BIOREALIZATION ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES FOR CANCER DIAGNOSIS: IMPACT ON THE HEALTH SYSTEM

Valeriia Kushnyr

doi:10.23856/6329

Valeriia Kushnyr https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3594-3589

Keywords: molecular-genetic testing, bio-realization engineering technologies, cancer diagnostics, healthcare system, personalized treatment

Abstract

This article delves into the analysis of the impact of bio-realization engineering technologies on cancer diagnostic processes within the contemporary healthcare system. The objective of the article is to identify the potential of molecular-genetic testing and other bio-realization methods in enhancing diagnostic capabilities and therapeutic approaches for oncological diseases. To achieve this goal, general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis of existing research in this field are utilized, including a review of scientific literature and a critical analysis of the results of experimental studies. The findings confirm the significant impact of bio-realization engineering technologies on the advancement of cancer diagnostics. Specifically, molecular-genetic testing opens new avenues for early detection and personalized treatment approaches for cancer, based on the genetic characteristics of tumors. These technologies are particularly valuable for countries with limited medical resources, as they offer cost-effective and efficient solutions that provide broader access to quality diagnostic services. They also contribute to improving the overall efficacy of treatment strategies and optimizing medical research, reducing the burden on medical staff. The practical significance of the obtained results lies in the possibility of their application in the development of new diagnostic tools and techniques aimed at enhancing the accuracy, accessibility, and efficiency of cancer treatment. This, in turn, may contribute to reducing mortality from oncological diseases and improving patients' quality of life. Bio-realization engineering technologies, particularly molecular-genetic testing, play a pivotal role in modern oncological diagnostics, offering promising opportunities for the improvement of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for cancer. Their integration into the healthcare system enhances diagnostic accuracy, treatment accessibility, and the overall level of medical services, opening new horizons in the fight against oncological diseases.

References

1. Alexander, C., Andersson, H. S., Andersson, L. I., Ansell, R. J., Kirsch, N., Nicholls, I. A., ... & Whitcombe, M. J. (2006). Molecular imprinting science and technology: A survey of the literature for the years up to and including 2003. Journal of Molecular Recognition, 19(2), 106-180.
2. Bazin, I., Tria, S. A., Hayat, A., & Marty, J.-L. (2017). New biorecognition moleculesin biosensors for the detection of toxins. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 87, 285–298.
3. Cieplak, M., & Kutner, W. (2016). Artificial biosensors: How can molecular imprinting mimic biorecognition? Trends in Biotechnology, 34(12), 922–941.
4. Gu, C., Guo, C., Li, Z., Wang, M., Zhou, N., He, L., Zhang, Z., & Du, M. (2019). Bimetallic ZrHf-Based Metal-Organic Framework Embedded with Carbon Dots: Ultra-Sensitive Platform for Early Diagnosis of HER2 and HER2-Overexpressed Living Cancer Cells. Biosens. Bioelectron., 134, 8–15.
5. Haßel, S., & Mayer, G. (2019). Aptamers as Therapeutic Agents: Has the Initial Euphoria Subsided? Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy, 23(3), 301–309.
6. Kissinger, P. T. (2005). Biosensors—a perspective. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 20(12), 2512–2516.
7. Landry, J., Ke, Y., Yu, G.-L., & Zhu, X. (2015). Measuring Affinity Constants of 1450 Monoclonal Antibodies to Peptide Targets with a Microarray-Based Label-Free Assay Platform. Journal of Immunological Methods, 417, 86–96.
8. Lorenzoni, L., Belloni, A., Sassi, F. (2019). Health Spending Projections to 2030: New results based on a revised OECD methodology. OECD Health Working Papers, No. 110. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5667f23d-en
9. Mayoral-Peña, K.; González Peña, O.I.; Orrantia Clark, A.M.; Flores-Vallejo, R.d.C.; Oza, G.; Sharma, A.; De Donato, M. Biorecognition Engineering Technologies for Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Non-Conventional and Plausible Sensor Development Methods. Cancers 2022, 14, 1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14081867
10. National Cancer Institute. (2023). Cancer statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics
11. OECD. (2021). Diagnostic technologies. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/ed023875-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/ed023875-en
12. Pantel, K., Hanash, S., Kerr, K., Wang, D., Burns, K., & Alix-Panabières, C. (2024). Cancer: Biology and Diagnostics. Clinical Chemistry, 70, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvad200
13. Wilchek, M., Bayer, E.A., & Livnah, O. (2006). Essentials of Biorecognition: The (Strept) Avidin–Biotin System as a Model for Protein-Protein and Protein-Ligand Interaction. Immunology Letters, 103(1), 27–32.
14. Williams, D.H., Stephens, E., O’Brien, D.P., & Zhou, M. (2004). Understanding Noncovalent Interactions: Ligand Binding Energy and Catalytic Efficiency from Ligand-induced Reductions in Motion within Receptors and Enzymes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 43(44), 6596–6616.