The efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Movers and Shakers news roundup
Chasing the Zero That Matters
Mary Royal almost skipped her mammogram.
At 51, the mother of four from Wichita Falls, Texas, was busy,

tired, and juggling the overlapping demands of work, family, and everyday life. The appointment felt routine—easy to reschedule and easy to dismiss. In a decision that would change everything, she went.
In 2023, Royal was diagnosed with stage 2B multicentric invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma. What followed was a cascade familiar to many cancer patients but deeply personal in its toll: a double bilateral mastectomy, months of chemotherapy and radiation, and the discovery of a nodule in her chest cavity. Another scan later revealed a mass on her ovary, prompting a preventative radical hysterectomy. By the end of the year, Royal had endured positron emission tomography (PET) scans, injections, fasting, and what she called “all that nuclear medicine.”
For many patients, completing treatment is supposed to signal relief. In reality, it often marks the beginning of a new phase—one defined by uncertainty. Surveillance imaging, blood tests, and follow-up visits can feel like checkpoints in an endless waiting game. Every scan carries both hope and fear.
Royal knows this phase well. Like many survivors, she lives with what patients and clinicians call scan anxiety. “I’ve never met a person diagnosed with cancer who did not live with scan anxiety,” she said.
That anxiety eventually led her to consider a different way of monitoring her disease—one that looks not for tumors large enough to be seen on a scan, but for microscopic traces of cancer that may remain in the body after treatment. These traces are known as measurable, or minimal, residual disease (MRD).
MRD basics
MRD refers to the small number of cancer cells that can persist after treatment, even when imaging and conventional tests show no evidence of disease. These cells are often invisible to computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or PET scans, yet they can drive relapse months or years later.
Historically, MRD testing has been best established in hematologic malignancies such as leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. In these diseases, molecular and flow-based techniques can detect one malignant cell among tens of thousands, or even millions, of normal cells. In solid tumors, however, detecting MRD has been far more challenging. That is now changing.
Advances in liquid biopsy technologies allow researchers to analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA): tiny fragments of DNA shed by cancer cells into the bloodstream. With increasingly sensitive assays, it is now possible to detect residual disease at levels far below what imaging can reveal.
MRD matters because cancer recurrence is often a race against time. The earlier residual disease is detected, the greater the opportunity to intervene—whether by intensifying therapy, switching treatments, or, in some cases, sparing patients from unnecessary additional therapy if no disease is detected.
Regulators are taking note. In January 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance supporting the use of MRD negativity as an endpoint in clinical trials for multiple myeloma. The move signaled growing confidence in MRD as a meaningful surrogate for long-term outcomes, potentially accelerating clinical trials and access to new therapies.
Deciding to look closer
When Royal’s oncologist suggested the Personalis NeXT Personal® test, a blood-based MRD assay, her initial reaction was hesitation.
“I said, ‘Let me think about it,’” she recalled. As she researched the test online, her anxiety rose. “I thought, ‘No, thank you. I have had so much anxiety already.’”
Her husband disagreed. “You are insane,” he told her, “Why would you not want to do that?” Her oncologist offered a different perspective: “What is the point of science if we don’t use it?”
“That really resonated with me,” Royal said.
She agreed to the test and had her first ctDNA draw in early 2024. Since then, she has taken it 13 times.
“Seeing that zero in the results is a huge relief,” she said. “I really appreciate how much easier the test is on me, both mentally and physically. Now, I cannot believe anyone would say ‘no’ to this. It brings me so much comfort. And I want to know what to do next. I don’t want to just sit around waiting for something when I have the ability to see things early on.”
Her experience reflects a growing shift in survivorship—from episodic imaging to continuous molecular monitoring.
An ultrasensitive approach
For Richard Chen, MD, CMO at Personalis, the goal of ultrasensitive MRD testing has always been to address the uncertainty patients live with after treatment.

Chief Medical Officer
Personalis
“Our NeXT Personal test pioneered ‘ultrasensitive MRD’ down to about one part per million of ctDNA, designed to be a leap forward in detecting very small traces of cancer from a blood sample earlier,” Chen said.
The test is tumor-informed, meaning that it begins with whole-genome sequencing of a patient’s tumor. From that data, up to approximately 1,800 tumor-specific mutations are identified to create a personalized molecular signature. Blood samples are then analyzed for that signature.
“The groundbreaking clinical data that we have published in lung and breast cancer shows that the ultrasensitive capabilities of NeXT Personal enable it to detect cancer many months to years ahead of imaging,” Chen said, “potentially allowing for earlier intervention and treatment of the patient.” Equally important, he added, is the reassurance that a highly sensitive negative result can provide.
Personalis is expanding MRD testing beyond simple detection. A new opt-in feature, the Real-Time Variant Tracker®, allows clinicians and patients to view potentially actionable mutations detected in ctDNA, including those associated with treatment resistance.
