbiome may be linked to male infertility.
The UCLA researchers discovered a small group of microorganisms within semen that may impair the sperm’s motility (its ability to swim) and affect fertility.
A total of 73 individuals were included in the study. About half of the subjects were fertile and already had children, while the remaining men were under consultation for fertility issues.
“These are people who have been trying to get pregnant with their partner, and they’ve been unsuccessful,” Sriram Eleswarapu, MD, PhD, a urologist at UCLA and co-author of the study, told Scientific American. “This latter group’s semen samples had a lower sperm count or motility, both of which can contribute to infertility.”
“There is much more to explore regarding the microbiome and its connection to male infertility,” said Vadim Osadchiy, MD (above), a resident in the Department of Urology at UCLA and lead author of the study, in a UCLA news release. “However, these findings provide valuable insights that can lead us in the right direction for a deeper understanding of this correlation.” Might it also lead to new biomarkers for clinical laboratory testing for male infertility? (Photo copyright: UCLA.)
Genetic Sequencing Used to Identify Bacteria in Semen Microbiome
Most of the microbes present in the semen microbiome originate in the glands of the male upper reproductive tract, including the testes, seminal vesicles and prostate, and contribute various components to semen. “Drifter” bacteria that comes from urine and the urethra can also accumulate in the fluid during ejaculation. Microbes from an individual’s blood, or his partner’s, may also aggregate in semen. It is unknown how these bacteria might affect health.
“I would assume that there are bacteria that are net beneficial, that maybe secrete certain kinds of cytokines or chemicals that improve the fertility milieu for a person, and then there are likely many that have negative side effects,” Eleswarapu told Scientific American.
The scientists used genetic sequencing to identify different bacteria species present within the semen microbiome. They found five species that were common among all the study participants. But men with more of the microbe Lactobacillus iners (L. iners) were likelier to have impaired sperm motility and experience fertility issues.
This discovery was of special interest to the team because L. iners is commonly found in the vaginal microbiome. In females, high levels of L. iners are associated with bacterial vaginosis and have been linked to infertility in women. This is the first study that found a negative association between L. iners and male fertility.
The researchers plan to investigate specific molecules and proteins contained in the bacteria to find out whether they slow down sperm in a clinical laboratory situation.
“If we can identify how they exert that influence, then we have some drug targets,” Eleswarapu noted.
Targeting Bacteria That Cause Infertility
The team also discovered that three types of bacteria found in the Pseudomonas genus were present in patients who had both normal and abnormal sperm concentrations. Patients with abnormal sperm concentrations had more Pseudomonas fluorescens and Pseudomonas stutzeri and less Pseudomonas putida in their samples.
According to the federal National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), “one-third of infertility cases are caused by male reproductive issues, one-third by female reproductive issues, and the remaining one-third by both male and female reproductive issues or unknown factors.” Thus, learning more about how the semen microbiome may be involved in infertility could aid in the development of drugs that target specific bacteria.
“Our research aligns with evidence from smaller studies and will pave the way for future, more comprehensive investigations to unravel the complex relationship between the semen microbiome and fertility,” said urologist Vadim Osadchiy, MD, a resident in the Department of Urology at UCLA and lead author of the study, in a UCLA news release.
More research is needed. For example, it’s unclear if there are any links between the health of semen microbiome and other microbiomes that exist in the body, such as the gut microbiome, that cause infertility. Nevertheless, this research could lead to new biomarkers for clinical laboratory testing to help couples who are experiencing fertility issues.
HHS Office of Inspector General was the latest to examine the quality control problems that led to distribution of inaccurate test to clinical laboratories nationwide
Failure on the part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce accurate, dependable SARS-CoV-2 clinical laboratory test kits at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to draw scrutiny and criticism of the actions taken by the federal agency.
In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC distributed faulty SARS-CoV-2 test kits to public health laboratories (PHLs), delaying the response to the outbreak at a critical juncture. That failure was widely publicized at the time. But within the past year, two reports have provided a more detailed look at the shortcomings that led to the snafu.
“We identified weaknesses in CDC’s COVID-19 test kit development processes and the agencywide laboratory quality processes that may have contributed to the failure of the initial COVID-19 test kits,” the OIG stated in its report.
Prior to the outbreak, the agency had internal documents that were supposed to provide guidance for how to respond to public health emergencies. However, “these documents do not address the development of a test kit,” the OIG stated.
“If the CDC can’t change, [its] importance in health in the nation will decline,” said microbiologist Jill Taylor, PhD (above), Senior Adviser for the Association of Public Health Laboratories in Washington, DC. “The coordination of public health emergency responses in the nation will be worse off.” Clinical laboratories that were blocked from developing their own SARS-CoV-2 test during the pandemic would certainly agree. (Photo copyright: Columbia University.)
