Cancer
Ending the guesswork in cancer care: A CEO’s vision for predictive precision oncology

By Wolfgang Hackl M.D., Founder & CEO, OncoGenomX Inc., Switzerland
During my career as an oncologist and cancer drug developer, one question haunted me more than any other: Why do some patients respond to therapy — while others, with the same diagnosis, do not?
We have innovative treatments, biomarkers, advanced lab tests, and guidelines. But far too often, despite all that science, our treatment decisions come down to educated guesswork.
As medicine evolves, so do our data — but not always our ability to act on it with precision.
That enduring gap between what we know and what we can predict inspired me to found OncoGenomX, and to build PredictionStar™, a platform designed to redefine what precision oncology truly means.
From Biomarkers to Behavior: The Missing Link
Today, most molecular cancer tests focus on eligibility: they tell us whether a tumour expresses a particular target or carries a known mutation. This is useful, but it’s only half the story.

Eligibility does not equal efficacy.
Knowing that a patient’s tumour expresses the estrogen receptor (ER), or harbours a PIK3CA mutation, doesn’t mean it will respond to hormone therapy or PI3K inhibition. It simply means those drugs might work. And in oncology, “might” is not enough.
PredictionStar™ was built to close this precision gap — by answering not just which drugs can be used, but which will actually work.
We call this Precision Drug–Tumor Matching: the ability to segregate effective from ineffective treatments by connecting genomic and phenotypic insights into a coherent tumour profile predictive of therapeutic response.
Introducing PredictionStar™: Coherent Biomarker Intelligence
PredictionStar™ is a multidimensional tumour profiling and decision-support system powered by what we term Generative Clinical Intelligence™ — the synthesis of high-quality sequencing data and AI-driven interpretation into clear, actionable clinical guidance.
Traditional assays analyse biomarkers in isolation, treating each gene mutation or expression pattern as a separate clue.
PredictionStar™ instead identifies logically connected biomarker constellations — genomic enablers that reveal which response mechanisms are active, and phenotypic differentiators how likely the tumour will respond.
This networked approach replaces fragmented snapshots with an integrated, functional map of tumour behaviour.
It provides oncologists with something they rarely get from today’s tests: confidence. In clinical modelling, PredictionStar™ has the potential to reduce overtreatment fivefold and lower the cost of achieving one year of tumour growth control by 35 per cent.
But the numbers tell only part of the story. Behind them are patients spared from unnecessary toxicity — and doctors empowered to treat with precision instead of probability.
Built on the Technology of Giants
PredictionStar™ was designed for seamless integration into modern real-world workflows, harmonized and cross-validated to ensure reliability, and reproducibility.

