As healthcare professionals, we are all acutely aware of the continuous efforts in the industry to improve diagnosis, treatment and ultimately survival rates for cancer patients. Destroying tumors via removal, chemotherapy and radiotherapy is the primary goal where possible, followed by growth prevention and limiting metastases if removal is not feasible. Often, “diagnosis”can mean the end of the diagnostic process, but by considering emerging technologies in combination with innovative chemical based treatments, can we achieve symbiotic improvement outcomes for patients suffering from these diseases?

In recent months there have been several new drugs emerging for the treatment of pancreatic and breast cancer, for example. Pfizer has recently announced positive outcomes for its next generation of protein specific targeting cancer drugs, Palbocicilib, which has demonstrated increased efficacy for preventing progression of breast cancer from an average of 10.2 months for current medications to 20.2 months with the new drug—no doubt renewing optimism for anyone suffering from this disease.

While breast cancer survival rates have increased significantly in recent years, pancreatic cancer still carries one of the worst cancer survival rates with one-year survival still remaining under 20% and five-year survival under 5%. Abraxane (nab-Paclitaxel marketed by Celgene Corp.) has recently been shown to extend survival rates of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The Phase III MPACT Trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed increased survival rates from 6.7 months to 8.5 months when used in combination with gemcitabine. Even so, these are still poor survival rates for one of the most deadly cancers, most commonly due to late diagnosis.

At the same time, pharma companies are finding and developing new API’s, the med tech industry is busy beavering away to facilitate more effective application of the developed treatments. Researchers at the University of Edinburgh are developing new imaging techniques in order to visualize living cells and tissues that have had drugs administered to them. At the moment this technique, known as phenotypic drug discovery, is being used in early stage drug development to increase the number of effective therapies taken into development. In simple terms, it allows real time monitoring of drugs via tagging with dyes, which can be fluoresced under microscopes.

Scientists at MIT are also working with a unique technology to develop a device that will enable the clinician to determine the efficacy of radiation doses and treatment progression via tracking O2 levels within tumors. Cancerous cells, unlike healthy cells thrive in anaerobic environments. Tumors in this kind of environment are difficult to treat and resistant to many therapies, but it’s currently impossible to measure O2 levels present in cancers.

As MRI’s are often used to diagnose tumors, the research team at MIT has designed and developed sensors to be used during this diagnostic process. The sensors, constructed from two different types of silicone, have allowed researchers to create what is known as a “swollen polymer,” which is injected into the tumor during biopsy procedures and then injected with other particles to create a solid sensor. As one of the types of silicone absorbs oxygen, this effects how the protons within the sensor behave, which can be detected by MRI. This new device could potentially help doctors determine how effective treatments are progressing over long periods of time, as well how tumors may respond to specific drugs.

One of the moral arguments that remain with respect to cancer treatment is the cost vs. benefit issue. Many people will argue that extending life for a matter of weeks or months at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars is not an effective use of money. As such, NICE (National Institution of Clinical Evidence in the UK) recently rejected the endorsement of Kadcyla, a new breast cancer drug manufactured by Roche that has shown to increase life expectancy from 25.1 months to 30.9 months when treated with similar drugs, claiming it does not justify the treatment cost of approximately $150,000.

If we can harness and engage a relationship between new technologies and drug therapies, could the chances of beating many types of cancer increase exponentially? Combining increased effectiveness of teasing out efficacious drug candidates, and wasting less time on ineffective ones, should push down development costs for pharma companies. This should create a knock-on effect on marketed drug costs, which has the potential to make the new therapies more affordable. It’ll be interesting to see if and how these interactions develop in the coming years, and their ensuing impact.