3 ms·
Historically, and probably the mainstream hypothesis, is that you need chemo to be systemic in order to take care of micrometastatic disease (tumors that you ca
by mejiaoneto 6y ago
Historically, and probably the mainstream hypothesis, is that you need chemo to be systemic in order to take care of micrometastatic disease (tumors that you cannot see). However, with the advent of immunooncology (IO) therapies (drugs that help your body recognize the tumor) and the benefits of having chemo + IO drugs is challenging that dogma. Certain chemo drugs are known to trigger an immune response. Having a technology that gives intense amount of chemo at the tumor and without diminishing the persons immune system. Our technology opens the door to have this effect in humans. We have seen those effects in mice studies and presented the results in cancer conferences.
- evmar 6y agoThanks so much for answering! I think what I'm trying to understand is why you'd want to target chemicals if other options like surgery also are targeted. Is the application then for tumors that are hard to remove surgically?
- jcims 6y agoSurgery is not a great option. It’s incredibly invasive, it’s risky, it costs valuable time to schedule, it’s expensive and at the point where you’re metastatic it’s not curative in any way. I haven’t read the article, but if you can integrate this with regular chemo cadence to amplify effects at certain locations it seems like a no brainer.
- mejiaoneto 6y agoExactly. For us at Shasqi, it was about combining the spatial control of surgery with the temporal control (flexibility of dosing) of oral or intravenous drugs.