The platform’s pre-sequencing tumor workup is fully standardised, minimizing inter-laboratory variability that can otherwise reach 70 per cent.
From tumour processing to data interpretation, PredictionStar™ enforces the same rigorous quality in every step, producing consistent and concordant results across labs.
As far as cloud architecture optimized for medical data privacy and global scalability we are privileged to work with world class-players of the health IOT industry
(F. Gaede, Oct 2025, Nordcloud).
A Femtech Focus: Personalising Breast Cancer Therapy
While PredictionStar™ has broad oncology applications, our first focus is hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, the most prevalent form among women.
It is here that the limits of current diagnostics are most evident — and the need for predictive and prescriptive clarity is greatest.
Even within hormone-dependent breast cancer, the most favorable form of the disease, patient outcomes vary widely. Some women respond beautifully to endocrine therapy for years, while others progress rapidly.
What makes the difference? The answers are buried in the tumour’s individual response profiles — but until now, we lacked the tools to decode them. PredictionStar™ offers that decoding ability.
Our non-interventional validation study, conducted in collaboration with clinical researchers from the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in Cincinnati, Los Angeles, and Miami, involves data from over 4,300 patients with hormone receptor-positive disease.
By correlating predicted responses with actual treatment outcomes, we aim to establish a new clinical standard for predictive accuracy.
Our roadmap includes RUO and LDT certification in 2026, FDA-IDE clearance in Q2 2027, first RUO test sales as early as Q1 2027, and clinical study use from Q3 2027 onwards.
Redefining Precision Oncology
To understand why this matters, we need to reframe what “precision” means.
Most tests today are prognostic or eligibility-based. They classify risk or confirm target presence. PredictionStar™ adds a third, transformative dimension: functional prediction. It asks, “Which therapies will this specific tumour respond to — and how strongly?”
This evolution turns diagnostics into a true decision-support tool, enabling oncologists to design treatment compositions optimized for efficacy, rather than constrained by averages.
The distinction may seem subtle, but its impact for individuals living with breast cancer is enormous: Prognostic and eligibility tests describe. PredictionStar™ guides.
Innovation Through Unity
Our strength lies in collaboration.
I’ve often said that OncoGenomX stands “on the technology of giants, powered by the ambition to transform.” That is more than a slogan — it’s our reality. We built PredictionStar™ not as an isolated product, but as a platform for partnership.
Its architecture invites integration — with hospital systems, sequencing providers, AI developers, and pharmaceutical R&D pipelines.
In the coming years, we envision PredictionStar™ evolving into a broader family of tools: PredictionStar DX™ for predictive diagnostics, PredictionStar GCI™ for data integration and generation of actionable clinical intelligence, and PredictionStar IOT™ for real-time connectivity. Each module serves the same purpose: to transform complexity into clarity.
From Data to Decisions: A Personal Reflection
At its heart, PredictionStar™ was born from empathy.
As a clinician, I saw too many patients fall through the cracks — not because we lacked treatments, but because we lacked foresight.
Data without interpretation is noise. Our mission is to turn that noise into understanding.
When I speak with oncologists today, I sense both excitement and relief: “We will no longer be limited to maybes.” “We can begin to quantify response likelihood, combine therapies more rationally, and give patients something we cannot give today: certainty”.
Technology can be transformative, but only when anchored in purpose. For OncoGenomX, that purpose is simple — to give every patient the best possible chance at lasting response.
The Road Ahead
Our journey is just beginning. We are validating, scaling, and expanding across cancer types — from breast to prostate, lung, and beyond.
But our guiding principle remains unchanged: wherever there is cancer, there is a need for precision drug–tumour matching.
The convergence of genomics, phenomics, AI, and clinical data is redefining healthcare.
PredictionStar™ is part of that transformation — proving that predictive precision is not a futuristic concept, but an attainable standard.
We owe it to patients, to clinicians, and to science itself to make that standard universal.
In Closing
When I founded OncoGenomX, I imagined a world where no cancer patient has to live with uncertainty — where treatment is guided by prediction, not probability.
Today, that world feels within reach. PredictionStar™ is more than technology. It’s a promise:
That every patient deserves clarity. That every tumour can be understood.
And that, together, we can end the guesswork in cancer care.
Contact: Dr. Wolfgang Hackl | Founder & CEO, OncoGenomX | E-Mail | LinkedIn WH | Company Webpage | LinkedIn OGX
Insight
Black women want more accessible breast cancer screening info, study finds

