Biocurious: Rhythm gets into the groove of predicting and preventing cancer
Rhythm Biosciences has expanded its original remit of bowel cancer to diagnosing other cancers early in the piece
The company late last year acquired the Genetype platform from the administrators of Genetic Technologies
Rhythm is developing its blood-based bowel cancer assay Colostat as a laboratory test
Cancer diagnostics house Rhythm Biosciences (ASX:RHY) goes by the age-old seamstress lore that a stitch in time saves nine.
In the case of common cancers, treating them later is much more expensive than if they are detected early.
'Without screening, cancers are diagnosed at late stage, by which time the cost of treatment is much greater,' says Rhythm CEO Dr David Atkins.
In the case of bowel cancer, Australians aged between 50 and 75 are eligible for a free biennial test, delivered to their door.
One problem is fewer than half of the 'poo tests' – more formally known as faecal occult tests (FOTs) – are returned.
The program is costly to run.
Another is that the disease increasingly is being detected in the under 50s, which account for 20% of all cases.
The reasons are unclear. One hypothesis is exposure to a particular e-coli toxin in early childhood, possibly more prolific because of antibiotics use, caesarean births or probiotics.
Others blame wheat-based diets.
'We have good screening programs, but the economics are such that we can't really go below 50 years old,'' Atkins says.
Getting into the Rhythm
Rhythm is working on a double-banger solution to early detection not just of bowel cancer – its original remit – but other tumours as well.
The company has been developing Colostat, a minimally invasive blood-based test that detects certain protein biomarkers. The tech had its origins from within the hallowed halls of the CSIRO, more than two decades ago.
'Our goal is to provide a simple inexpensive lab-based test that will be equivalent to the stool-based test for the symptomatic patient,' Atkins says.
Late last year Rhythm acquired a testing platform, Genetype, from the administrators of the failed listed Genetic Technologies.
Genetype tests an individual's genetic propensity to get cancer.
'The two platforms work hand in hand,' Atkins says.
'Genetype is the earliest possible point at which you can detect disease, while Colostat is able to detect disease once it has actually formed.'
For many people, FOT is not the right fit
Many recipients are unwilling to carry out the FOT test for religious or cultural reasons – or simply squeamishness.
Requiring two samples over two days, the test is somewhat cumbersome.
But Atkins says Colostat is unlikely to replace FOTs for routine screening.
'Screening tests anywhere take a long time to be adopted and authorities would be reluctant to disturb the status quo'.
Rather, Colostat is likely to be an 'adjunct or alternative to the current standard of care' for the symptomatic population.
In other words, the test would be used by GPs on doctors on the small minority of patients that present with symptoms.
'Unfortunately, in Australia most of the circa 15,000 cases diagnosed annually results from patients going to their doctor with symptoms,' Atkins says.
'Doctors need a solution to determine whether they can send the individuals for a colonoscopy, or send them home.'
The clinicians obtain a result within 24 hours, rather than a week or more for the FOT test.
The flipside of effective detection is avoiding overservicing. If the patient goes home safely, that's a big plus for the health system.
Atkins notes that Australian clinics carry out one million colonoscopies annually. Given the detection figure of 15,000 patients, many are unnecessary and 'result in unnecessary cost and stress.'
Clinical tests have shown that Colostat is more effective at detecting cancer than a FOT test, which detects blood in the stools. But this could also be a sign of polyps, ulcers, or hemorrhoids.
That said, Rhythm is happy with mere equivalency. After all, the Colostat test always will be more effective than an unused poo test.
Pursuing the lab-based route
On March 6, 2023, Rhythm shares tumbled 45% after the company withdrew its 1300-page marketing application to the local Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
The company felt it was unable to provide the information the agency requested within the requisite 20 business days.
Initially, Rhythm planned to resubmit to the TGA, but now plans to commercialise Colostat via the laboratory-developed test route.
'Lab based' refers to the common path of shipping the test to an appropriately certified lab, which acts as the quality gatekeeper.
Certification means National Association of Testing Authorities accreditation.
The lab-based route obviates the need for TGA approval for general dispersal.
'Most new diagnostics go down the lab path,' Atkins says.
'It's rare for a new diagnostics company to put an assay in a box and try to get TGA approval, which is an expensive and difficult path.'
In the case of Colostat, one or two labs nationally could handle the processing, so the lab route is not that arduous.
'We're not going to need hundreds of labs running our assays in future, but we will need more than one.'
Atkins, who joined Rhythm a year ago says: 'We have focused on taking the work the previous team has done and leveraging that so we can get a high-quality product to market.'
This work includes reformulating the protein biomarkers that Colostat detects, using a single simplified assay.
'We are finalising the verification validation for the assay to ensure it does what it says on the label.'
Predicting cancer risk
The Genetype tests are a mix of genomic data and clinical and demographic history.
'The selling point for Genetype is that it gives insights into individuals' risk profiles that they otherwise wouldn't get,' Atkins says.
The Genetype acquisition transforms Rhythm from development stage to a revenue-generating business,
Rhythm paid $625,000 for Genetype – less these days than a house in Darwin or Hobart.
Atkins says Genetic Technologies spent 'comfortably more' than that on developing Genetype over more than a decade.
In the year to June 2024 Genetic Technologies derived $134,085 of revenue from Genetype, 200% higher than the previous year.
Atkins says Rhythm primarily has acquired the know-how behind Genetype – seven key staff members stayed on – as well as a watertight patent portfolio and US and local lab licences.
Rhythm also obtains the medical history of several thousand patients which it ultimately could use for R&D.
"This is incredibly valuable," Atkins says.
Won't make the same mistake
Atkins says Genetic Technologies tried to sell Genetype directly to consumers. In reality, physicians need to request the test.
'We are focused on partners who either are GP networks or have GPs within their system. For example, employee management groups, insurers, clinical networks and laboratories.'
Health insurers could carry out the test routinely, as part of health checks.
Atkins says there's a sizeable market of consumers willing to pay out of pocket for the test, ranging from 'worried well' those already deemed high risk.
Nonetheless, the company is exploring reimbursement.
Atkins says while the US is the obvious market, Europe and China are also challenging but appealing.
'We are not ignoring Australia – the tenth biggest global health wellness market based on out-of-pocket payments,' he says.
'GPs tell us there is a real appetite for individuals to invest in their own health.'
Meanwhile, Rhythm expects Colostat revenue to flow from 2026.
Following that, the company hopes to expand the assay to six other tumours, including lung cancer.
'The next 12 to 18 months for Rhythm should be truly transformational,' Atkins says.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
32 minutes ago
- ABC News
Queensland coach Billy Slater issues apology for Paul Green reference in emotional press conference
Billy Slater has issued a public apology after linking late Queensland coach Paul Green to a comment made by former NSW prop Aaron Woods. Slater was asked to respond to being called a "grub" by Woods on Sydney radio, and was visibly emotional when making a reference to Green, who died in 2022. However, the 41-year-old called a snap press conference on Wednesday morning in Perth ahead of game two of the State of Origin series, and apologised for referencing Green. "Yesterday I wrongly made the link between Paul Green's death and the stress and pressures of coaching, which wasn't accurate and nor was it appropriate,'' he said. "I feel terrible about what I said and I spoke to (Green's wife) Amanda Green this morning and apologised for any hurt it may have caused her or her family. "I just want to say this, Paul had CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), that is a different disease to what I was referring to. "I am deeply and genuinely sorry.'' Post-mortem scans on Green's brain revealed he had a severe form of CTE.

News.com.au
41 minutes ago
- News.com.au
TGA announces investigation into Choice claims on sunscreen
Australia's medicines watchdog has confirmed it will investigate a report claiming several sunscreens did not offer the sun protection they advertised. Consumer group CHOICE delivered the report last week, claiming it had tested 20 popular SPF50 and SPF50+ sunscreens and found 16 of them fell short of the protection they advertised. SPF stands for 'sun protection factor' and is the measure of how well the sunscreen protects a user from the sun's UV rays. An SPF 50 sunscreen is meant to block about 98 per cent of the rays, meaning it will take 50 times longer to get burnt than with unprotected skin. The consumer group tested the products with experts in an accredited sunscreen lab, with four products returning SPF results in the 40s, four in the 30s, and seven in the 20s. The popular brands tested include Banana Boat, Cancer Council and Bondi Sands sunscreens. In one example, the Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ tested at 28, while the Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube tested at 43. The Therapeutic Goods Administration has responded to the report and said it would investigate CHOICE's findings and take 'regulatory action as required'. 'Sunscreens with a primary purpose of UV protection are considered to be therapeutic goods and are regulated by us to ensure their safety, quality and efficacy,' the watchdog stated. 'It is a requirement under therapeutic legislation that statements on sunscreen labels are truthful and not misleading. 'It is also a legislative requirement that a sponsor of a therapeutic sunscreen product holds evidence that supports the SPF claim they make at the time they include the medicine in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. 'We will be investigating the CHOICE findings and will take regulatory action as required. 'We cannot comment on individual matters including whether products may be subject to investigation or compliance and enforcement activity, or the status of any such investigation and activity.' One skincare company that says it takes the testing of its products seriously has been criticised by users following the release of the CHOICE results. CHOICE said Ultra Violette's Australian Sunscreen's lean screen 50+ mattifying zinc sunscreen was tested and returned a result of just SPF4. The company, which sells its products at Sephora, shared an Instagram post last month boasting about how much it cost to test their 'skin screens.' 'Do you know how SPF is actually tested? Making our SKINSCREENS can cost up to $150K in testing alone (sorry to our CFO!!!)' the post stated. 'We take the integrity of our products pretty damn seriously – no cutting corners here. 'We ensure you have the best protection (from both UVA and UVB), *and* the added skincare benefits to match, no matter where in the world you are. Consumers were quick to respond to the report, with one customer claiming she used the product for three years and now has concerns about its effectiveness. 'Hey UV, I'm so worried about this report from CHOICE,' the customer replied on Instagram. Another customer said she had been 'badly burnt' using queen and supreme screens after reapplying the products and asked the company to stop selling them if they did not meet standards. Ultra Violette, which sell sunscreens between $27 and $77, has disputed CHOICE's findings. In a statement last week, the company said it was deeply committed to the health and safety of its customers and accused CHOICE of releasing misleading information to generate headlines. A spokesman said Ultra Violette only worked with reputable, TGA-licensed manufacturers who performed substantial quality release testing in accordance with the strictest SPF standards in the world. 'Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate,' a spokesman said in a statement. 