In today's ACT Brief, we examine what genuine patient voice requires beyond buzzwords, why AI's next bottleneck is system integration not models, and how regulators across three jurisdictions are formalizing patient input requirements.
|Articles|March 8, 2016
MM LAB Software Matches Oncology Patients to Treatments
The software allows pathology labs, hospitals, genomic cores and physicians to match patients’ test results to personalized cancer treatments, including clinical trials and experimental drugs.
Advertisement
MolecularMatch, a personalized cancer treatment company launched its MM LAB software, which is available through an online portal. The software allows pathology labs, hospitals, genomic cores and physicians to match patients’ test results to personalized cancer treatments, including clinical trials and experimental drugs, in real-time. After test results are matched to treatments in MM LAB, the options are curated by the client laboratory's staff and included in the reports sent back to physicians and patients. The solution works using molecular science / artificial intelligence based algorithms.
Read the
Advertisement
Related to this article
The clinical research industry talks about patient-centeredness constantly but embeds it too late, too narrowly, and without clear ownership, and the cost shows up in enrollment failures, protocol deviations, and outcomes that don't reflect what patients actually care about.
Why clinical development’s next AI bottleneck is not the model, but the system around it.
In today's ACT Brief, we examine FDA's expedited pathway for first-in-human trials, why operating model design matters more than sourcing strategy, and how early readiness signals predict trial risk.
FDA Opens Applications for Expedited IND Pilot Designed to Accelerate First-in-Human Trial Timelines
The pilot pairs drug sponsors with qualified research institutions to compress the path from drug identification to first-in-human study through rolling submission review and earlier coordination of institutional review board and site activation activities.
A Syneos Health-announced study from Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development finds no single sourcing model consistently outperforms others, pointing instead to vendor coordination, governance, and fit-for-purpose design as the real performance drivers.
Regulatory expectations for patient input in drug development have shifted from aspiration to documented methodology across three major jurisdictions.
This episode of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, hosted by Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., and Kelly Ritch, chief operating officer of ArcheMedX, Inc., explores why training completion metrics like attendance and quiz scores fail to capture true study readiness, and how measuring both competence and confidence can reveal trial risks before enrollment even begins.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Applied Clinical Trials Online
1
Lessons from Hundreds of Clinical Trials: AI’s Successes, Gaps, and Opportunities
2
The Execution Gap: Why Clinical Trial Infrastructure Has to Be Built Before AI Can Deliver
3
Benchmarking Study Finds Clinical Trial Performance Is Shaped by Operating Model Design, Not Sourcing Strategy
4
What "Patient Voice" Actually Requires: Beyond the Buzzword
5