Black women in the UK want clearer, more accessible breast cancer screening information, research has found.
The study looked at why Black African and Black Caribbean women are less likely than white women to attend breast screening.
Researchers at the University of Surrey held focus groups and interviews with 47 Black African and Black Caribbean women aged 50 to 71.
Women in this age group are routinely invited for NHS breast screening.
The researchers said only 45 per cent of Black women attend screening, compared with 63 per cent of white women.
Anietie Aliu, lead author, postgraduate researcher at the University of Surrey and registered nurse, said: “Diagnosing breast cancer early can dramatically improve a person’s chance of survival.
“Breast cancer screening plays an important role in this by identifying the cancer and ensuring a person receives speedy treatment.
“Despite the importance of screening, Black women are less likely to attend appointments than white females.
“This puts them at risk of a potential cancer being diagnosed late and spreading to other areas of the body. We need to understand what is preventing Black women from attending these appointments and help identify ways to remove such barriers.”
The study found a need to increase awareness of breast cancer screening, especially among women less familiar with the service.
Some women, particularly those born outside the UK, knew little about breast screening before receiving their first invitation.
Others questioned why they needed screening when they had no symptoms.
The importance of trusted conversations was also identified.
Researchers found that some Black women expected their GPs to speak to them about breast screening, particularly before they reached screening age.
Although NHS breast screening is organised through national screening services, researchers said GPs often have established relationships with patients and may be well placed to offer brief advice on preventive care, including breast screening.
Participants called for stronger links between GP practices, breast screening services and Black community champions.
They said this could help women receive trusted information, ask questions and feel reassured.
Faith and religious beliefs also shaped decisions for some women.
Some Black African Christian women said illness, including cancer, was not permitted by God in their bodies, while others saw screening as a personal choice that did not conflict with Christian faith.
Muslim women highlighted the importance of being able to state their religion on medical appointment forms to help ensure they were seen by a female mammographer.
A mammographer is a healthcare professional trained to carry out breast screening scans.
Aliu added: “Breast screening can save lives, but our findings show that attendance is shaped by multiple factors, not just awareness, although awareness remains important.
“Women need relatable screening information, reassurance, flexible appointments and services that are accessible within their communities.
“Many felt that invitation letters were too formal, and that leaflets and media imagery did not reflect them, making it harder to relate to screening.”
Dr Afrodita Marcu, senior research fellow at the University of Surrey and member of the research team, said: “We need a more collaborative approach, where primary care, screening services and community voices work together to support women before, during and after the invitation.”
The researchers said future breast screening interventions should be designed with Black women, rather than for them.
They said user-friendly and culturally relevant resources, developed with communities, healthcare professionals and screening services, could improve understanding, reduce fear and make breast screening feel more accessible and reassuring.
Dr Robert Kerrison, associate professor of cancer care at the University of Surrey, said: “There is no question that breast screening can be lifesaving, but we need to make it easier for women to understand, access and feel reassured by the programme.
“This means improving communication, addressing practical barriers and making sure healthcare professionals and community partners are supported to provide clear and trusted information.”
The team has also explored healthcare professionals’ perspectives and worked with stakeholders to develop user-friendly materials with Black women.
Researchers said this co-designed approach could help ensure breast screening messages are culturally relevant, practical and shaped by the people they are intended to support.
Cancer
Breast cancer rising rapidly in Asian American women, study finds

Breast cancer rates have risen rapidly among Asian American women over the past two decades, with some of the steepest increases among women under 50, new research has revealed.
Rates rose by more than three per cent a year in nearly every Asian American ethnic group studied, much faster than in any other US ethnic group.
The increase was particularly marked among women under 50 and in cases involving advanced-stage disease or certain aggressive subtypes of the cancer.
The study found even larger increases among Chinese and Vietnamese women.
Breast cancer rates among Native Hawaiian women were already among the highest recorded among US women, but rose by about one per cent a year, less than the increases seen in Asian American groups.
The researchers said increased screening was unlikely to explain the trend because screening would be expected to identify more cancers at an earlier stage.
Instead, cancers that had already spread increased at the fastest rate.
Triple-negative breast cancer, considered the most aggressive subtype, rose by more than six per cent a year among Chinese American women between 2017 and 2022.
Scarlett Lin Gomez, senior author and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, said: “These patterns are highly concerning from a disparities standpoint.
“They underscore why it is so important to move beyond treating Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders as a single population.”
Researchers analysed about 150,000 cases of invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2022 using data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Programme.
The analysis covered nine Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations across 14 states. Together, these states account for about two-thirds of the US population within these groups.
Except for Native Hawaiian women, Asian American women have historically had lower breast cancer rates than non-Hispanic white women.
However, the gap has narrowed rapidly. By 2022, incidence among Asian American women under 50 was comparable with that recorded among white women.
The reasons for the increase among women under 50 remain unclear.
Changes in reproductive patterns, diet and other lifestyle factors may play a part, but researchers said they did not fully explain the findings.
They said previously unidentified risk factors may also be contributing to the rises in some Asian American communities.
Researchers hope two UCSF-based studies, the CRANE breast cancer study and the ASPIRE cohort study, will provide insights into these factors.
Gomez said: “Understanding why breast cancer is increasing so rapidly in these communities is critical.
“At the same time, we need to ensure that women across all Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities have access to culturally appropriate education, screening, and timely follow-up care.”
Cancer
Postpartum breast cancers may be biologically more aggressive, new study finds

