Our Approach: Integrating Engineering into Cancer Research

We’re infusing engineering into cancer clinical trials, so more trials lead to cancer treatments.

Finding a better way

A recent analysis revealed that only five percent of new therapies entering Phase I clinical trials for solid tumor oncology go on to receive FDA approval.

Meanwhile, other high-tech industries are driving rapid technological innovation with far higher success rates.

While engineers are driving product development in high-tech industries, they’re largely absent from clinical science.

We’re on a mission to change that.

How we're reimagining the way cancer treatments are developed

Integrating physics

We use integrated, advanced experimental systems and computational simulation to help identify therapeutic design flaws early in the therapy development process, when they can still be corrected.

An iterative development process is critical. The Wright Brothers weren’t successful until their sixth prototype, while SpaceX quickly cycled through 15 prototypes before successfully taking off and landing their Mars-capable rocket.

Iterating along the way

Innovations in other high-tech industries—from aerospace to computer chips to medical devices—take an interactive approach to product development.

From linear to iterative

Yet clinical science typically takes a linear approach. Typically, the concept is developed and then works to reach as many milestones as it can, from multiple trials to FDA approval. If the therapy fails at any point, it’s abandoned.

Iterative prototyping increases a therapy’s success rate as it advances through each phase of the therapeutic development process.

Comparing the traditional approach with iterative development. — A traditional approach has a 5% success rate, while iterative development has >10% success rate. In a traditional approach, steps happen sequentially: biological activity, efficacy in mice, safety in humans, and efficacy in humans. Iterative development steps include design, simulate, experiment, efficacy in mice, phase 0/I clinical trials, and safety and efficacy assessment, which is followed by Phase II/III trials.

Constraints we work within

Increased rigor for cancer clinical trials

Integrating engineering into the development process for cancer therapeutics can help answer critical questions such as:

What dose will be most efficacious?
Which combination of agents will produce the optimal result?
Which primary outcome will capture the effect most accurately?

This helps optimize new therapeutics while revealing design flaws earlier in the process.