Unboxing Cancer News, August 2026: Fishy Cancer, Federal- vs. Industry-funded Trials, and More  

Every month, researchers publish thousands of studies that add new pieces to the cancer puzzle. Some advances make headlines (like the recently reported success of an mRNA vaccine to treat melanoma or the approval of daraxonrasib [Rasonque] for patients with pancreatic cancer); others quietly add to our growing understanding of the disease and how to treat it. With so much new research emerging, it can be difficult to keep up with everything. To help readers stay on top of the latest developments, Cancer Research Catalyst is launching Unboxing Cancer News, a monthly series that explores notable cancer research news.

From discoveries in the lab to shifting cancer trends, Unboxing Cancer News will unpack a curated selection of stories shaping the field. Find out what’s inside, minus the packing peanuts.

For our first installment, read about a transmissible cancer (in fish, don’t worry), symptoms that may predict early-onset colorectal cancer, engineered yeast that produce ingredients to make chemotherapy drugs, and differences between federal- and industry-funded clinical trials.

Catfish Catch Communicable Cancer

It’s not often that Cancer Research Catalyst concedes a virtue, however qualified, to the scourge of cancer. Vile disease though it may be, cancer is not, at least, transmissible—provided you’re not a catfish. According to a recent study, the brown bullhead catfish population of the northern United States seem to be capable of spreading melanoma to each other directly.

The brown bullheads of Lake Memphremagog in Vermont and Québec, Canada, have been observed to harbor melanoma lesions for over a decade. The authors of the paper determined that the catfish melanoma was transmissible following analyses that revealed that the tumors’ genetic material—both mitochondrial and otherwise—was similar across lesion samples but divergent from the genetic patterns of the host fish. They also ruled out a pathogen as a possible vector when they could not identify any shared microbiota among the tumor-bearing fish that would explain the transmissibility.

The authors explained that transmissible tumors, though rare, are not wholly unheard of in the animal kingdom, with communicable cancer having been observed in dogs, Tasmanian devils, and clams. But the precise transmission mechanism for the catfish, they said, remains unknown—although they speculate that the scaleless species may be “infected” when cancer cells engraft on them in the aquatic environment, possibly facilitated by hormone-mediated immune system weakening.

Whatever the reason, the authors wrote, the findings suggest that communicable cancer may pose a risk to brown bullhead catfish specifically and, potentially, fish populations in general. In the meantime, the opportunity to further study the mechanisms of transmissible tumors could shed further light on the foundational biology of cancer and how immune systems respond to it.

Which Symptoms Predict Early-onset Colorectal Cancer?

With colorectal cancers on the rise in the under-50 population, there is an urgent need to identify the disease early, when it can be more easily treated. The gold standard for colorectal cancer detection is a colonoscopy, but since universal colonoscopy isn’t practical or cost-effective, younger, average-risk patients typically undergo this test only if they are experiencing certain symptoms.

Unfortunately, these symptoms are based on what we know about colorectal cancer in older patients, so we still aren’t clear on which signs are associated with colorectal cancer in younger patients.

To identify symptoms that may predict early-onset colorectal cancer, the authors of a recent study in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention examined data from more than 28,000 patients, aged 40 to 49, who had a diagnostic colonoscopy between 2010 and 2020 at community-based health centers. The researchers used electronic health record data, administrative data, and tumor registries to identify the symptoms the patients experienced in the two years prior to their colonoscopy and to calculate how well each symptom—or combinations of symptoms—was associated with a cancer diagnosis.

They found that the three most common symptoms among these patients were blood loss, abdominal pain, and constipation. Fewer than 3% of patients who experienced just one of these symptoms ended up being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, but for those with all three symptoms, more than 10% went on to have a confirmed cancer diagnosis. The prevalence of cancer was even greater among those who also had a positive stool-based cancer test (known as a fecal immunochemical test, or FIT).