MRD testing is increasingly viewed not just as a prognostic tool, but as a way to actively guide care. Chen outlines three major applications: earlier detection of residual or recurrent disease; earlier de-escalation of therapy for patients who have cleared their cancer at a molecular level; and real-time monitoring of treatment response.
“Cancer is often a race against time,” he said. “If you can detect cancer that’s coming back much earlier than before, then you have the opportunity to intervene earlier with additional treatment for the patient.”
Adding biological precision
Sensitivity alone, however, is not the only challenge in MRD detection. Biological precision—understanding which cells persist and why—is equally important.

Chief Medical Officer
Mission Bio
Zivjena Vucetic, MD, PhD, CMO at Mission Bio, points to the limitations of bulk sequencing approaches, which average signals across mixed-cell populations.
Mission Bio’s single-cell MRD assay simultaneously detects genetic mutations and surface protein expression across thousands of individual cells in acute myeloid leukemia. This approach reveals whether mutations coexist in the same cell and how they relate to cellular phenotypes.
“Our integrated single-cell approach provides a more biologically precise definition of measurable residual disease,” Vucetic said, which might improve risk stratification beyond conventional molecular or flow-based methods.
By identifying rare, therapy-resistant clones, single-cell MRD technologies offer insight into clonal evolution and emerging resistance. This information can guide treatment selection and drug development.
Decentralizing monitoring
Accessibility and turnaround time are also shaping the MRD landscape. For example, QIAGEN is advancing MRD monitoring by pairing tumor-informed assay design with decentralized digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR), aiming to make longitudinal molecular monitoring faster, more accessible, and more informative for research and drug development.
In June 2025, QIAGEN announced a partnership with Tracer Biotechnologies to integrate Tracer’s tumor-informed assay design with QIAGEN’s QIAcuity dPCR platform. The approach begins with sequencing a patient’s tumor, often leveraging existing next-generation sequencing (NGS) data, to identify somatic mutations. Tracer then designs personalized multiplex dPCR assays to detect ctDNA carrying those mutations in blood samples.

Vice President
QIAGEN
Running these assays on QIAcuity enables absolute quantification of rare tumor-derived molecules by partitioning samples into thousands of reactions. According to Richard Watts, vice president of partnering for precision diagnostics at QIAGEN, “The result is a decentralized, high-frequency monitoring solution,” with turnaround times measured in hours to days rather than weeks. He noted that this model significantly reduces cost and logistical complexity compared with centralized NGS-based MRD testing while enabling earlier detection of molecular recurrence, often before radiographic changes are visible.
While currently intended for exploratory research use, the platform has clear implications for oncology drug development. By allowing assays to be run on standard dPCR instruments at clinical trial sites, sponsors can avoid centralized sample shipping, simplify global study design, and more rapidly generate data. Frequent sampling also provides detailed insight into tumor kinetics and treatment response, potentially enabling earlier assessments of drug activity.
Looking ahead, QIAGEN anticipates MRD evolving beyond detection toward biological characterization. Emerging single-cell technologies, supported by QIAGEN’s recent acquisition of Parse Biosciences, could reveal why residual disease persists by distinguishing resistant cell populations and non-genetic resistance mechanisms. Watts emphasized that future clinicians will not only ask whether MRD is present, but “why it persists and which pathways sustain it,” signaling a shift toward more precise, biology-driven intervention strategies.
The expanding ecosystem
Beyond ultrasensitive and single-cell approaches, a growing number of companies are contributing complementary technologies that are broadening how MRD is detected, characterized, and monitored across cancer types.
Twist Bioscience, for example, has developed scalable target enrichment solutions for MRD monitoring that support highly personalized approaches to disease surveillance. Its MRD Rapid 500 Panel enables fast design and manufacture of customized capture panels using silicon-based DNA synthesis. By offering panels that range from dozens to hundreds of tumor-specific probes and fast turnaround times, this approach allows researchers to assess adjuvant treatment response at a genomic level while remaining compatible with established NGS library preparation and hybrid capture workflows.
Whole-genome sequencing-based plasma assays are also playing an expanding role in solid tumor MRD detection. Labcorp offers a plasma-based assay for colorectal cancer that uses whole genome sequencing to identify ctDNA associated with MRD. This approach enables the detection of recurrence at a molecular level before clinical symptoms, biological markers, or radiographic evidence emerge, creating an opportunity for earlier and more proactive intervention.
In hematologic malignancies, ultrasensitive liquid biopsy platforms are demonstrating the ability to dramatically shorten the time required to detect residual disease. For instance, Foresight Diagnostics has developed a ctDNA-based MRD platform that achieves exceptionally high sensitivity across multiple cancers. In patients with large B-cell lymphoma, this approach can detect ctDNA immediately after treatment, rather than waiting for months or even years for disease recurrence to become apparent through PET or CT imaging.
Comprehensive NGS-based MRD solutions are also advancing in myeloid malignancies. Thermo Fisher Scientific offers an integrated research-use testing solution that combines highly sensitive DNA and RNA assays on a single sequencing platform. This enables the simultaneous assessment of single-nucleotide variants, insertions and deletions, and gene fusions alongside streamlined informatics and reporting designed to simplify MRD data interpretation in research settings.
Meanwhile, dPCR continues to play a crucial role in MRD monitoring, where absolute quantification and extreme sensitivity are required. Bio-Rad Laboratories has long supported droplet dPCR technologies that are well suited for tracking low-abundance disease markers. These capabilities are particularly valuable in both hematologic malignancies and solid tumors, where MRD signals in blood can be vanishingly small yet clinically meaningful.
Pre-analytical precision
As MRD assays push detection limits ever lower, pre-analytical steps such as sample collection and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) extraction become increasingly important.

Scientist, NEB
As one example, Anagha Kadam, PhD, applications and product development scientist at New England Biolabs (NEB), highlights how the Monarch Mag Cell-free DNA Extraction Kit addresses crucial challenges in liquid-biopsy workflows and MRD research.
This kit is a magnetic bead-based solution designed for the reproducible isolation of circulating cfDNA from biofluids like plasma, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid. “The kit can be used to isolate cfDNA for discovery and detection workflows, including ctDNA profiling, cancer biomarker discovery, and oncology diagnostics research,” Kadam explained. This technology efficiently recovers cfDNA fragments in the typical sizes of 150–300 base pairs, and even as small as 50 base pairs, while remaining compatible with common anticoagulant and preservative collection tubes. According to Kadam, “The silica-coated magnetic beads, combined with optimized buffer chemistry, help ensure maximum binding and recovery of cfDNA in manual or automation formats.”
Sensitivity and reproducibility are especially crucial for MRD applications. “A cfDNA isolation method that is compatible with different sample types, and that faithfully isolates cfDNA, is a key consideration when establishing MRD workflows,” Kadam noted. She added that the kit delivers “reproducible, high-quality cfDNA yields from different biofluid samples, without additional post-extraction cleanups,” enabling consistent fragment profiles while saving time. When integrated with NEB’s sequencing and amplification tools, the kit supports streamlined, end-to-end workflows for generating high-quality data from challenging clinical samples.
From waiting to watching
For Mary Royal, MRD testing has not eliminated uncertainty, but has transformed it.
Instead of waiting passively for scans, she feels engaged in her care. Instead of fearing every appointment, she has access to information that helps her understand what is happening inside her body in near real time.
“I want to know what to do next,” she said. “I don’t want to just sit around waiting for something when I have the ability to see things early on.”
As MRD technologies continue to mature, the desire to replace waiting with knowledge is becoming central to modern oncology. MRD is no longer just a research endpoint or laboratory metric. It is becoming a bridge between science and survivorship, offering patients, clinicians, and researchers a clearer signal in the noise of uncertainty.
And sometimes, that signal is a simple zero—small, powerful, and profoundly reassuring.
Mike May, PhD, is a freelance writer and editor with more than 30 years of experience. He earned an MS in biological engineering from the University of Connecticut and a PhD in neurobiology and behavior from Cornell University. He worked as an associate editor at American Scientist, and he is the author of more than 1,000 articles for clients that include GEN, Nature, Science, Scientific American, and many others. In addition, he served as the editorial director of many publications, including several Nature Outlooks and Scientific American Worldview.
The post Chasing the Zero That Matters appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.
Speech in noise prediction by use of cortical auditory evoked potentials in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review
Palantir staff being issued NHS email accounts sparks concerns
Moving In Vivo: Next Steps For CAR T-Cell Therapy
There is no doubt that autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of serious blood cancers. A significant proportion of advanced-stage blood cancer patients who failed to respond to previous therapies now go into remission with this treatment, with some remaining cancer-free in the long term.
However, despite their success, these immunotherapies have significant disadvantages. Although CAR T-cell therapies have essentially rescued advanced-stage patients who previously would only have been offered palliative care, serious side effects such as cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) are associated with the treatment.
All seven CAR T-cell therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since August 2017 are autologous cell therapies, wherein the patient’s own T cells must be extracted and genetically engineered in the lab to produce cancer-targeting CAR T cells that are reinfused into the patient to fight the cancer.
Unless they live near a major cancer center or company with the relevant expertise and lab capacity in-house, many eligible patients miss out on the therapy because the wait time is too long or the whole process is too expensive. Patients must also be admitted to the hospital to undergo lymphodepletion chemotherapy before receiving the final infusion to allow the infused cells to expand, persist, and work better.
“It’s just simply too expensive, too complex to manufacture, and has all kinds of logistical issues that translate to limited patient access,” explained Maurits Geerlings, MD, co-founder, CEO, and president of in vivo CAR T-cell therapy biotech NanoCell Therapeutics, which has offices in Pennsylvania and Utrecht.