'It is also essential to note here that the recognised authority governing sunscreens in Australia is the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), not CHOICE Magazine.' The company said it retested a batch of sunscreen when they found out about the Choice testing, and the results came back with an SPF reading of 61.7, which was above the 50+ threshold. 'CHOICE's recent retest only included 5 participants, where 2 results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only 3,' the statement said. 'Over the past 4 years, we have conducted 3 different tests at independent labs vs. Choice's 1.3 tests.' A spokesman said if the CHOICE results represented the actual level of protection offered, they would have hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations. 'At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously,' the statement read. CHOICE chief executive officer Ashley de Silva said she stood by the test results. 'Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ product was first tested using a 10-person panel, in line with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard,' she said. 'When the product returned a very low SPF of 4, we decided to test a new sample to confirm the result, using a five-person panel on a different batch at a different lab in Germany. 'The Ultra Violette product returned an SPF of 5 in this testing - an almost identical result. 'The additional testing is not a requirement of sunscreen testing standards, but an additional level of rigour and testing Choice decided to undertake to ensure the low SPF result for the Ultra Violette product was accurate.' Ms de Silva said the tests showed that products were not meeting consumer expectations. 'Consumers expect sunscreen to protect them in line with the SPF rating on the product, but as our testing has shown, the SPF label doesn't always match what's in the bottle,' he said. One sunscreen, Ultra Violette's lean screen SPF 50+ mattifying zinc skinscreen, returned a result of just SPF4. 'We were really shocked to see the results for Ultra Violette's lean screen SPF 50+ product, so much so that we actually decided to test a different batch at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,' Mr de Silva said. 'Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 – an almost identical result to our initial testing.' The consumer group was, however, quick to remind people that while a sunscreen may have ranked lower than claimed in its tests, that does not mean that products do not work. A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or 20 can still give significant sun protection and is much better than using no sunscreen at all. The TGA said there could be 'variability' in SPF testing results across laboratories. 'Currently, the universally accepted methods of sunscreen SPF testing is using human subjects,' the watchdog said. 'It is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place. 'The TGA does not conduct human or animal testing. Where necessary, the TGA has outsourced SPF testing to accredited laboratories.'

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Australian Red Cross Lifeblood loosens rules around LGBTQIA+ donating blood and plasma
Restrictions around sexually active gay and bisexual men donating blood and plasma are being loosened in a new world-leading move by Australian Red Cross Lifeblood. Under current rules, gay and bisexual men, and transgender women who have sex with men, cannot donate blood or plasma if they have had sex in the past three months. But from July 14, in the first set of rule changes, Lifeblood will remove most restrictions on donating plasma related to sexual activity. It has called this world-first the "plasma pathway", and says it will mean "most people, including gay and bisexual men, and anyone who takes PrEP, will be able to donate plasma without a wait period, providing they meet all other eligibility criteria". PrEP stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis and involves HIV-negative people taking antiretroviral medication to protect them and prevent infection. "Extensive research and modelling show that there will be no impact to the safety of the plasma supply with this change," Lifeblood said in a statement. Lifeblood chief medical officer Jo Pink said plasma was now the donation Australians needed the most, and the change would allow more than 600,000 extra people to give blood. "We're excited to be able to welcome more people from across the community into our donor centres from next month," Dr Pink told News Breakfast. "We now anticipate an extra 24,000 donors and 95,000 extra donations of plasma to be made each year." Dash Heath-Paynter, the CEO of Health Equity Matters, said the change "potentially unlocks thousands of donations of life-saving plasma". "Members of the LGBQTIA+ community members can now help those whose lives depend on plasma donations without a donation deferral period," Mr Heath-Paynter said. Alongside the changes to plasma donation rules, Lifeblood is working towards making changes to blood and platelet donation eligibility. Lifeblood said the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) had approved a submission to remove gender-based sexual activity rules. It will mean that all donors will be given the same questions about sexual activity, regardless of gender or sexuality, once the changes come into effect. Men will no longer be asked if they have had sex with another man before they donate blood. On top of that, people in a sexual relationship of six months or more with a single partner will be able to donate blood and most people with new or multiple partners will also be able to donate if they have not had anal sex in the past three months. Lifeblood has not given a date for when the changes will come into effect, but Dr Pink is hopeful of it being from early next year. "There are many steps that Lifeblood needs to take before we can implement the new gender-neutral assessments, including working with state and territory governments to change the donor questionnaire," Dr Pink said. These changes to blood- and plasma-donating rules will "make it easier for more people in the LGBTQIA+ community to donate" Dr Pink added.