Other, less frequent symptoms were also analyzed. Among these, the presence of an abdominal mass had the highest association with colorectal cancer, with 5% of patients experiencing only this symptom having cancer. A positive FIT result alone was also associated with cancer in about 5% of cases.

The results provide insights into the symptoms associated with early-onset colorectal cancers—insights that may help clinicians identify patients who are most likely to have colorectal cancer and who may, therefore, most benefit from diagnostic testing.

From Bread to Meds: Baker’s Yeast as a Drug Factory

Plants are great sources of a wide range of health-boosting vitamins and micronutrients. Take for example lignans, compounds with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity, of which flaxseed, sesame seeds, whole grains, legumes, and berries are rich.

Did you know that many chemotherapy drugs are also made from substances extracted from plants?

Notable examples include etoposide, which serves as first-line treatment for lung cancer and other cancer types, and its cousin teniposide, used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. 

These drugs are given to hundreds of thousands of cancer patients each year, yet their supply is limited: They were traditionally obtained by chemical modification of podophyllotoxin, also a lignan, extracted from an endangered plant known by the scientific name of Sinopodophyllum hexandrum, which only grows at high altitudes across the Himalayan region. Furthermore, the chemical process required to convert podophyllotoxin into the final drug products was long and not very efficient.

Scientists have been searching for alternative methods to source these and other essential drugs. One option is microbial biosynthesis—using engineered yeast or bacteria as tiny living factories that produce the desired molecules.

In a recent study, the authors used baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a factory and provided it with custom DNA instructions to make a podophyllotoxin precursor. This process involved more than 60 genetic edits and mixing and matching of 45 genes deriving from different organisms to reproduce the biosynthetic pathway. The yeast-made precursor was then converted into etoposide and teniposide through a single chemical step.

This method, the researchers wrote, provides a sustainable production platform for essential anticancer drugs and shows the potential of synthetic biology.

Federal- vs. Industry-funded Clinical Trials: Who Funds What?

In the United States, the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry are the primary funders (aka sponsors) of cancer clinical trials. But how do their clinical research priorities differ? To answer that question, a group of researchers followed the money.

Between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2024, the researchers identified 9,569 cancer-related trials where the lead sponsor on ClinicalTrials.gov was a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company and 2,112 trials where the main sponsor was the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or another U.S. federal agency. While most trials evaluated cancer treatments (90.6%), smaller proportions focused on devices/diagnostics (2.6%), screening/prevention methods (2.3%), supportive care (1.1%), basic research (1%), or health services (0.3%).

The main difference between the two sponsors: The industry more often focused on trials for a single drug (77.4% vs. 48.6%), whereas government-backed studies more frequently evaluated combination approaches involving drugs, biologics, radiotherapies, devices, surgery, and/or transplantation. Industry-sponsored trials were also more commonly conducted in phase I (37.6% vs. 26.8%), which assesses a treatment’s safety and appropriate dosing for the first time in humans, or in phase III (17.7% vs. 13.1%), which often provides the evidence needed for regulatory approval.

Federal sponsors, meanwhile, were more likely to support studies in areas that can be difficult to pursue commercially. Compared with industry-funded trials, federally sponsored research more often focused on rare cancers (17.5% vs. 12.1%) and pediatric cancers (16.1% vs. 5.3%), both of which involve smaller patient populations. Federal funding was also more commonly directed toward treatment deescalation trials (3.1% vs 0.4%), which examine the potential of lowering treatment dosages (or omitting a particular type of treatment altogether) to help limit toxicities. In addition, federal sponsors were more likely to fund nontreatment interventions such as prevention (4.7% vs 1.1%) and supportive care (2.5% vs 0.9%).

Ultimately, the researchers noted how the findings emphasize the continued need for both sources of funding as industry and federal sponsors play distinct but complementary roles in advancing cancer research. Together, their differing priorities help ensure that both new therapies and underserved areas of research receive attention.