When One Cure Doesn’t Fit All: Building What Cancer Treatment Actually Needs Next
September was Blood Cancer Awareness Month. October brings breast and liver cancer to the spotlight. Different organs, different origins, but the same fundamental problem: we still treat cancer as a collection of separate diseases instead of a single engineering challenge with shared constraints.
Leukemia, breast carcinoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma each have unique microenvironments, immune signatures, and mutational landscapes. However, from an engineering perspective, the systems we use to deliver and validate therapies share far more similarities than differences. Despite that, nearly every therapeutic pipeline still starts from zero. Separate preclinical models, manufacturing runs, and INDs continue to duplicate effort, even when the same delivery scaffold or process could apply across multiple tumor types. The challenge is no longer just scientific; it is also structural, rooted in how we build, validate, and regulate new therapies.
Building Pathways for Platform Therapeutics
The FDA approves drugs, not systems. If you change a targeting ligand, a peptide, or a linker, the agency treats it as a new entity with a new IND, new toxicology studies, and a new comparability package. It does not matter that the core delivery scaffold and process controls are identical. That model worked when drugs were small molecules. It falls short when the product is a programmable therapeutic platform. We need a regulatory structure that recognizes validated delivery frameworks in the same way chemistry recognizes reaction templates: once a process has been proven safe and consistent, small, controlled variations do not require rebuilding the entire validation stack.
The FDA’s Platform Technology Designation for gene therapy signals a step in that direction, and the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) pathway offers another model for accelerating review of biologics addressing serious unmet needs. But oncology still lacks a clear, predictable route. Until such frameworks exist, adaptive platforms will remain constrained by processes designed for single-use drugs.
Laying the Groundwork for Modular Therapeutics
Modularity only works when there are reliable, validated components to swap. Tumor-targeting ligands today are still discovered one paper at a time, using different assays, with limited reproducibility. There is no shared repository with standardized data on selectivity, off-target effects, or cross-tissue kinetics.
To make modularity real, the field needs a deep, validated targeting library. Each ligand should be characterized not only by what it binds but by how specifically it avoids healthy tissue, how stable it remains under formulation stress, and how interchangeable it is across delivery scaffolds.
Examples from adjacent fields already show the value of modularity. Universal and modular CAR T systems use interchangeable targeting arms to redirect immune cells without rebuilding the entire construct. Nanobody-based conjugates demonstrate that targeting domains can be swapped while the payload and delivery mechanism remain consistent. The challenge now is building the scale and validation depth needed for oncology platforms to consistently function this way.
Athari BioSciences’ Approach to Programmable Oncology
At Athari BioSciences, we are designing a cancer-targeting nanoparticle framework intended to deliver therapeutic payloads directly to tumors while minimizing effects on healthy tissue. The goal is to build a modular system where the scaffold remains constant and the targeting module can be adapted for different cancer types.
Our immediate focus is on establishing the foundations for this platform:
Developing the design and validation pipeline. We are refining our approach for selecting and characterizing tumor-binding ligands across different cancer models. This early groundwork supports the creation of a scalable and adaptable targeting library.
Defining standards for interchangeability. We are outlining the experimental and regulatory criteria that will eventually demonstrate when a module can be replaced without repeating foundational safety studies. This framework supports faster adaptation while maintaining rigor.
Our broader aim is to help define how programmable cancer therapeutics can be developed within existing regulatory structures while maintaining proprietary innovation in the components that make them work.
From Many Cancers to One System
Cancer awareness months highlight the diversity of disease, but the next frontier is connecting those efforts into a coherent system. Progress in oncology has produced extraordinary depth within each indication, yet there is little shared infrastructure between them.
The path forward is not to erase biological differences but to engineer tools that can adapt to them, creating frameworks flexible enough to operate across tumor types without starting from zero each time.
To move in that direction, the field needs to:
- Establish regulatory pathways that recognize reusable therapeutic platforms.
- Develop interoperable component libraries that enable modular design.
- Define performance standards that measure cross-tumor transferability, not just a single indication of efficacy.
These represent the foundation of a scalable oncology ecosystem. One cure will never fit all; however, one framework could. Join Athari Bio in advancing the next generation of modular cancer therapeutics.









