Despite billions invested over 20 years in targeted and genome-based therapies, the real-world benefit to cancer patients has been minimal, helping only a small fraction of the population. This highlights a profound gap and the urgent need for new paradigms like functional precision oncology.
Related Insights
The traditional drug-centric trial model is failing. The next evolution is trials designed to validate the *decision-making process* itself, using platforms to assign the best therapy to heterogeneous patient groups, rather than testing one drug on a narrow population.
An individual tumor can have hundreds of unique mutations, making it impossible to predict treatment response from a single genetic marker. This molecular chaos necessitates functional tests that measure a drug's actual effect on the patient's cells to determine the best therapy.
The same cancer-driving mutation behaves differently depending on the cell's internal "wiring." For example, a drug targeting a mutation works in melanoma but induces resistance in colorectal cancer due to a bypass pathway. This cellular context is why genetic data alone is insufficient.
The future of medicine isn't about finding a single 'best' modality like CAR-T or gene therapy. Instead, it's about strategic convergence, choosing the right tool—be it a bispecific, ADC, or another biologic—based on the patient's specific disease stage and urgency of treatment.
With over 5,000 oncology drugs in development and a 9-out-of-10 failure rate, the current model of running large, sequential clinical trials is not viable. New diagnostic platforms are essential to select drugs and patient populations more intelligently and much earlier in the process.
The progress of AI in predicting cancer treatment is stalled not by algorithms, but by the data used to train them. Relying solely on static genetic data is insufficient. The critical missing piece is functional, contextual data showing how patient cells actually respond to drugs.
The panel suggests AKT inhibitor trials in prostate cancer have been disappointing due to suboptimal biomarker selection (e.g., PTEN IHC). A similar drug in breast cancer showed significant survival benefit when using a more precise NGS-based strategy, indicating a potential path forward if the right patient population is identified genetically.
Three 2025 trials (AMPLITUDE, PSMA-addition, CAPItello) introduced personalized therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, significant benefits were confined to narrow subgroups, like BRCA-mutated patients. This suggests future success depends on even more stringent patient selection, not broader application of targeted agents.
A major frustration in genetics is finding 'variants of unknown significance' (VUS)—genetic anomalies with no known effect. AI models promise to simulate the impact of these unique variants on cellular function, moving medicine from reactive diagnostics to truly personalized, predictive health.
Cellcuity's drug is effective in breast cancer patients without PIK3CA mutations (wild type). This challenges the dominant precision medicine model that requires a specific genetic marker, showing that a pathway's aberrant activity can be a sufficient therapeutic target on its own.