“Also, importantly, the batch capacity in highly specialized hospitals is so limited that altogether maybe 10% of patients that are eligible effectively get access to CAR T-cell therapy in the Western world.”

Co-founder, CEO
NanoCell Therapeutics
Initially, after the first ex vivo, autologous CAR T-cell therapies like Novartis’s Kymriah and Kite’s Yescarta were approved in 2017, the field looked to develop “off-the-shelf” allogeneic therapies made from donor cells that would overcome some of the issues with autologous CAR T-cell therapies.
Despite the best efforts of a number of companies and researchers, no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have yet reached the market, although some companies like Allogene have reached Phase II trials. This is likely due to a few factors, such as adverse events linked to the rejection of donor cells, complex engineering problems, and the small margin of benefits of allogeneic over autologous CAR T-cell therapies.
Instead, over the last couple of years, the focus of the field has moved towards developing next-generation in vivo CAR T-cell therapies. Until recently, vectors or nanoparticles that could hit T cells precisely, safely, and predictably enough in humans to justify skipping ex vivo engineering were simply not available, but this is now changing.
In vivo CAR T-cell therapy uses the patient as a bioreactor. Upon injecting an engineered treatment carried by a vector such as a lentivirus or a lipid nanoparticle (LNP), it programs the patient’s T cells to attack either the cancer or autoreactive B cells in the case of autoimmune disease.
The field is still young, but initial clinical results reported last year in multiple myeloma blood cancer by Kelonia Therapeutics and in the B cell-driven autoimmune disease systemic lupus erythematosus by MagicRNA, as well as from EsoBiotec and academic labs, are promising.

Co-founder, CEO
Kelonia Therapeutics
“It’s early days, so I don’t want to overinterpret the data. It’s also only in four patients, but what we are seeing is substantially better than what ex vivo CAR T cells have shown from an efficacy perspective,” emphasized Kelonia CEO and co-founder Kevin Friedman, PhD.
Indeed, this early success seems to have prompted intense investor and big pharma interest in the field. Since March 2025, when EsoBiotec was acquired by AstraZeneca, at least four other in vivo CAR T cell biotechs have been acquired, including Capstan Therapeutics by AbbVie and Interius BioTherapeutics by Kite/Gilead.
Whether in vivo CAR T-cell therapy will truly be the future of the field remains to be seen, but its convenience, economic viability, and the fact that it is effectively an “off-the-shelf” therapy that does not require lymphodepletion make it an attractive prospect for many.

Lentiviral vectors: Sticking with a known quantity
Five of the seven FDA-approved autologous CAR T-cell therapies, including Kymriah, use lentiviral vectors in the lab to engineer a patient’s T cells and transform them into CAR T cells.
Many of the most advanced companies in the in vivo CAR T- cell therapy space are applying similar technologies and using lentiviral vectors to target and transform T cells, but inside the body rather than in the lab.
Kelonia, which is based in Boston, is a leader in the in vivo CAR T-cell space and has already started clinical trials with its lead candidate KLN-1010 for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.
“It’s essentially delivering a fully human anti-BCMA (B cell maturation antigen) CAR to T cells, to reeducate them by expressing this anti-BCMA CAR inside the body to fight their tumor cells. Just like Abecma, or Carvykti, but it’s all done inside the body,” explained Friedman.
At the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting in December last year, the company presented early Phase I results from four patients with relapsed and treatment-resistant myeloma who were treated with KLN-1010.
Although the study was small, the results were promising, with all four patients showing 100% minimal residual disease-negative response rate at follow-up and a lower rate of side effects than approved autologous CAR T-cell therapies.
“With our data and the efficacy and the safety profile that we’re seeing, this has a real shot at getting out of the major medical centers and into the community hospitals where the patients live, so they don’t have to travel to major medical centers,” said Friedman.
“Doctors can potentially treat patients in their own community and get access to the 90% of myeloma patients who, right now, despite the profound clinical benefit that CAR T cells provide, cannot be treated.”

Senior Vice President
Umoja Biopharma
Umoja Biopharma is another biotech using lentiviral vectors to develop in vivo CAR T-cell therapies. “We have three different products in the clinic currently. Two of those products are in B-cell malignancies, and one of the products is in autoimmune disease. And we’re making really great progress in enrolling patients across those studies,” said Ryan Larson, PhD, senior vice president and head of research at Umoja, although the Seattle-based company has not yet released any results from its Phase I studies.
Although Umoja is using lentiviral vectors, it has built in a rapamycin-activated cytokine receptor, which essentially acts as a booster switch for the engineered T cells in cancer patients while slightly dampening the rest of the immune system.
“It allows us to deliver a controlled pro-survival signal selectively to our CAR T cells in vivo,” explained Larson. “We’re able to potentiate persistence in a controlled manner in our in vivo generated CAR T cells with this rapamycin-activated cytokine receptor to drive persistence and ongoing immune surveillance, thus driving the key durable outcomes in oncology specifically.”
