An experimental drug slowed triple-negative breast cancer in mice by flooding tumour cells with toxic fats.

Triple-negative breast cancer lacks three common drug targets, making it one of the hardest-to-treat and most aggressive forms of the disease.

The compound, known as DH20931, appears to push cancer cells past their limits by triggering a surge in ceramides, fat-like molecules that place the cells under intense stress until they self-destruct.

In lab experiments, the drug also made standard chemotherapy more effective. When combined with doxorubicin, researchers were able to reduce the dose needed to kill cancer cells by about fivefold.

The drug targets an enzyme known as CerS2 to sharply increase production of these lipids and stress cancer cells. Healthy cells, by contrast, showed lower sensitivity to the drug in lab tests.

While the early results are promising, further preclinical and clinical trials would still be needed to determine the safety and effectiveness of DH20931 in humans.

Satya Narayan, a professor in the University of Florida’s College of Medicine, led the study with an international group of collaborators.

The researchers published their results on human-derived tumours on 21 April and presented their findings on combination therapy at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego.

Narayan likened the drug’s effects to a home’s electrical system handling a power surge.

While healthy cells act like a properly grounded and installed circuit, cancer cells are more like a jumble of mismatched wires and faulty fuses. DH20931 overwhelms cells not with electricity, but with fats.

He said: “When that surge goes into the cancer cells, they cannot handle the amount of power they are getting. The fuses burn out, the cell can’t handle the surge and it dies.”

The compound was developed at the University of Florida in the lab of Sukwong Hong.

Hong, now a professor at the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea, created DH20931 as one of many drug candidates tested for efficacy in Narayan’s lab.

In the study, researchers implanted human triple-negative breast cancer tumours into mice and treated them with DH20931.

The drug significantly slowed tumour growth without causing noticeable weight loss or signs of toxicity in the animals. In separate lab experiments, it also showed activity against other breast cancer subtypes.

In addition to increasing lipid levels, DH20931 triggers a second stress signal by flooding cells with calcium.

Together, these effects disrupt the mitochondria, the structures that produce a cell’s energy, ultimately leading to cell death.

Narayan said: “It does not just follow one pathway but it goes through multiple pathways. It’s a two-hit hypothesis.

“These pathways are common in all breast cancer types and other solid tumours, so we think this drug can be useful not only in triple-negative breast cancer but potentially other cancers as well.”

Article produced in association with London Pregnancy Clinic

One of the most common questions in early pregnancy: NIPT or the nuchal translucency (NT) scan – do I really need both? The 2026 evidence gives a clear answer.

The two tests look at different things, and doing them together is how first-trimester screening works at its best.

This is not a debate between old and new technology. NIPT is a genuine advance in detecting chromosome abnormalities from a maternal blood sample.

The NT scan is the first detailed look at how the fetus is forming. What each sees, the other largely cannot.

What NIPT actually tells you

NIPT – non-invasive prenatal testing – analyses fragments of fetal DNA circulating in the mother’s blood. Taken from around 10 weeks, the test measures chromosome proportions to flag the common trisomies: trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards) and trisomy 13 (Patau).

Most panels include fetal sex and sex-chromosome aneuploidies. Extended NIPT adds selected microdeletion syndromes – most commonly 22q11.2 (DiGeorge syndrome) – and the newest whole-genome platforms can detect copy-number variants down to around 1 Mb across every chromosome.

What NIPT does not look at is anatomy. It tells you whether the chromosomes are numerically correct.

It cannot tell you how the heart, brain, spine, kidneys or abdominal wall are forming, because it analyses DNA, not structure.

The NHS offers NIPT as a second-line screening test, reserved for women who receive a higher-chance result from the combined test – precisely because NIPT is best understood as one part of a wider screening picture rather than the whole of it.

What the NT scan actually tells you

The NT scan is an ultrasound performed at 11 to 14 weeks that measures the nuchal translucency – a small fluid-filled space at the back of the fetal neck.

Protocols developed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation, the group that pioneered first-trimester screening under Professor Kypros Nicolaides at King’s College Hospital, combine the NT measurement with additional markers: nasal bone, ductus venosus flow, tricuspid regurgitation, and maternal serum biomarkers (PAPP-A and free β-hCG).

More importantly, the scan is the first structural assessment of the fetus.

Major anomalies already visible at 11-14 weeks include absence of the cranial vault, large body-wall defects such as omphalocele and gastroschisis, megacystis, severe cardiac defects with abnormal four-chamber views, and skeletal dysplasias.

An increased NT measurement itself – even with a completely normal chromosome result – is associated with a notable rate of structural heart defects and monogenic syndromes that NIPT cannot detect.

Why the combination outperforms either test alone

Taken together, NIPT and the NT scan give complementary coverage.

For the common trisomies, NIPT is more sensitive than the NT scan alone. Pooled data place detection of trisomy 21 above 99 per cent with a false-positive rate around 0.1 per cent.