Breast cancer diagnosed within three years of childbirth, especially the first year, may be biologically more aggressive, a study suggests.
The findings add to evidence that postpartum breast cancer may be a distinct form of the disease.
They also suggest the period of greatest biological risk may occur earlier than previously thought.
The study was led by investigators at the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Dr Nimmi Kapoor, associate professor of surgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and senior author of the study, said: “We’ve long recognised that breast cancers diagnosed after pregnancy can behave differently, but we haven’t known when that increased risk is biologically strongest.
“Our findings suggest that the first one to three years after childbirth represent an important window when some tumours may have more aggressive characteristics.”
Breast cancer rates among younger women have been rising, and scientists have been investigating whether women having their first child later may help explain some of the trend.
Pregnancy causes major changes in breast tissue. Previous studies have found that cancers diagnosed soon after childbirth are more likely to have aggressive features and worse outcomes.
Researchers have not agreed on how long the period of increased risk lasts. Some studies define postpartum breast cancer as occurring within one or two years of delivery, while others extend the period to five or even 10 years.
To better define the period of risk, the team studied whether tumour biology varied according to the time since a woman’s most recent childbirth.
The study involved 385 women aged 45 or younger with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated at UCLA between 2011 and 2024.
Hormone receptor-positive cancers grow in response to hormones such as oestrogen or progesterone. HER2-negative cancers do not have unusually high levels of a protein that can promote tumour growth.
Each tumour had been assessed using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, a genomic test that measures the activity of 21 genes linked to the risk of cancer returning and the potential benefit of chemotherapy.
Researchers grouped the women according to the time between their last childbirth and breast cancer diagnosis.
They compared women who had never given birth with those diagnosed at different intervals after childbirth.
The team then examined whether recurrence scores and other tumour features differed between the groups and whether any patterns remained after accounting for factors including age and lymph node status.
Women diagnosed within the first year after childbirth had significantly higher recurrence scores than those who had never given birth.
This suggested biological features associated with a higher risk of the cancer returning.
Scores were also higher, but to a lesser extent, among women diagnosed during the second and third years after delivery.
Women diagnosed within three years of childbirth were nearly three times more likely to fall into a higher recurrence score category than women who had never given birth.
They were also more likely to have higher-grade tumours, meaning their cancer cells appeared more abnormal and potentially more aggressive under a microscope.
Women diagnosed more than three years after childbirth did not show the same consistent increase in recurrence scores.
The findings also suggest that standard clinical measures, including tumour size and whether the cancer has reached the lymph nodes, may not fully capture the differences in this group.
Gene expression testing appeared to identify biological risk that was not always reflected in routine examination of tumour tissue.
The researchers said reproductive history could therefore provide additional context when genomic test results are interpreted in younger patients.
Despite the more aggressive genetic features, women diagnosed within three years of childbirth did not have significantly worse short-term outcomes.
After about four years of follow-up, recurrence and survival rates were similar to those among other patients in the study.
Researchers said one possible explanation was that women with higher-risk tumours received more intensive treatment, including chemotherapy, ovarian function suppression and newer targeted therapies.
The findings also suggest that aggressive tumour biology does not necessarily lead to worse short-term outcomes when patients receive effective treatment.
The researchers said larger studies involving several institutions and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm the findings.
They added that postpartum status may need greater consideration when breast cancer is assessed and treated in younger women.
Kapoor said: “Our findings suggest that the years immediately following childbirth represent a unique biological window for some breast cancers.
“Understanding why these tumours behave differently may help us better identify patients who need closer monitoring or more tailored treatment approaches.”
Diagnosis2 weeks agoTwo “gamechanger” tests set to speed up endometriosis diagnosis on the NHS
Insight2 weeks agoWomen with PMOS should have annual NHS checks, new guidance says
News6 days agoNew menopause drug approved for use by NHS in Scotland
Cancer2 weeks agoThousands of women could avoid painful cancer exam with new AI blood test
Entrepreneur2 weeks agoApplications open for the third W Accelerate with Merck KGaA and M Ventures
Fertility2 weeks agoOlder women face lower chance of fertility treatment working, even with donor eggs, study finds
News2 weeks agoWe built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters
News2 weeks agoExperts call for regulation of toxic period product chemicals













1 Comment