The requirements for autoimmune disease patients are different from those of advanced cancer patients, with a greater focus on safety. Long-term depletion of B cells is also not ideal, with the aim being to reset the immune system by getting rid of autoreactive B cells and replacing them with healthy ones.
“You’re eliminating all of the autoreactive repertoire and replacing it with a normal B cell repertoire, thus driving, ideally, a durable response wherein those autoimmune disease patients are no longer reliant on all the various immunosuppressants that are typically used to treat autoimmune disease,” said Larson.
Kite Pharma, now owned by Gilead and headquartered in California, was a pioneer in the autologous CAR T-cell therapy space. It developed Yescarta, one of the first two autologous CAR T-cell therapies approved by the FDA to treat blood cancers in 2017. Kite recently acquired Interius BioTherapeutics, a biotech in the lentiviral in vivo CAR T-cell space, for $350 million.

Senior Vice President
Kite Pharma, a Gilead Company
“The reason why we moved forward with Interius was that the clinical proof of concept for lentiviral-based delivery systems is far more advanced than for LNP-based systems,” said Priti Hegde, PhD, senior vice president and global head of research at Kite. “We were really excited to see that translation of the pharmacokinetics from an ex vivo platform to an in vivo platform.”
While lentiviral vectors are arguably “tried and tested” in the CAR T-cell space, there are some disadvantages associated with using them. For example, they can be hard to produce, implying that it is expensive and challenging to scale up manufacturing.
This is something both Umoja and Kelonia seem to have addressed, however. “We actually are quite unique from a biotech perspective in that we have our own, wholly owned manufacturing facility … It’s really allowed us to have a true pipeline from an in vivo cell therapy development perspective,” said Larson. “We’re actively working in our early phase clinical trials in a manufacturing setting that we know is scalable to commercial readiness.”
Kelonia does not do all its manufacturing in-house, but Friedman said that they have worked hard to develop a system that can be scaled. “Manufacturing is complicated. We like to think that we were thoughtful about our manufacturing approach, but it’s challenging generating these particles, these complicated medicines for Phase I use. We did it, though, and we now have a very reliable and scalable manufacturing process.”
Another potential risk linked to lentiviral and other viral vectors is that there is a small but significant risk of the vector inducing unwanted mutations in the DNA of target cells.
“Viral vectors have a propensity to integrate in transcriptionally active gene regions where you don’t want to go, because that enhances the mutagenesis risk,” noted NanoCell’s Geerlings.
Taking the non-viral route
Not everyone working to develop in vivo CAR T-cell therapies is using viral vectors. The second main route that companies and researchers are following to develop these cell and gene therapies is to use mRNA encapsulated in an LNP.
Last September, Shenzhen-based Chinese biotech MagicRNA published data from a Phase I trial of its in vivo mRNA and LNP-based CAR T-cell therapy in five patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Similar to in Kelonia’s cancer trial, the results were promising. However, larger studies are needed for more conclusive results, as the sample size was small. But rapid, near-complete B cell depletion was seen for up to 10 days with no significant side effects like serious cytokine release syndrome or ICANS.
Since the pandemic, the use of mRNA therapeutics has become much more mainstream. For example, both of the prevalent vaccines against COVID-19 use a combined mRNA–LNP approach. In in vivo CAR T-cell therapy, the LNPs are used to take CAR-encoding mRNA to the right target cells in the body. Once inside a T cell, the LNP breaks apart and releases the mRNA into the cytoplasm. The cell’s protein synthesis machinery reads the mRNA and makes the correct CAR protein, which is then added to the surface of that T cell.
Aera Therapeutics, founded by CRISPR pioneer Feng Zhang, PhD, and based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, takes a combined mRNA–LNP approach to in vivo CAR T-cell therapy development, with a focus on treating B cell-mediated autoimmune disease.

CEO, Aera Therapeutics
“We were really focused on autoimmune indications, so we said, ‘Let’s try to build a product profile that’s a great fit for that,’” explained Akin Akinc, PhD, who is CEO at Aera.
“You have the risk of insertional mutagenesis with lentiviral vectors. Even if those rates are small, they’re not zero … So that’s why we thought an mRNA–LNP approach, where there’s no chance of insertion, is theoretically a more attractive approach.”
Aera has not yet moved into clinical studies but reported preclinical data for its therapy candidate AERA-109 in non-human primates at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting at the end of last year. They showed potent and durable B cell depletion across different tissues in the body.
One potential disadvantage of using a combined mRNA–LNP approach, particularly for treating cancer, is that it is unlikely to last as long as a lentiviral approach. As this could be potentially advantageous in people with autoimmune disease, where B cell depletion does not need to occur over such a long period of time, it seems to be the most common method followed by companies designing in vivo CAR T-cell therapies for autoimmune conditions.