Combined first-trimester screening without NIPT, using NT and serum markers alone, reaches approximately 90 per cent detection – and up to 95 per cent when nasal bone, ductus venosus and tricuspid flow are added – at a 3 to 5 per cent false-positive rate.

For that specific endpoint, NIPT is the more accurate test.

The NT scan picks up almost everything NIPT misses: structural anomalies, early markers of monogenic syndromes, confirmation of viability, accurate dating, twin chorionicity, and placental position.

An increased NT with a normal NIPT result shifts the clinical conversation toward syndromes like Noonan, Kabuki and the skeletal dysplasias – conditions with single-gene origins rather than chromosomal ones.

Working out which is which often requires genetic testing beyond NIPT. Carrier screening and expanded genetic panels – including those offered at Jeen Health – cover the single-gene territory that NIPT does not address.

When the combination matters most

Several patient groups have most to gain from doing both:

• Women conceiving after IVF or with donor gametes, where maternal age and fertility treatment each subtly shift risk profiles
• Women aged 35 and over, where baseline chromosomal risk is higher and soft markers are more likely
• Anyone with a previous pregnancy affected by an anomaly or loss, where reassurance matters
• Twin pregnancies, where NIPT performance depends on fetal fraction and structural assessment is more complex
• Women who have had a raised or borderline result on earlier screening markers

Chromosomes and anatomy are two separate clinical questions. Each needs its own answer.

What happens if the tests disagree

Disagreements between NIPT and the NT scan are not failures of either test – they are the reason both are done.

• NIPT low-risk, NT raised: consider monogenic syndromes, structural cardiac assessment, and early anomaly ultrasound follow-up
• NIPT higher-chance, scan normal: confirmatory diagnostic testing (CVS or amniocentesis) before any major decision
• NIPT no-call: repeat sampling, gestational age check and clinical review – a no-call itself is associated with an increased chromosomal risk
• Both abnormal: a clear indication for specialist fetal medicine review and early diagnostic testing

Professional guidance from the RCOG supports this complementary approach, emphasising that NIPT is a screening rather than a diagnostic test, and that its results are most useful when interpreted alongside ultrasound findings.

Practical guidance for 2026

The most efficient way to run both tests is in a single appointment window, between 10 and 14 weeks, with the blood sample taken first and the scan performed on the same visit.

Results typically return within 5 to 10 working days for standard NIPT panels, and same-day for the scan itself.

This is the logic behind the SMART Test at London Pregnancy Clinic – extended NIPT paired with a full first-trimester ultrasound in a single appointment, delivering both chromosomal and structural information in one visit. For most patients, it removes the false choice of picking one over the other.

The wider picture

The question of NIPT versus NT scan has a settled clinical answer in 2026: the two tests examine different aspects of the pregnancy, and the most complete first-trimester assessment uses both.

For a pregnancy a woman wants to carry with the fullest possible picture, both tests belong in the first-trimester window. The question worth asking is which clinic offers them together, with the pre- and post-test care that makes the results usable.

If you are deciding on first-trimester screening, a consultation with a fetal medicine specialist is the most useful first step.

Disclaimer: This article is produced for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Clinical guidance referenced reflects published NHS, Fetal Medicine Foundation and RCOG standards as at April 2026. Individual circumstances vary; readers are advised to consult a qualified healthcare professional before acting on any information in this article. This piece was produced in association with London Pregnancy Clinic, which provided background clinical information for editorial purposes. Hyperlinks to external sources are included for reference only and do not represent an endorsement of any product, service or organisation.

An independent meta-analysis from January 2026, pooling 2,117 patients and 2,176 Magseed marker placements, has reported low re-excision rates (8.2%) and low positive margins (7.6%) when the marker is used to localise non-palpable breast lesions prior to breast‑conserving surgery (BCS).

Al Darwashi et al. (2026) pooled 16 studies to evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes when the Magseed marker was used for preoperative localisation of non-palpable lesions prior to BCS.

The authors reported high placement accuracy, reliable intraoperative retrieval and low rates of positive margins, re-excisions and complications.

In a cohort cited by the review, Moreno‑Palacios et al. (2024) also observed that Magseed marker facilitates less extensive resections compared to guidewires, promising improved cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological efficacy.

The key findings

Low re-operation burden: Positive margins occurred in just 7.6% of cases, and only 8.2% required re-excision across the included series.

High placement accuracy: The success rate for Magseed marker placement showed 99.3% positioned within 10 mm of the lesion.

Of note, 96.6% of Magseed markers were placed within an even stricter 5 mm radius.

Reliable retrieval: The pooled intraoperative retrieval success was 99.6% for the Magseed® marker.

“This meta-analysis demonstrated Magseed as a safe and effective preoperative localisation technique for BCS in the management of selected non-palpable breast lesions.” Al Darwashi et al. (2026)

Ready to find out more about the Magseed marker and the Sentimag system?

→ Speak to a Magseed marker expert

→ Read the full paper here

Magseed® is a trademark of Hologic, Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States or other countries. Intended for medical professionals and use in the U.S., UK and the EU only.