Massive Bio Recognized in Two Key Categories on CB Insights' AI Drug Research & Development Market Map
CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Massive Bio, a leader in AI-powered oncology patient recruitment and clinical trial matching, has been named in two pivotal categories on CB Insights' latest AI Drug Research & Development Market Map. This recognition underscores Massive Bio's innovative contributions to revolutionizing cancer care through advanced artificial intelligence solutions.
"Being recognized in two critical categories by CB Insights is a testament to the power of AI in transforming oncology care."
Share
CB Insights' market map highlights companies at the forefront of leveraging AI to accelerate drug discovery and development. Massive Bio's inclusion in both the 'Clinical Trial Matching' and 'Patient Recruitment' categories reflects its dual impact on streamlining clinical trial processes and enhancing patient access to cutting-edge therapies.
'Being recognized by CB Insights in two critical categories is a testament to our team's dedication to transforming oncology care,' said Selin Kurnaz, PhD, CEO and Co-Founder of Massive Bio. 'Our AI-driven platform is designed to bridge the gap between patients and clinical trials, ensuring that individuals receive the most appropriate and timely treatments available.'
Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer, added, 'This acknowledgment validates our commitment to integrating advanced AI technologies into clinical workflows. By optimizing trial matching and patient recruitment, we're not only improving operational efficiencies but also enhancing patient outcomes in oncology.'
This recognition from CB Insights follows a milestone presence at ASCO25, where Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla presented a poster session on AI-powered clinical trial matching and participated in the ASCO/ESMO Joint Session, emphasizing international collaboration in oncology innovation. In addition, Selin Kurnaz was named a PCC Wayfinder, honoring her leadership in advancing equitable access and data-driven transformation in cancer care.
Massive Bio's platform utilizes sophisticated algorithms and real-time data analytics to match cancer patients with suitable clinical trials, considering factors such as genetic profiles, treatment histories, and geographic locations. This approach has significantly increased trial enrollment rates and reduced the time required to identify eligible participants.
The company's dual recognition by CB Insights highlights its comprehensive approach to addressing challenges in clinical trial enrollment and patient engagement. As the demand for personalized cancer treatments grows, Massive Bio continues to lead in providing scalable, AI-driven solutions that connect patients with life-saving clinical trials.
About Massive Bio
Massive Bio, co-founded by , Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, and Çağatay Çulcuoğlu, transforms the pharmaceutical value chain with AI-driven solutions. As an AI-enabled real-world data company, it streamlines the patient journey, enhances access to advanced treatment options, and optimizes clinical trials. Massive Bio collaborates with pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, and healthcare institutions worldwide. A founding member of the CancerX public-private partnership and participant in the Cancer Moonshot White House initiative, the company has received recognition from the National Cancer Institute and operates across 17 countries with a global team of over 100 employees. For more information, visit www.massivebio.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
20 hours ago
- Medscape
Which Tx Combo Is Best for HER2+ Breast Cancer?
The combination of trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu) with pertuzumab (Perjeta) as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer has been shown to reduce the risk for disease progression or death by more than the current standard-of-care treatment. Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented this finding and other interim results of the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 study, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting in Chicago. 'Trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, in combination with pertuzumab demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, with a 44% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death when compared to a taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP),' said Tolaney, during her presentation. New First-line Standard? Similar results were observed across all patient subgroups, with no new safety signals, Tolaney said. 'These data suggest that T-DXd and pertuzumab may represent a new first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer,' she said. The study randomized 1157 patients to three treatment groups: T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg every three weeks plus placebo, T-DXd-pertuzumab, or a taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab (THP). The interim study readout includes only data from the T-DXd-pertuzumab and the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab groups. Pertuzumab + T-Dxd or Standard of Care? Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 40.7 months in the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 26.9 months in the taxane plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab patients ( P < .00001). Tolaney explained that the study was designed to have an interim analysis for PFS after approximately 399 events across the three arms with at least 277 events for comparison. At the time of the interim analysis, she said, only the TDX-pertuzumab and THP groups met the criteria for superiority, a P -value < .00043, which was not met for the comparison of T-DXd plus placebo to THP. The T-DXd-placebo arm remains blinded until the final progression-free survival analysis, Tolaney said. Twenty-one percent of the patients in the T-DXd-pertuzumab arm had discontinued T-DXd due to adverse events, Tolaney said; 9% of patients elected to continue with trastuzumab and pertuzumab after they discontinued T-DXd. Among hormone receptor-positive patients, 13.5% in the T-DXd-pertuzumab group and 38% in the THP group elected to add endocrine treatment. At the data cutoff, 46% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab patients and 33% of those in the THP group remained on study treatment. Median follow-up duration was 29 months. The treatment effect of T-DXd-pertuzumab became evident early in the study, Tolaney said. Six months after starting treatment, 7% of the T-DXd-pertuzumab group vs 12% of the THP group had progressed. The gap continued to widen over time, she said. 'With 26% of patients still on steady treatment with T-DXd and pertuzumab, it suggests that this median is likely to evolve with further follow-up,' she said. Objective response rates were also higher with T-DXd–pertuzumab, 86% vs 79% with THP, Tolaney said. 'The complete response rate for T-DXd and pertuzumab was 15%, which was almost double what was seen with THP (8.5%),' she said. Response duration was also longer with T-DXd-pertuzumab, with 73% remaining in response at 24 months vs 55% in the THP arm. 'Overall survival data are very immature at this timepoint with just 16% of survival events seen, but you can see that there is an early trend favoring T-DXd plus pertuzumab with a hazard ratio of 0.84,' she said. A similar number of patients in both groups had serious treatment-emergent adverse events: 27% for T-DXd-pertuzumab and 25.1% for THP, which Tolaney said, was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of both agents, with no new toxicities identified. The median duration of treatment in the DESTINY-Breast09 study was 21 months. 'A Pivotal Advancement?' Rebecca Dent, MD, deputy CEO at the National Cancer Center Singapore, called the DESTINY-Breast09 results 'a pivotal advancement in the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer that is both clinically and statistically significant.' Rebecca Dent, MD HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer was once considered a 'death sentence,' Dent said at a press conference, but now patients can survive on therapy for years, which presents its own challenges. Regarding the T-DXd-plus-pertuzumab regimen, Dent said, 'Is this for all patients at the beginning of their treatment for metastatic disease?' The truth of the matter is we don't know.' Having better biomarkers would provide answers, she said, but for patients with extensive disease with central nervous system metastasis, pertuzumab in combination with other agents 'is clearly your first-line choice.' How to best sequence therapies is another challenge emerging with these evolving treatment regimens, Dent added. 'And then I think finally we do have to appreciate that there are toxicities: One in terms of quality of life but also cost toxicity,' she said. Which Therapeutic Regimen Costs More? Tolaney acknowledged the cost implications of adding pertuzumab to T-DXd, in an interview with Medscape Medical News . 'But I would also note,' Tolaney said, 'that the standard-of-care arm does involve getting continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy.' In the PATINA study, which added palbociclib (Ibrance) to standard maintenance therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, the cost profile was similar to those of the treatments used in the newer trial, Tolaney said. 'You are looking at substantial continued cost because we're continuing to suppress the HER2 pathway for years in these patients,' she said. AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo funded the study. Tolaney reported financial relationships with ADi, Ambrx, Artios Biopharmaceuticals, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Cullinan Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Immunomedics/Gilead, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Launch Therapeutics, Lilly, Menarini Group, Merck, Mersana, NanoString Technologies, Natera, Novartis, OncoPep, Pfizer, Reveal Genomics, Sanofi, Seagen, Sumitovant Biopharma, Summit Therapeutics, Systimmune, Tango Therapeutics, Zentalis, Zuellig Pharma, and Zymeworks. Dent reported having financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, DKSH, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Venture capital investment is rising in Los Angeles — and not just for AI startups
Early this year, private equity firm Blackstone bet big on the future of artificial intelligence by investing $300 million in a Chatsworth company that's been around for more than two decades. The company, DDN, helps businesses store and manage the massive trove of data that powers AI systems — the lifeblood needed for chatbots, self-driving cars and more. DDN's high-profile customers include chipmaker Nvidia, Elon Musk's AI startup xAI, Google Cloud and Ford. DDN, short for DataDirect Networks, has roughly 1,000 employees. 