“Our therapeutic goal is to go in and clear out the B cells that exist in the body, both in the periphery and the tissues, and then allow them to repopulate. If we achieve that immune reset, then that’s all that we can do,” said Akinc.

“Then the question is, is there going to be a relapse 12–18 months later? But so long as we clear out all the B cells, which happens pretty quickly, I think there’s no benefit to having the CAR T cells hanging around for longer, because at that point you’ve done the job. Then it’s about whether or not that remission is going to persist.”
NanoCell Therapeutics is also taking a non-viral approach to developing in vivo CAR T-cell therapy for treating B-cell malignancies, but is using DNA instead of RNA. The candidate has not yet reached the clinic, but it has achieved good preclinical results and will soon be tested in non-human primates.
Similar to Aera, NanoCell packages its therapy in targeted LNPs. However, these carry a minicircle DNA that encodes the CAR information and an mRNA transposase that allows the DNA to integrate into the target cell genome.
“We still remain, I think, pretty much in the lead as a company delivering non-viral DNA, because it is very difficult … We see an opportunity for us to actually make a breakthrough there,” said Geerlings.
“The nuclear membrane of the cell is such a barrier. You need to find an opportunity to open it up and to be just in time with your DNA in a way that is not triggering an innate immune response. You also need to have a mechanism by which that DNA can integrate, because otherwise, you will end up having an episomal expression of your DNA.”
The approach taken by NanoCell is definitely at an earlier stage than the lentiviral and mRNA–LNP approaches that are already generating clinical data, but there are a couple of other companies working on similar products, like Stylus Medicine and CPTx. If it works, then this approach has the promise of ruling out problems with viral vectors, such as manufacturing difficulties. It would also theoretically generate longer-lasting and more durable treatment effects than could be achieved with mRNA.
What’s next for CAR T-cell therapy?
It seems that we are on the cusp of next-generation in vivo CAR T-cell therapies, although the studies published so far have all been small and it remains to be seen if the current buzz in the space is based on hype or reality.
“I do think that in vivo will go from a platform with initial proof-of-concept to broad applicability faster than perhaps ex vivo platforms did,” said Hegde. “But we have a lot of scientific questions. For example, in the absence of lymphodepletion, can an in vivo platform give you the depth and durability of response that an ex vivo platform does?”
There is a lot of interest in whether safer and more accessible in vivo CAR T-cell therapy can make this treatment approach more appealing to people with B-cell-mediated autoimmune conditions than autologous CAR T-cell approaches. The initial clinical results are good, but questions remain about how long the results will last.
“I think these are going to work, but we’re going to learn things that allow us to make second-generation products that are even better and even more potent,” said Akinc.
On the cancer side of things, most companies developing in vivo CAR T-cell therapies for oncology indications are sticking with blood cancers against which autologous CAR T-cell therapies have already been shown to be efficacious.
“I think we’ll continue to see strong proof of concept in de-risked indications like the hematologic malignancies over the next year,” said Larson. “Over the next two years, I think we’re going to be closely watching the field for durable outcomes in oncology and the ability to drive immune reset in autoimmune disease that then translates to durable remissions in autoimmune disease patients.”
A big question on everyone’s mind is whether this new technology could help overcome some of the hurdles that prevent CAR T-cell therapy from being successful at treating “solid” tumors, such as working out how to overcome diverse tumor microenvironments.
“I think there’s great potential in solid tumors. One reason why we went with Interius was [that] we think that the application of the in vivo platforms could really break open the problems that we perhaps had in solid tumors with ex vivo CAR T cells,” said Hegde.
“The nice thing about the in vivo space is you can put whatever targeting antigen you want on the virus to go to a specific cell type. So it’s really up to your imagination, how you want to design an in vivo CAR T cell.”
Dispatch Bio is also in the CAR T-cell therapy space, but is targeting solid tumors rather than developing in vivo CAR T cells. The company is based in Philadelphia and was co-founded by Carl June, MD, one of the pioneers of CAR T-cell therapy.
The technology they are developing is a two-component system, in which a human-specific adenovirus designed to infect cancer cells, but not healthy tissue, is used to “paint” the tumor cells so that a CAR T cell can more easily home in on the cancer and destroy it.

Chief Scientific Officer
Dispatch Bio
“The virus gets into the tumor microenvironment and then, because it’s a virus, creates an inflammatory condition. When it does that, it’s immediately more supportive for T cells,” explained Dispatch chief scientific officer Barbra Sasu, PhD.
“We’re doing what T cells can’t do for themselves. We’re expressing a target and directing them to kill what we want them to kill. We’re also adding a cytokine to support them and, actually, the endogenous immune system too.”
The two-part approach is very new, so Sasu and colleagues are testing the system using a known autologous CAR T-cell therapy approach. But she says that the system is potentially very flexible and could allow a wide range of therapies, including in vivo CAR T-cell therapies, to be combined with the viral targeting approach if they prove effective.