Problems at the CDC’s RVD Lab
Much of the OIG’s report focused on the CDC’s Respiratory Virus Diagnostic (RVD) lab which was part of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). The RVD lab had primary responsibility for developing, producing, and distributing the test kits. Because it was focused on research, it “was not set up to develop and manufacture test kits and therefore had no policies and procedures for developing and manufacturing test kits,” the report stated.
The RVD lab also lacked the staff and funding to handle test kit development in a public health emergency, the report stated. As a result, “the lead scientist not only managed but also participated in all test kit development processes,” the report stated. “In addition, when the initial test kit failed at some PHLs, the lead scientist was also responsible for troubleshooting and correcting the problem.”
To verify the test kit, the RVD lab needed samples of viral material from the agency’s Biotechnology Core Facility Branch (BCFB) CORE Lab, which also manufactured reagents for the kit.
“RVD Lab, which was under pressure to quickly create a test kit for the emerging health threat, insisted that CORE Lab deviate from its usual practices of segregating these two activities and fulfill orders for both reagents and viral material,” the report stated.
This increased the risk of contamination, the report said. An analysis by CDC scientists “did not determine whether a process error or contamination was at fault for the test kit failure; however, based on our interviews with CDC personnel, contamination could not be ruled out,” the report stated.
The report also cited the CDC’s lack of standardized systems for quality control and management of laboratory documents. Labs involved in test kit development used two different incompatible systems for tracking and managing documents, “resulting in staff being unable to distinguish between draft, obsolete, and current versions of laboratory procedures and forms.”
Outside Experts Weigh In
The OIG report followed an earlier review by the CDC’s Laboratory Workgroup (LW), which consists of 12 outside experts, including academics, clinical laboratory directors, state public health laboratory directors, and a science advisor from the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Members were appointed by the CDC Advisory Committee to the Director.
This group cited four major issues:
Lack of adequate planning: For the “rapid development, validation, manufacture, and distribution of a test for a novel pathogen.”
Ineffective governance: Three labs—the RVD Lab, CORE Lab, and Reagent and Diagnostic Services Branch—were involved in test kit development and manufacturing. “At no point, however, were these three laboratories brought together under unified leadership to develop the SARS-CoV-2 test,” the report stated.
Poor quality control and oversight: “Essentially, at the start of the pandemic, infectious disease clinical laboratories at CDC were not held to the same quality and regulatory standards that equivalent high-complexity public health, clinical and commercial reference laboratories in the United States are held,” the report stated.
Poor test design processes: The report noted that the test kit had three probes designed to bind to different parts of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid gene. The first two—N1 (topology) and N2 (intracellular localization)—were designed to match SARS-CoV-2 specifically, whereas the third—N3 (functions of the protein)—was designed to match all Sarbecoviruses, the family that includes SARS-CoV-2 as well as the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak.
The N1 probe was found to be contaminated, the group’s report stated, while the N3 probe was poorly designed. The report questioned the decision to include the N3 probe, which was not included in European tests.
Also lacking were “clearly defined pass/fail threshold criteria for test validation,” the report stated.
Advice to the CDC
Both reports made recommendations for changes at the CDC, but the LW’s were more far-reaching. For example, it advised the agency to establish a senior leader position “with major responsibility and authority for laboratories at the agency.” This individual would oversee a new Center that would “focus on clinical laboratory quality, laboratory safety, workforce training, readiness and response, and manufacturing.”
In addition, the CDC should consolidate its clinical diagnostic laboratories, the report advised, and “laboratories that follow a clinical quality management system should have separate technical staff and space from those that do not follow such a system, such as certain research laboratories.”
The report also called for collaboration with “high functioning public health laboratories, hospital and academic laboratories, and commercial reference laboratories.” For example, collaborating on test design and development “should eliminate the risk of a single point of failure for test design and validation,” the LW suggested.
CBS News reported in August that the CDC had already begun implementing some of the group’s suggestions, including agencywide quality standards and better coordination with state labs.
However, “recommendations for the agency to physically separate its clinical laboratories from its research laboratories, or to train researchers to uphold new quality standards, will be heavy lifts because they require continuous funding,” CBS News reported, citing an interview with Jim Pirkle, MD, PhD, Director, Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, at the CDC.
By emphasizing HPV vaccinations while having clinical laboratories continue to perform Pap smears, Australia’s rate of cervical cancer has dropped notably
There is currently a global push to completely eradicate cervical cancer and Australia is leading the way with increased funding. It is also focusing on hard-to-reach and underserved populations. Australia is hoping to be first in the world to accomplish this feat by 2035.