'They have a trillion dollars of assets under management, and it's a company that we thought would really move the needle for us in terms of extending our reach,' said Jyothi Swaroop, DDN's chief marketing officer. The investment was among the largest this year in the Greater Los Angeles region, which remains a hot spot for investments in both old and new tech companies poised for growth. All told, venture capital investors and private equity firms poured $3.1 billion to fund 144 deals in the L.A. area in the first quarter of this year, up 15% from a year ago, according to research firm CB Insights. The area encompasses Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. While investment levels can fluctuate, funding in the greater L.A. region has steadily increased since 2023, when investment cooled following the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX. Along with AI, investors also financed startups and established businesses in healthcare, e-commerce and defense technology, underscoring how investment in the L.A. market has diversified in recent years beyond ad tech businesses and video apps. "Today it's going into much more ambitious projects," Mark Suster, a general partner at Santa Monica-based Upfront Ventures. "It's going into satellites, alternate energy, national defense, drones, shipbuilding and pharmaceutical drug discovery. So it's a lot more exciting than it ever has been." Read more: AI startup funding hit a record in the L.A. area last quarter. Here's who got the most money Los Angeles-area companies that received the most money in the first quarter include Torrance-based defense company Epirus with $250 million; and Thousand Oaks-based Latigo Biotherapeutics, which received $150 million, according to CB Insights. Latigo Biotherapeutics develops non-opioid pain treatments, while Epirus makes technology that helps defend against attacks from drone swarms. Economic consulting firm Econic Partners raised the most funding with $438 million, according to CB Insights, which relied on a report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Econic disputed the total, saying it raised nine figures in the first quarter, but the company declined to say how much. Masha Bucher, founder and general partner at Day One Ventures, said she views El Segundo as the most promising hub for 'deep tech' startups tackling complex issues, such as, helping humans live healthier and longer lives. Businesses in the L.A. area have access to a highly qualified workforce from aerospace and defense tech companies. The tech hub known as Silicon Beach also is close to the airport, making it easy for entrepreneurs to hop on a plane to raise funding in San Francisco. 'There is a power of community, and it's definitely like a power spot on the map,' Bucher said. The firm's investments include various AI startups and an eye-scanning crypto project backed by OpenAI's Sam Altman in which people verify they're human. Investors aren't interested in only AI, however. Culver City-based Whatnot raised $265 million, one of the biggest deals in the L.A. area this year. The live shopping app allows people to buy and sell items such as clothing and collectibles. Potential customers can ask questions about products in real-time, find deals and bid for products shown in live videos. Whatnot says it surpassed more than $3 billion in sales in 2024, and the company expects that figure to double this year. The startup, founded in 2019, says it isn't profitable yet, but the TikTok rival has shown investors it's growing fast. Read more: Sam Altman's eye-scanning orbs have arrived, sparking curiosity and fear 'Live and social shopping has the potential to be an absolutely monstrous market,' Whatnot Chief Executive Grant LaFontaine said. The company has roughly 750 employees across the United States and Europe. The funding will help market Whatnot to attract more users and hire people to improve the shopping experience, he said. Read more: AI is changing shopping. Will consumers buy in? Like other businesses, Whatnot uses AI for customer service and to moderate content on the platform. 'I tend to be sort of a purist, which is that consumers don't care about AI. They care about problems being solved,' LaFontaine said. Businesses have been using AI long before the rising popularity of chatbots such as ChatGPT that can generate text, images and code. But the frenzy surrounding what's known as generative AI has meant that various industries are confronting how technology will disrupt the way they live and work. Read more: There's one bright spot for San Francisco's office space market Not surprisingly, investor interest in AI drove much of the nation's venture capital commitments in the first quarter. San Francisco-based OpenAI secured the largest funding round of $40 billion, placing its valuation at $300 billion, according to CB Insights. "There's a ton of opportunity to rewrite the playing field on which people do business in everything from across verticals, across industries," said Jason Saltzman, head of insights for CB Insights. "Everyone recognizes the promise, and ... no one wants to miss out on the promise." Globally, $121 billion of venture capital was raised in the first quarter, with 20% of the deals received by AI companies — the highest amount ever, according to CB Insights. Nationally, $90.5 billion in venture capital was raised last quarter, with the bulk of the money going toward startups in Silicon Valley, which brought in $58.9 billion, the research firm said. San Francisco has experienced a surge in AI startups expanding or opening up offices, drawn to the city's swath of talent and the Bay Area's universities. AI leaders including OpenAI and Anthropic also are based there. OpenAI said it would use the money raised in the first quarter toward building its tools and investing in talent. "People understand that this is a transformative technology," said Chris Lehane, OpenAI's vice president of global affairs in an interview. "It's going to permeate virtually every aspect of life." Silicon Valley remains the far leader in venture capital AI investments, but other cities such as New York have attracted AI funding. There's also global competition from countries such as China. As legislators weigh whether to introduce laws that could regulate AI, some tech lobbying groups have raised concerns on how those bills could affect innovation in the state. Suster said he doesn't think venture capital dollars will leave California. "The opportunity set is so great here," Suster said. "Do we occasionally get backwards-looking bills that try to overregulate how industry works in California? Of course, we do. We find ways to work around them." Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Medscape
21 hours ago
- Medscape
Surgery Before or After Chemo for Advanced Ovarian Cancer?