“What we wanted to do was to start with something that we felt we understood very well. We also had the benefit in our first program of being able to work with people who’ve already developed CAR T-cell therapies,” said Sasu. “That’s a big advantage because [when] coming in with a two-component system, it’s good if you don’t have to refine both parts at once.”
Another CAR T-based approach being developed by Kite and others in this space is logic gating, which is the development of IF, AND, and NOT switches to allow much more refined control of CAR T-cell therapies by clinicians and potentially increase effectiveness in complex solid tumors.
“We’re really interested in exploring the logic gating space and what it can do to deliver CAR T cells more safely, especially in solid tumors, where the antigens aren’t as broadly homogeneously expressed,” said Hegde.
Helen Albert is senior editor at Inside Precision Medicine and a freelance science journalist. Prior to going freelance, she was editor-in-chief at Labiotech, an English-language, digital publication based in Berlin focusing on the European biotech industry. Before moving to Germany, she worked at a range of different science and health-focused publications in London. She was editor of The Biochemist magazine and blog, but also worked as a senior reporter at Springer Nature’s medwireNews for a number of years, as well as freelancing for various international publications. She has written for New Scientist, Chemistry World, Biodesigned, The BMJ, Forbes, Science Business, Cosmos magazine, and GEN. Helen has academic degrees in genetics and anthropology, and also spent some time early in her career working at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge before deciding to move into journalism.
The post Moving <i>In Vivo</i>: Next Steps For CAR T-Cell Therapy appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.
Plant Molecular Farming Comes of Age
Plant molecular farming (PMF) may seem like a bold option for companies accustomed to mammalian or microbial systems, but recent advances have transformed plant-based bioproduction into serious, scalable biomanufacturing platforms able to produce even complex biologics cost-effectively.
“A major advantage is sustainability,” Marco P.C. Marques, PhD, associate professor, University College London (UCL), tells GEN. This comes at a time when “…regulators and global initiatives are putting real pressure on industry to reduce environmental footprint(s). Because plants grow using low energy inputs rather than stainless steel reactors or energy-intensive systems, they can bring down operating costs, reduce carbon emissions, and provide more flexible manufacturing options.”
Additional benefits include PMF systems’ ability to support eukaryotic protein-folding and post-translational modification pathways, their lack of human pathogens, minimal biosafety risks, and compatibility with distributed manufacturing.
PMF reached its current state because sensors, host plant engineering, AI-enabled models, and related technologies have become more mature, reliable, and predictable in the past few years. Consequently, “PMF platforms can deliver consistent, good manufacturing practice (GMP)-compatible performance while needing far less infrastructure, [which] allows much faster setup than conventional approaches,” Marques says.
Robust, economic, responsible
In a recent paper, he and first author Teresa Iucci, PhD, a bioprocessing scientist at Sapienza University of Rome and UCL, cite 13 companies that are using or have used plants to produce a variety of proteins, including antibodies, enzymes, and peptides, for vaccines and other biologics. Many are at clinical or commercial scale.
Those examples show “that controlled cultivation, advanced transient-expression systems, and more refined downstream workflows can overcome many of the technical and regulatory hurdles historically associated with plant-based biomanufacturing.” In particular, they note substantial improvements in host plant engineering. Now, they point out, Nicotina plants can produce mAbs and Fc-fusion proteins that closely match those derived from CHO cells.
However, “Realizing the full value of these biological innovations will depend on aligning PMF with contemporary digital manufacturing principles,” Iucci and Marques stress.
“There is a lot of scope for continued innovation…particularly on the molecular biology side, where further gains in expression, stability, and product quality are very achievable,” Marques elaborates. “Downstream processing could also be better tailored to plant-based hosts,” to lower costs further.
The benefits of PMF are well-recognized, but biomanufacturers also need clear, streamlined regulatory pathways and the internal determination that PMF is worth sustained investment.
For biomanufacturers, “A good starting point is simply to treat PMF as a genuine production platform rather than an interesting alternative,” he says. To be able to compare PMF products with those derived from traditional mammalian or microbial cultures, he calls for the industry to standardize unit operations and generate regulatory-grade datasets, and then to run comparability studies and pilot-scale campaigns.
Running such campaigns is becoming increasingly practical with the conjunction of sensors and data-driven processors. In vertical farming facilities, for example, every parameter critical for plant growth is tightly monitored and controlled using digital sensors to enable precise, real-time environmental adjustments.
Ultimately, this allows producers to select the optimal timing of such events as infiltration and harvest at levels not possible in conventional greenhouses. “The long-term objective is a semi-continuous, digitally regulated PMF production line that links infiltration, extraction, and purification into a coherent, self-correcting workflow,” Iucci and Marques write.