For a number of decades, the Pap smear has been the primary screening tool for cervical cancer, as most pathologists and clinical laboratory managers know. However, today it plays a lesser role due to the effectiveness of HPV (human papillomavirus) diagnostic testing, which was put into cervical cancer screening guidelines in 2004.
Then came the first HPV vaccine in 2006. Australia was one of the first nations to implement HPV vaccination programs. By 2010, Australia was working to vaccinate every child. Now, 14 years later, the pool of adults vaccinated against HPV in that nation is causing the rates of cervical cancer to fall.
That means much less cervical cancer test volume for cytotechnologists and cytopathologists, freeing them up to devote their skills to other diagnostic tests.
As the country continues to funnel resources into hitting a zero cancer status, the additional drive will “connect Australia’s world-leading cervical cancer expertise with governments across the region to get HPV vaccine programs up and running, expand screening and treatment, and build health workforce capacity,” said Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs office in a press release.
“Australia has always punched above its weight when it comes to cervical cancer, and now Australia is on track to be the first country in the world to eliminate this deadly disease,” said Hon Ged Kearney, MP, RN (above), Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and a member of the government’s House of Representatives, in a press release. “By supporting the Pacific and Southeast Asia region [to] eliminate cervical cancer, we are another step closer to ridding the world of this disease.” Clinical laboratories and cytopathologists may soon see less reliance on Pap smears for screening and a shift toward HPV vaccinations to lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US as well. (Photo copyright: Australian Labor Party.)
90% of eligible people will be vaccinated against HPV (including girls and boys).
70% of eligible people will be screened every five years.
95% of eligible people will receive the best possible treatment for precancer and cancer.
In addition to $48.2 million in funding over four years, the program provides:
On the spot testing of samples in First Nations [aka, First Peoples] communities, allowing immediate follow up.
Support for nurses, First Nations health practitioners, and midwives to request pathology for cervical screening.
Increasing support for GPs to undertake colposcopies.
Helping the Underserved
Reaching a wider audience is a large part of Australia’s focus.
“One of my priorities is to address inequities in our health system. I want to make sure that everyone can get access to screening—and all healthcare—no matter where [they] live,” Kearney added. Among the populations sought are First Nations, LGBTIQA+, disabled individuals, and those living away from large cities.
“$8.3 million has been allocated to implement innovate screening models to support such communities,” the Minister for Foreign Affairs office noted in the press release.
Meeting people where they are, and reaching underserved populations, can make a huge difference, especially considering how cervical cancer affects these people. “First Nations women are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer and face significant barriers to participating in cervical screening compared to non-indigenous women,” the press release notes.
“These tests allow privacy and help to break down barriers for thousands of people who have never screened—including women who have experienced sexual violence, LGBTIQA+ people, and culturally and linguistically diverse and First Nations communities,” the Minister for Foreign Affairs office stated.
There is hope that the push will cause a great shift to other underserved communities as well.
“A quarter of global cervical cancer cases occur in our region, the Indo-Pacific. Tragically, in the Pacific, women are dying at up to 13 times the rate of women in Australia,” said Penny Wong, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the press release.
How the US Fares in Cervical Cancer Vaccinations
Australia’s vaccination rates far exceed those in the United States. The US government currently recommends HPV vaccination between the ages of 11-12 years old, though it could be administered starting at age nine.
“HPV vaccination is recommended for all persons through age 26 years who were not adequately vaccinated earlier,” the NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) reports.
For years the standard focus for cervical cancer screening has been on the Pap smear. Data show the US lags behind many countries on the rate of HPV vaccination. NCI data show that, as of 2021, in the US just 58.5% of 13-15 year-olds “had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended,” NCI reported.
With the US’s standard of care still focused on the Pap smear, patients are beginning their cervical cancer prevention journey at a later age. This is because the preliminary age to get a Pap smear in the US is 21 years old, with follow-up exams every three years, the NCI reported.
Even those in this country who are sexually active are not recommended to get screening earlier than 21.
The NCI recommends HPV testing every five years starting at age 30 until 65, with Pap tests every three years.
Clinical laboratories may soon find that, while the US has been slower to get on board with HPV vaccinations, trends in other nations indicate that this may soon change. The reliance that was once placed on the Pap smears prior to 2000 will likely give way to HPV vaccinations at ages and vaccination rates that mirror programs in countries like Australia—where marked reductions in the rate of cervical cancer demonstrate the effectiveness of a successful HPV vaccination program.
Immunotherapy device could also enable clinical laboratories to receive in vivo biomarker data wirelessly
Researchers from Rice University in Houston and seven other states in the US are working on a new oncotherapy sense-and-respond implant that could dramatically improve cancer outcomes. Called Targeted Hybrid Oncotherapeutic Regulation (THOR), the technology is intended primarily for the delivery of therapeutic drugs by monitoring specific cancer biomarkers in vivo.
Through a $45 million federal grant from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), the researchers set out to develop an immunotherapy implantable device that monitors a patient’s cancer and adjusts antibody treatment dosages in real time in response to the biomarkers it measures.
It’s not a far stretch to envision future versions of the THOR platform also being used diagnostically to measure biomarker data and transmit it wirelessly to clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists.
ARPH-A is a federal funding agency that was established in 2022 to support the development of high-impact research to drive biomedical and health breakthroughs. THOR is the second program to receive funding under its inaugural Open Broad Agency Announcement solicitation for research proposals.
“By integrating a self-regulated circuit, the THOR technology can adjust the dose of immunotherapy reagents based on a patient’s responses,” said Weiyi Peng, MD, PhD (above), Assistant Professor of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Houston and co-principal investigator on the research, in a UH press release. “With this new feature, THOR is expected to achieve better efficacy and minimize immune-related toxicity. We hope this personalized immunotherapy will revolutionize treatments for patients with peritoneal cancers that affect the liver, lungs, and other organs.” If anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratories could receive biometric data from the THOR device, that would be a boon to cancer diagnostics. (Photo copyright: University of Houston.)
Antibody Therapy on Demand
Omid Veiseh, PhD, Associate Professor of Bioengineering at Rice University and principal investigator on the project, described the THOR device as a “living drug factory” inside the body. The device is a rod-like gadget that contains onboard electronics and a wireless rechargeable battery. It is three inches long and has a miniaturized bioreactor that contains human epithelial cells that have been engineered to produce immune modulating therapies.
“Instead of tethering patients to hospital beds, IV bags, and external monitors, we’ll use a minimally invasive procedure to implant a small device that continuously monitors their cancer and adjusts their immunotherapy dose in real time,” said Veiseh in a Rice University press release. “This kind of ‘closed-loop therapy’ has been used for managing diabetes, where you have a glucose monitor that continuously talks to an insulin pump.
But for cancer immunotherapy, it’s revolutionary.”
The team believes the THOR device will have the ability to monitor biomarkers and produce an antibody on demand that will trigger the immune system to fight cancer locally. They hope the sensor within THOR will be able to monitor biomarkers of toxicity for the purpose of fine-tuning therapies to a patient immediately in response to signals from a tumor.
“Today, cancer is treated a bit like a static disease, which it’s not,” Veiseh said. “Clinicians administer a therapy and then wait four to six weeks to do radiological measurements to see if the therapy is working. You lose quite a lot of time if it’s not the right therapy. The tumor may have evolved into a more aggressive form.”
The THOR device lasts 60 days and can be removed after that time. It is designed to educate the immune system to recognize a cancer and prevent it from recurring. If the cancer is not fully eradicated after the first implantation, the patient can be implanted with THOR again.
Use of AI in THOR Therapy
The researchers plan to spend the next two and a half years building prototypes of the THOR device, testing them in rodents, and refining the list of biomarkers to be utilized in the device. Then, they intend to take an additional year to establish protocols for the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) good manufacturing practices requirements, and to test the final prototype on large animals. The researchers estimate the first human clinical trials for the device will begin in about four years.
“The first clinical trial will focus on refractory recurrent ovarian cancer, and the benefit of that is that we have an ongoing trial for ovarian cancer with our encapsulated cytokine ‘drug factory’ technology,” said Veiseh in the UH press release.
The group is starting with ovarian cancer because research in this area is lacking and it will provide the opportunity for THOR to activate the immune system against ovarian cancer, which is typically challenging to fight with immunotherapy approaches. If successful in ovarian cancer, the researchers hope to test THOR in other cancers that metastasize within the abdomen, such as:
All control and decision-making will initially be performed by a healthcare provider based on signals transmitted by THOR using a computer or smartphone. However, Veiseh sees the device ultimately being powered by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that could independently make therapeutic decisions.
“As we treat more and more patients [with THOR], the devices are going to learn what type of biomarker readout better predicts efficacy and toxicity and make adjustments based on that,” he predicted. “Between the information you have from the first patient versus the millionth patient you treat, the algorithm is just going to get better and better.”
Moving Forward
In addition to UH and Rice University, scientists working on the project come from several institutions, including:
More research and clinical trials are needed before THOR can be used in the clinical treatment of cancer patients. If the device reaches the commercialization stage, Veiseh plans to either form a new company or license the technology to an existing company for further development.
“We know that the further we advance it in terms of getting that human data, the more likely it is that this could then be transferred to another entity,” he told Precision Medicine Online.
Pathologists and clinical laboratories will want to monitor the progress of the THOR technology’s ability to sense changes in cancer biomarkers and deliver controlled dosages of antibiotic treatments.