The optimal timing of surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer remains controversial. Should these patients receive the standard radical surgery followed by chemotherapy, or could patients do better with chemotherapy before surgery? The long-awaited TRUST trial aimed to settle this question, but the results paint a somewhat mixed picture. Among patients with resectable stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer, primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy led to a statistically significant 2.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. While the median overall survival was 6 months longer in the upfront surgery group, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life over a 3-year period on a global health survey. 'TRUST is the first randomized controlled trial to show a significant benefit in median PFS without compromising short- or long-term quality of life,' said lead investigator Sven Mahner, MD, with Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany, who presented the results at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Mahner called the PFS and overall survival findings in the upfront surgery group 'excellent' but acknowledged that the primary endpoint of significant overall survival was not met. ASCO discussant Emma Barber, MD, gynecologic oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, was less enthusiastic about the benefits of upfront surgery, given the lack of significant overall survival benefit. Additionally, the upfront surgery group had a higher rate of any complication and more than a twofold higher rate of stoma formation. 'There is upfront toxicity with primary debulking surgery compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy — even in the highest quality surgical centers,' she said. TRUST Rationale The aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer is to prolong patients' remission and improve overall survival while sustaining quality of life, said Mahner. Primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy has been considered standard for decades in this patient population. However, there's an alternative strategy — neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. Several trials have compared upfront surgery with upfront chemotherapy, but limitations in these studies have not helped answer which approach is better. TRUST was designed to evaluate the optimal timing of cytoreductive surgery in patients with resectable advanced ovarian cancer who are fit enough to tolerate radical surgery. Patients received care in cancer centers that used defined surgical quality assurance metrics. Quality criteria were based on the European Training Centre in Gynaecological Oncology certification and included evaluations of cytoreductive surgery in the operating room as well as assessments of surgical proficiency and infrastructure. In addition, participating centers had to have high complete resection rates (at least 50% in upfront surgery for patients with FIGO IIIB-IVB) and high surgical volumes (at least 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year). Patients were randomly assigned and stratified by center and age-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) combination (ECOG 0 and age ≤ 65 years vs ECOG > 0 and age older than 65 years) to either primary cytoreductive surgery followed by six cycles of intravenous chemotherapy (n = 345) or three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery plus three more cycles of chemotherapy (n = 343). Most patients had FIGO stage IIIc disease, and over 90% had high-grade serous histology. Surgical effort was very high in both treatment groups; the median duration of surgery was 5.5 hours in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 4.5 hours in the interval cytoreductive surgery group, Mahner noted. High surgical effort led to high complete resection rates — 70% in the primary group and 85% in the interval group — which meant the recommended systemic treatment of carboplatin and paclitaxel could be given in more than 90% of the patients, with a considerable number of patients also receiving bevacizumab or a PARP inhibitor during the course of their disease, Mahner said. Survival Outcomes Overall, 219 (64%) PFS events occurred in the primary cytoreductive surgery group and 253 (74%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Median PFS after primary surgery was 22.1 months compared to 19.7 months after interval surgery — a 2.4-month benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .018). The researchers also conducted a restricted mean survival analysis and found PFS was 31.7 months with primary surgery compared to 26.6 months with neoadjuvant chemotherapy — a 5.1-month benefit ( P = .07). On the overall survival front, the primary surgery group had a 6-month benefit, but the difference was not significant — median overall survival was 54.3 months with primary surgery compared to 48.3 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.89; P = .24). Careful Patient Selection Necessary In subgroup analyses, patients with complete cytoreduction after primary surgery had the best outcomes, with a median PFS of 27.9 months vs 21.8 months with interval surgery (HR, 0.69; P = .0009) and median overall survival of 67.0 months vs 55.0 months (HR, 0.80; P = .0521). In addition, the benefit of primary cytoreductive surgery was most prominent in stage III patients with a median PFS of 26.3 months vs 21.4 months (HR, 0.73; P = .005) and a median overall survival of 63.7 months vs 53.2 months, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .14). However, patients with stage IV disease did not benefit more from upfront surgery in PFS (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38) or overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.33). Mahner also noted that 5 years after randomization, 23% of the patients who had primary surgery had no disease progression compared to 11% of the patients who had interval surgery. The complication rate was higher in the primary surgery group at 18% vs 12% after interval surgery. The 30-day post-operative mortality rate was less than 1% in both treatment groups. Patients in both groups reported similar quality of life outcomes. Barber noted that the data suggest that some populations may benefit more from upfront surgery and others may not. 'For example, patients with stage IV disease clearly do not seem to benefit, whereas those with stage III disease seem to show a trend towards improved survival,' she explained. Given the higher upfront toxicity associated with primary debulking surgery, 'selection for primary debulking surgery instead of neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered carefully and performed for selected populations,' Barber said.