Transitioning from mammalian or microbial systems to PMF, “is easier said than done…especially when companies already have well-established mammalian or microbial platforms with validated processes and established supply chains,” Marques acknowledges. “In many respects, it would be simpler to design a PMF-based approach from scratch than to retrofit it into an existing operation…but with the right incentives (such as additional revenue streams from side processes), application cases, and evidence, we may well see more companies prepared to make that shift.”
The post Plant Molecular Farming Comes of Age appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.
Lung Screening Incidental Findings May Guide Follow-Up for Other Cancers
An analysis of the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has found that the presence of certain types of abnormalities in regions outside of the lungs on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) images may be associated with a significantly increased risk for extrapulmonary cancer.
The abnormalities, termed significant incidental findings (SIFs), could help clinicians decide when follow-up care is likely to catch extrapulmonary cancer early and when it may not be necessary.
“In this paper, we provide an evidence base for making decisions on abnormalities outside of the lungs that might be seen at lung screening,” said study author Ilana Gareen, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at Brown University School of Public Health. “The goal is to give physicians and patients better data so that they can make more informed choices about those abnormalities that should be considered for follow-up and those that most likely can be ignored.”
Writing in JAMA Network Open, Gareen and co-authors explain that LDCT lung cancer screening frequently detects SIFs unrelated to lung cancer; in the NLST, 34% of 26,455 patients screened with LDCT had SIFs reported but the nature of the SIFs varied.
And although there are recommendations for reporting and addressing SIFs, there is limited evidence for an association between SIFs detected at LDCT lung cancer screening and extrapulmonary cancer diagnoses.
To address this, Gareen and team analyzed data from 75,104 LDCT screening rounds performed in 26,445 individuals (mean age, 61 years; 59.0% men) who were randomly assigned to receive LDCT during the NSLT. The participants had a history of heavy smoking (≥30 pack–years), meaning they are also at high risk for several extrapulmonary cancers, including pancreatic, bladder, and kidney cancer.
The researchers focused on SIFs that were labelled as potentially indicative of extrapulmonary cancer (cancer SIF), rather than those that possibly indicated emphysema or cardiovascular disease.
They report that cancer SIFs were recorded for 2265 (3.0%) screening rounds in 1807 (6.8%) participants across the three screening rounds they received.
Participants with cancer SIFs were significantly older than those with no cancer SIF (mean 62.1 vs. 61.4 years) and significantly more likely to have a history of a smoking-related disease (68.6 vs. 65.7%).
Within one year of a screening round, 1025 participants were diagnosed with an extrapulmonary cancer. Of these, 67 (6.5%) had a SIF on LDCT. This corresponds to 3.0% of participants with a cancer SIF.
Overall, the risk for extrapulmonary cancer among the people with a cancer SIF was 29.6 per 1000 screening rounds compared with 13.3 per 1000 screening rounds in those without a cancer SIF. After adjustment for potential confounders, the marginal risk difference between the two groups was 13.9 per 1000 participants, suggesting that for every 1000 people screened, the presence of a cancer SIF is associated with 13.9 additional cases of extrapulmonary cancer.
When the researchers looked at specific cancer types, they found that the marginal risk difference was substantially higher for urinary cancers, at 17.0 per 1000 participants. It was 5.0 for digestive cancer, 12.3 for breast cancer, and 13.8 for other cancers including lymphoma and leukemia.
“In general, if an abnormality is found that might indicate cancer, the patient receives additional imaging to evaluate that abnormality,” Gareen told Inside Precision Medicine. “Our paper provides additional information as to those abnormalities that should be considered to increase the risk of a cancer diagnosis.”
Importantly, mortality from extrapulmonary cancer accounted for 22.3% of the certified deaths in the LDCT arm of the NLST. Therefore “early detection of these cancers may facilitate early treatment and potentially reduce associated morbidity and mortality,” the authors write. “Identification of cancer SIFs associated with extrapulmonary cancers in NLST participants could be used to plan appropriate diagnostic evaluations for patients undergoing lung cancer screening.”
Gareen said the next step will be to determine if the findings are replicated in lung screening in the community, or if the rate in community screening is higher or lower.
In accompanying comment, Patrick Senior and Andrew Creamer, both from Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, in Gloucester, United Kingdom, point out that the false positive rate for a cancer SIF was 97% but say “it is hard to imagine a scenario in which an incidental finding with even a possibility of representing cancer would be disregarded.”
However, they note that “when considered in the context of the numbers of people eligible for lung cancer screening programs around the world, acting on such findings poses a considerable additional burden on the health systems that must investigate them.”
Senior and Creamer say that the results “underscore the importance of both a robust health economics analysis of how screening programs manage such incidental findings and patient-centered research to understand the impact that such unexpected results may have on the individual. Further research is needed to ensure that screening programs are confident when faced with information they did not ask for.”
The post Lung Screening Incidental Findings May Guide Follow-Up for Other Cancers appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.

