IBJNews

IU research leads to new genetic test

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It took the identification of 19 different genes for researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine to develop a test for a rare form of cancer.

But their gene-hunting has paid off, as a Texas-based company announced Monday the test is available for doctors to use.

Dr. Sunil Badve, Dr. Patrick Loehrer and researcher Yesim Gökmen-Polar identified 19 genes that appear to forecast the chance that thymoma patients will develop a second tumor after the first is removed via surgery.

Thymoma refers to cancerous tumors in the thymus, which is in front of the heart and is part of the immune system. Thymoma affects only about 40 people each year in the United States.

The IU researchers licensed the test last fall to Friendswood, Texas-based Castle Biosciences Inc., a cancer molecular diagnostics company focused on rare and orphan cancers. Castle performed all the needed validation on the test.

The test, DecisionDx-Thymoma, could identify patients at low risk for a recurrence of thymoma, sparing them the pain of additional chemotherapy or radiation treatments after removal of their tumor. Such recurrence is known as metastasis.

“The ability to accurately assess metastatic risk based upon the thymoma’s molecular signature will enable personalizing therapeutic options,” said Loehrer, who is director of the IU Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center. “This will assist in deciding which patients should receive post-operative therapy.”

Support for the IU research was also provided by the Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute and IU Simon Cancer Center.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT