What happens when you can design tiny fluid channels overnight instead of waiting months for them to arrive? That question is addressed in today’s episode with Paul Marshall, CEO of Rapid Fluidics. Paul’s company uses 3D printing to speed up microfluidics prototyping and production, giving scientists and engineers tools that match the pace of their ideas. In our conversation, Paul traces his path from designing industrial inkjet printers and offshore fabrications to founding Rapid Fluidics in 2020. We explore how additive manufacturing offers new possibilities beyond conventional fabrication and what it takes to grow a thriving biotech business.

⚠️ Disclaimer:
This podcast is for educational and informational purposes only. The views expressed do not constitute medical or financial advice. The technologies and procedures discussed may not be commercially available or suitable for every case. Always consult with a licensed professional.

About Our Guest

Paul Marshall is the founder and Managing Director of Rapid Fluidics. His career spans more than 14 years of engineering, from building industrial inkjet printers to managing 1000-ton offshore fabrications. Along the way, he gained experience in sales, CAD training, and technical support, but ultimately wanted to focus his skills on something with lasting impact.

That opportunity arrived in 2014, when Paul joined biotech startup QuantuMDx in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. There, he led the engineering of a point-of-care molecular diagnostic device built around a microfluidic cartridge. His PhD at Newcastle University gave him the tools to spot a market gap in rapid prototyping for microfluidics. Six years later, he founded Rapid Fluidics to deliver that service, providing researchers with designs that move as quickly as their science.

Key Takeaways

• 3D printing has shortened the prototyping cycle for microfluidics from months-long waits to overnight delivery, giving researchers more freedom to experiment.
• The flexibility of resin printing allows Rapid Fluidics to produce complex, branching fluid networks and integrated devices that traditional fabrication cannot easily replicate.
• Challenges remain around material transparency, fluorescence, and biocompatibility, yet these constraints push ongoing R&D.
• Scaling a hardware startup means balancing bespoke client projects with the need for repeatable, standardized designs that can be produced at higher volume.

Entrepreneurship is both stressful and rewarding. For Paul, the chance to build something that accelerates science makes the risks worthwhile.

The Challenge of Traditional Microfluidics

• Conventional fabrication methods like soft lithography and CNC machining are time-intensive with delivery times stretching as far as 18 weeks.
• It’s difficult for researchers to test hypotheses quickly due to long delays. This leads to lost momentum and missed opportunities.
• Even minor design changes can require restarting the fabrication cycle.

Rapid Fluidics was created to address this gap and plans on cutting turnaround to a matter of days while maintaining design flexibility.

How Rapid Fluidics Works

• Uses resin-based 3D printing to build microfluidic devices with complex internal geometries.
• Prototypes can be delivered within 24 hours! Clients are given immediate feedback on new designs.
• Devices are not limited to “lab-on-a-chip” applications. Projects have included:
  • Leaf-inspired vascular networks that are modeled on natural branching structures to study fluid dynamics.
  • Valve manifolds that integrate multiple valves into a single printed unit to simplify assemblies.
  • Anatomical models for research, education, and clinical planning
• The company’s rapid iteration cycle lets clients move from idea to functional prototype without the bottlenecks of traditional manufacturing.
  

Expanding Applications

• Life sciences and biotech: Tools for diagnostics, drug development, and experimental biology.
• Pharma and commercial R&D: Tailored manifolds and fluidic systems for specialized testing.
• Education and training: Clear anatomical models and simplified fluidic devices for teaching complex principles.
• Standard lab equipment: Innovations in familiar formats, like the 96-well plate, that improve usability.

Rapid Fluidics bridges academic research, industrial application, and clinical interest, showing how microfluidics can reach far beyond the lab.

Scaling the Business

• Growth depends on managing the tension between custom prototyping and repeatable products that can serve larger markets.
• Support from Innovate UK has helped fund R&D and hardware development
• Enabling closer collaboration with biotech and pharmaceutical partners by expanding to the U.S. market as a future goal.
• Paul emphasizes that staying nimble is essential. Even as the company scales, maintaining speed and responsiveness remains the core value proposition.

Entrepreneurship and Advice

• Running a hardware company brings pressure, but also immense satisfaction in seeing ideas take shape and help clients move forward.
• Paul encourages young engineers to:
  • Take risks early in their careers even if it feels uncomfortable.
  • Say yes to opportunities. What starts as a sketch can grow into a company.
  • Accept that stress is part of the journey and remember that the fun lies in building something tangible and impactful.
• His career reflects the value of applying engineering skills to problems that matter, where even small improvements can create a big difference for researchers and patients.

Resources & Follow-up

🌐 Guest & Company

• Paul Marshall on LinkedIn
• Rapid Fluidics Official Website

🔗 Institutions & Collaborations

• Newcastle University (PhD collaboration)
• Innovate UK (grant support)
• QuantuMDX

🔗 Microfluidics & 3D Printing Resources

• General Microfluidics Overview (Lab on a Chip, RSC)
• Dolomite Microfluidics (extrusion systems)
• Microfluidics Shift in COVID (NIH)

🔗 Applications Mentioned in the Transcript

• Lab-on-a-Chip Background (NIH)
• 96 Well Plate Format (Thermo Fisher)
• Point of Care Molecular Diagnostics (ScienceDirect)
• 3D CAD Technology
• PCB Embedded Wells & Technology (Nature Article)

🔗 Media & Podcasts Referenced

• Northern Spin Podcast (UK politics & Business)
• Mark Bouris (Business Podcast)

📚 Books & Culture References

• Stephen King
• George R. R. Martin (author of Game of Thrones)
• Hadrian’s Wall (inspiration for The Wall in GoT)

Lattice Podcast Shownotes Collective

The post Episode #95 | What’s Next For 3D Printed Microfluidics? appeared first on 3DHeals.

What is the next frontier of medical device and biotech innovation?  Don’t miss this upcoming virtual event, “3D Microfabrication 2.0.” Joined by leading experts and pioneers in the field, this event promises to unveil the transformative potential of 3D microfabrication techniques in revolutionizing the landscape of medical device manufacturing. From intricate implants to specialized instruments, participants will gain exclusive insights into how micro or nano-scale 3D printing is reshaping the design, production, and functionality of medical devices with unprecedented precision and efficiency at a micro-scale using a variety of biomaterials. Could bio-chips (microfluidics devices), robotic and endoscopic tips, and microneedles be the next frontier of international technological competition like that for the semiconductor industry? Join the conversation live and find out!

Note: If you can’t make it on time, you can register and watch the conversation on-demand for a week after the live event ends.

Live event participation is FREE to all public.

Starting Time: 8:00 AM Pacific Time

Apply to speak or sponsor the event: info@3dheals.com

Subscribe here to receive event emails.

Speakers:

Dr. Benjamin Richter

Benjamin Richter is an Application Manager at Nanoscribe and develops microfabrication processes and applications for the life sciences. Before, he completed an interdisciplinary PhD thesis on “Selective Biofunctionalization of 3D Microstructures” in the groups of Prof. Wegener, Prof. Bastmeyer and Prof. Barner-Kowollik at KIT. His scientific papers have been cited more than 1500 times (Google Scholar).

Chunguang Xia

CTO and co-founder of Boston Micro Fabrication (BMF). Chunguan was trained as a mechanical engineer and worked in the semiconductor equipment industry for eight years before starting BMF Precision. Recently, BMF Biotechnology Inc. developed biochips for in vitro drug testing.

Jungho Choi

Jungho is a Ph.D candidate at Gatech with a background in mechanical engineering. His research is specialized in micro/nanoscale manufacturing. I aim to develop a new metal/polymer additive manufacturing system and generate the processing science for a rapid and cost-effective nanoscale fabrication system.

Talk title, “Scalable printing of metal nanostructures through superluminescent light projection”

Moderator:

Dr. Jenny Chen

Dr. Jenny Chen is trained as a neuroradiologist, and founder/CEO of 3DHEALS. Her main interests include next-generation education, 3D printing in the healthcare sector, automated biology, and artificial intelligence. She is an angel investor who invests in Pitch3D companies.

Now on Demand:

Subscribe here to receive event emails.

The post 3D Microfabrication 2.0 🗓 appeared first on 3DHeals.

Anna Bickham is the cofounder and CEO of Acrea 3D. Anna received her Ph.D. in chemistry from Brigham Young University in Dr. Adam Woolley’s lab, focusing on traditional and 3D printed fabrication of various medical and electrical microfluidic devices. She then spun Acrea 3D out of the technology used during her doctoral program, originating out of Dr. Greg Nordin’s lab. Acrea 3D specializes in micro-scale DLP-SLA printing of void features down to 20 um. By leveraging mechanical, software, and physical techniques, Acrea 3D enables true microfluidic 3D printing. Anna will be speaking at our upcoming 3D printing and Microfluidics Event.

When was the first encounter you had with 3D printing? What was that experience like? What were you thinking at that moment?

Anna: I first started 3D printing during graduate school. My lab was collaborating with the engineering department to do some microfluidic printing. I wasn’t directly working on that project at first (I did all of my fabrication the traditional way, in the cleanroom). But I thought that 3D printing sounded like a lot of fun. So one day, after I received a scholarship bonus from the university, I went onto Amazon on bought a very small, user-friendly FDM printer. There were a lot of limitations to it, but for a hobby printer, it suited me very well for a few years.

What inspired you to start your journey?

Anna: As mentioned in Question 1, I started my graduate school work doing traditional cleanroom fabrication, but our lab was switching over to a 3D printing approach. I was always interested in the 3D printing we were doing, but it was only halfway through my degree that I was able to start switching my work over. I was very pleased with the transition, as 3D printing saved me a lot of time that I didn’t have to spend on device fabrication and could instead focus on experimentation.

Who inspired you the most along this journey?

Anna: My main mentors for 3D printing were my graduate advisor, Adam Woolley, and the professor of the lab we collaborated with, Greg Nordin. These two paved a lot of the path that I followed to get into printing and spinning Acrea 3D out of the university after graduation.

What motivates you the most for your work? 

Anna: My main motivation is to try to bring 3D printing to other labs that are working on projects similar to the one I was doing. Since I started with traditional manufacturing and switched to 3D printing, I feel like I have a good perspective of what it is like to be on both sides of the fence. Acrea 3D sells the 3D printer that was custom-built in Greg Nordin’s lab to meet the microfluidic needs that we had as users. We hope to carry the technology so that others can benefit from our work.

What is/are the biggest obstacle(s) in your line of work? If you have conquered them, what were your solutions? 

Anna: One of the biggest obstacles is educating our customers: trying to teach them what printer specifications are important and which are not, why a $100 printer from Amazon won’t cut it if you want <100 um features, etc. 3D printing is still a new industry that a lot of people are interested in and want to make the change, but they just don’t know what to look for yet.

What do you think is (are) the biggest challenge(s) in 3D Printing/bio-printing? What do you think the potential solution(s) is (are)?

Anna: I think one of the biggest challenges is getting projects to market. There are a lot of dreamers out there and a lot of really good potential applications. But there’s still work that needs to be done before they can come to market and actually make an impact on the world. My hope is that 3D printing is part of the solution to bridging this gap. I also think that a closer relationship between pharma, printing manufacturers, and researchers could help to bridge the gap.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ????Healthcare 3D Printing???? (@3dheals)

What advice would you give to a smart driven college student in the “real world”? What bad advice you heard should they ignore? 

Anna: Your college work isn’t what you’ll be doing for the rest of your life. There’s still a lot of things that you’ll learn on the job. Those things are way more important to learn well.

What’s your favorite book you read this year and why? Alternatively, what’s your favorite book of all time you read and why?

Anna: I enjoyed “Waybound” by Will Wight. It is the finale of the 12-book Cradle Series, which is an anime-style series about a boy growing from a weak nobody to the strongest man on earth. It’s a lighthearted fiction, good for relaxing, with a good moral and clean style. I also think that Will Wight has a particular talent for writing engaging fight scenes.

Related Links:

Interview with Soon Seng Ng: Bioprinting for Therapy

Interview with Natan Barros: 3D Bioprinting and Microfluidics

Interview with Taciana Pereira, 3D Bioprinting and Allevi

Bioprinting Vasculatures (On-Demand)

Interview: Professor Adam Feinberg, Carnegie Mellon University, CTO and co-founder FluidForm

3D Printing and Microfluidics (On Demand)

Guide: 3D Printing For Cancer Care

Interview with Elliot McAllister: 3D Printing Microfluidics

The post Interview with Anna Bickham, CEO of Acrea 3D appeared first on 3DHeals.

Cancer, what a modern-day existential threat to humanity, is a word that triggers a cringe from the most fearless. I don’t need to give you a precise mortality/morbidity number, because chances are high that you have already encountered cancer directly or indirectly if you are reading this article. Over the past decades in the field of oncology, we have made significant progress, from diagnosis, and surgical interventions, to therapeutics. According to a recent report from McKinsey, “In 1970, of those diagnosed with cancer in the United States, approximately half would have been alive five years later. For those diagnosed in 2009, the figure was closer to 70 percent.”   Despite that, cancer is still surpassing heart disease as a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020. [10] The demand for faster and more accurate diagnostics, and less invasive and personalized treatments (precision medicine) are driving researchers to technologies like 3D printing and 3D bioprinting. This guide aims to summarize ongoing developments and progress made using 3D printing and 3D Bioprinting for cancer care. We will periodically update this guide to stay up to date. Please email info@3dheals.com if you want to recommend new technologies or companies for us to be included in future versions of this guide. 

Here is an outline for this guide: 

• Current trends in cancer care.
• What benefits does Three-Dimensional (3D) printing (biologic and nonbiologic) bring to the table for cancer care? 
• How are people using non-biologic 3D printing in cancer care? 
• How are people using bioprinting in cancer care? 
• Which Non-biologic 3D printing companies are focusing on cancer care? 
• Which bioprinting companies are focusing on cancer care? 
• Conclusion
• References

Current Trends in Cancer Care

It would be erroneous to try to apply 3D printing or 3D bioprinting without paying attention to the overall trends in cancer care. While the main therapeutic options in the field of oncology are still surgical resection, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and hormonal therapy, newer treatment options are becoming more impactful. These include but are not limited to the following [9, 11]: 

• Digital health – This includes telehealth, wearable devices, apps, and other digital tools to allow providers and patients to engage remotely, cutting costs, providing convenience, and preventing complications.
• Precision medicine – Current cancer treatments often come with significant morbidities because they often kill healthy tissues along with cancer cells. There is an increasing consensus that personalized cancer care with improved early diagnosis including genetic testing (i.e. pharmacogenomics), less and more customized chemotherapy, more immunotherapy, and even gene therapy.
•  Competitive landscape – The oncology market is extremely competitive. With more disruptors in the space (gene therapies, immunotherapies, etc), and expiring patents, drug companies are racing to control costs and decrease drug development timelines. According to our recent virtual event on the subject, only 5% of all cancer drugs eventually benefit patients after a long and expensive R&D period, with an average development timeline of 9.5 years. Even after launch, only a small number of these will have sufficiently transformative benefit-to-risk profiles to drive return on investment.
• Market Growth – The field of oncology will continue to expand at a rapid pace due to a large aging population. In the U.S., it is estimated that more than seventy percent of cancer diagnoses with occur among adults over 65 years old. This is a 45% increase from 2010. Oncology costs will rise by 9-12% annually through 2023, with global oncology costs exceeding $240 billion [9,12]. Therefore, cost control is a priority no matter where you live. Even as new and better therapies emerge, pharma companies can expect to face mounting pressure to reduce treatment costs.
• Accelerated Innovation –  According to the McKinsey report, ‘though it took about eight years between the first therapy for HER2-positive patients in 1999 and the next therapy, the gap between the first-to-market PARP inhibitor in 2013 and the next was less than two years.” This is not only manifested in scientific advances but also in an uptick in venture capital investments and acquisition premiums.  

With these trends in mind, let’s see how 3D printing and bioprinting can transform future cancer care.

What benefits does 3D printing (biologic and nonbiologic) bring to the table for cancer care? 

While they are very different, a 3D printed anatomical model for presurgical planning using polymer shares several common concepts with a 3D-bioprinted model for cancer drug development. These features directly stem from several fundamentally new, unique, and powerful characteristics additive manufacturing offers.

1. Digital manufacturing:

Complete control over the manufacturing process, starting from design to the end product. Digitalization enables automation, and automation enables scaling that no existing conventional manufacturers or laboratories can provide.

2. Mass customization:

No two patients are identical, and the call for personalized medicine in oncological care simply cannot be met using conventional manufacturing processes to the degree 3D printing can achieve.

3. Rapid prototyping:

While there is a general trend toward promoting “mass production” using AM technologies, “rapid prototyping” remains to be a dominant reason for adaption in healthcare.

4. Complexity for “free”:

3D Printing and bioprinting offer complexity in end-product simply cannot be found elsewhere in the manufacturing world. Whether a one-off 3D-printed anatomical model for complex life-saving surgery or a uniquely designed complex microfluidic chip, both pose some of the most economic applications using 3D printing.

Additionally, significant overlap exists between non-organic 3D printing and bioprinting:

• Many different 3D printing technologies can be used for both, including extrusion-based 3D printing (e.g. FDM, SLA, inkjet-based, etc.)
• Materials and Bio-ink play a critical role in the final product.

How are people using non-biologic 3D printing in cancer care? 

Many applications using 3D printing for oncological surgical intervention are similar to applications in non-oncological surgeries. Being the “digital twin” of the tumor before the patient undergoes surgery, these applications leverage the visual and haptic advantages of a 3D-printed model and create patient-

Many applications of 3D printing for oncological surgical intervention are similar to applications in non-oncological surgeries. Being the “digital twin” of the tumor before the patient undergoes surgery, these applications leverage the visual and haptic advantages of a 3D-printed patient-specific model. Complimentary devices also include surgical guides for preoperative planning, testing, intraoperative precision cutting, device placements, and postoperative radiation therapy planning devices to achieve improved clinical outcomes. As technology matures, there are more and more published creative uses of this type of 3D printing. For those who are interested in more details on how to implement additive manufacturing from an operational management perspective, we have put together a very in-depth regularly updated guide.

We also have quite a few on-demand videos on 3D printing in hospitals. 

Some of the main applications include [4]:

1. Pre-surgical planning.

With a patient-specific 3D model in hand, the surgeon can more effectively strategize the surgical approach, and even practice on the 3D-printed model, reducing intra-operative decision-making and complications. This is especially important for high-stake, complex procedures, where the tumor involves critical structures, such as important vessels and nerves. It is foreseeable that three-dimensional printing will be more widely incorporated into virtual surgical planning in less complex surgeries as the technologies are more affordable and user-friendly. 

2. Patient and physician communication tool.

A picture is worth a thousand words. A 3D-printed model is worth likely more. The combination of spatial-visual and haptic information conveyed through a 3D-printed model not only helps physician-physician communication, but also physician-patient communication, removing information barriers that often waste time and effort in trying to reach consensus. This is particularly helpful in pediatric cases and uncommon pathologies. The communication benefits were cited in a number of publications but also well-discussed in our webinars focusing on point-of-care 3D printing. [13] 

3. Intra-operative surgical guides.

3D printed patient-specific surgical guides are becoming more and more popular in surgery in general, as it reduces intra-operative decision making, provides consistent surgical outcomes, and reduce operating time. Many ongoing clinical trials currently focus on the immediate and long-term outcomes using these surgical guides. 

4. Patient-specific prosthetics and implants.

Space-filling patient-specific prosthetics and implants are increasingly in demand in post-resection cancer surgery patients. This is, in particular, relevant for breast cancer surgery, reconstructive surgery, and orthopedic surgery in a variety of disfiguring procedures. There are still many technical challenges. These include highly heterogenous cancer types (For example, there are many different types of breast cancers involving different cell types and having different molecular/genetic profiles),  a lack of 3D printing material options, labor intensive and expensive printing process, a general lack of clinical trials outcome data, and invalidated implant mechanical properties.

However, what is encouraging is that there are a number of non-biologic 3D printing implant startups are already tackling cancer surgeries facing millions of patients each year. These include and are not limited to Onkons Surgical (musculoskeletal cancer), Prayasta (breast cancer), Lattice Medical (breast cancer), BellaSeno (breast cancer, chest wall defect, musculoskeletal defects). 

5. Patient-specific radiation oncology.

A main adjuvant treatment in cancer care is radiotherapy, aiming to stop the spread of metastasis because oftentimes, surgery alone cannot effectively remove all the cancer cells. The residual tumor can invade adjacent tissues, but also spread quickly to the rest of the human body via a process called metastasis.  This is an active area of research because radiation comes with many side effects.

Patient-specific 3D-printed simulation models can potentially reduce the side effects of radiation therapy, preserving the function of normal tissue adjacent to the tumor. [6] There are already quite a lot of innovations in creating patient-specific brachytherapy for a variety of cancers, and we have several Expert Corner blogs on this subject:

3D Printing of Customizable Phantoms in Radiation Oncology

3D Printing for Cancer Treatment – Radiation Therapy Liver Phantom

Some of the notable development include 3D Systems announcing VSP® Bolus to optimize radiotherapy targeting in April 2022. 

Quite a few startups are also moving into the space, including 3DLifePrint and Adaptiiv. 

How are people using 3D bioprinting in cancer care? 

Bioprinting is tackling three main aspects of cancer treatment: disease modeling, diagnosis, and drug delivery. Microfluidics, some considered a subcategory of bioprinting, play a growing and instrumental role in cancer management. While not all microfluidics are 3D printed, many latest innovations use 3D printing as an alternative manufacturing method or use 3D printing in conjunction with end applications. Therefore, microfluidics is included in this part of the discussion. Microfluidics currently has a much larger market than bioprinting, and maybe even tissue engineering. For those who are interested, we have a dedicated on-demand course on microfluidics and also an upcoming live event.

Disease modeling.  

In Sun Tzu’s famous “The Art of War”, he wrote “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Effective disease modeling is the key to winning the war against cancer. The creation of a high-fidelity cancer model enables more effective personalized treatment strategies and the discovery of new oncological medicine. In the past, planar (2D) and 3D cell cultures and animal models, have been developed for cancer treatment research. While animal models are often superior to cell cultures, they are expensive in cost and time, and perhaps more importantly, increasingly ethically unaccepted by several major regulatory entities.

It is also important to mention that a major drive toward non-animal disease models including 3D cell culture, bioprinted 3D tissue models, and microfluidics-based technology comes from the governments.

Recent regulatory milestones need your attention

2013: EU bans cosmetic animal testing [14]

After two-decade-long efforts in the EU, in 2013, EU Directive 76/768/EEC (Cosmetics Directive) established “a testing ban i.e. it is prohibited to test a finished cosmetic product and its ingredients on animals in the EU; and a marketing ban i.e. it is prohibited to market a finished cosmetic product or its ingredients in the EU if they are tested on animals.” 

“Between 2007 and 2011 the EU spent €238 million on funding non-animal replacement tests – a testament to its concern about animal welfare, the 3Rs, and the quest to find alternative methods.”

Needless to say, this explains why some of the earliest commercialized bioprinting products focuses on the skin. We have a guide focusing on bioprinting skin for those who are interested. 

2021: EMA implements new measures to minimize animal testing during drug development. [15]

In 2021, European Medicine Agency pushes forward continuous efforts against animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry. “The Agency promotes three principles — replace, reduce and refine; commonly referred to as 3Rs — through EMA’s Innovation Task Force (ITF). This action will facilitate the development and implementation of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) that are in line with the European Union legislation on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.” Alternative approaches to animal models mentioned included tests based on human and animal cells, organoids, organ-on-chips, and in silico modeling.

2021: The congress passes FDA Modernization Act of 2021. [16]

Introduced in House (04/15/2021), this bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods to animal testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a drug, and for other purposes. The regulatory landscape is clarifying. 

More arguments against animal testing

Additionally, results from animal models often cannot be translated into human subjects.

This likely explains why 95% of all cancer drugs in development cannot reach the market. [1] Recently, 3D bioprinting-based cancer models using human cells are gaining popularity over traditional 2D and 3D cancer cell cultures made using other tissue engineering techniques. The main reasons are again related to the main principles behind additive manufacturing mentioned at the beginning of the article. The reduced cost and increased complexity in the bio-printed cancer models can be a more cost-effective (and ethical) solution than animal models.

The Big Question: Is Bioprinted 3D Tissue Model Better than Existing Models? 

The answer is Maybe. 

More importantly, will the 3D model behave more like real cancer?

The verdict is out there according to our panel on this subject lately. However, we are likely to see a lot of data on this comparison in the next six to twelve months. So stay tuned for our next update. 

While emerging technologies tell a great story, many disappoint in reality. While grifters always exist in every industry, the majority of the scientists and entrepreneurs are honest and truly believed in what they are working on. However, scientific and technological advancements take both time and luck, and often, it depends on the state of understanding of the disease process. The process may not always be linear, either. Many discoveries started with an observation, then decades of the unraveling of the science behind it, followed by hypothesis, testing, and eventually the creation of useful therapeutics for the patients.

During our recent virtual event focusing on 3D bioprinting cancer,  Dr. Antti Arjonen, Chief Science Officer at Brinter, presented how he is translating our observation and understanding of breast cancer pathogenesis into creating useful bioprinted cancer models. One simple reason why 3D bioprinted cancer models are superior to 2D models can be extracted from the fact that cancer occurs often first in the breast ducts than lobules. Having a disease model that can recreate more accurate cell-cell interaction, cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interaction, and tumor micro-environment (high pressure, hypoxia) in a consistent high-throughput/low-cost manner will be more useful. 

That said, just like a simple imitation of a bird’s wings cannot allow one to fly, it is only when we understood Bernoulli’s principal and fundamental physics behind aviation, could the Wright brothers invented the first motor-operated airplanes and the giant industry today after a century of evolution. Maybe the bioprinted ear cannot actually hear, but using regenerative medicine to replace or repair our body parts that no longer work is what the world wants. 

Some key developments in bio-printed cancer models include the following [1-3]:

Cancer Disease Model:

1. Tumor microenvironment simulation.

It’s been long recognized that the proliferation of cancer depends not just on cancerous cells alone, but on interactions between cancer cells and many other players in the “microenvironment”, which is a combination of the extracellular matrix, immune cells, vascular cells, chemical cues (growth factors and cytokines), and biophysical cues (interstitial pressure and matrix mechanics), and more. [1,3] 3D Bioprinting can more precisely. create a scaffold of this microenvironment. While most bioprinted cancer models are created using the extrusion-based technique, which typically is of lower resolution, higher resolution structures using two-photon laser bioprinting technology can be as high as less than 500 nanometers according to CEO of VoxCell BioInnovation Karolina Valente. Even for more conventional extrusion-based bioprinting , innovations are improving the technology. For example, very recently, Raphael Lichtnecker from Puredyne ViscoTec presented a new tool using a progressive cavity pump for better-controlled extrusion type bioprinting. 

2. Tumor angiogenesis.  

Both sacrificial and direct bioprinting can create cancer models with vascularization. [1] A 3D printed microfluidic chip, which is a small chip with complex channels and valves, can be produced to mimic complex tumor vascularization. [3,5] To date, there has been no effective anti-metastasis medication. Understanding the disease process will be a key step. Bio-printed models have been shown to illuminate the process of breast cancer. [1]

During our recent virtual event focusing on cancer, Dr. Karolina Valente from VoxCell has showcased ways her company is tackling cancer vascularization challenge from several angles, using innovative software simulation, bioinks, and laser based printing technology. 

3. Metastasis model.

To date, there has been no effective anti-metastasis medication. Understanding the disease process will be a key step. Bio-printed models have been shown to illuminate the process of breast cancer. [1]

Drug discovery.

Effective disease modeling results in a better understanding of cancer pathogenesis, which results in the discovery of new anti-cancer drugs. Some experts have indicated that bioprinted 3D tumor models are more effective in modeling treatment response than 2D models. [2] While the verdict is still out there, a drug discovery platform that is highly reproducible, more accurate, and more capable of automation will likely generate better outcomes than the incumbent process. This will not only translate into more money saved but more importantly, more new and effective therapeutics for an evolving world. 

Drug screening for patient-specific care.

Parallel to drug discovery is drug screening for drug resistance and toxicity, often using patient-derived cancer cells. [2] Since cancer drugs are often toxic, patient-specific combinations and dosages of cancer treatments will maximize effectiveness while minimizing side effects. Given the current trends in oncological treatments stated earlier, a patient specific cancer model will be congruent with the overarching reference of pharmacogenetic approach in future cancer care.   

Diagnosis and Drug Delivery. [5,7,8]

Also, parallel to the development of bioprinting technologies is the advancement of manufacturing microfluidic chips, often called “organ-on-a-chip”, or “lab-on-a-chip”. Compared to traditional manufacturing techniques, bioprinting offers a cheaper solution with all the added value of 3D printing as described above. [5]

Diagnostic tool.

Microfluidic chips acting as a point-of-care diagnostic tool are not new, in fact, were made as the core technology in the infamous biotechnology startup Theranos. As a diagnostic tool, the microfluid chip offers a solution that requires less sample volume, faster turnaround time, and potentially lower test costs. Leveraging nanotechnologies/nanomedicine. There is a growing ecosystem surrounding this application, focusing on diagnosing cancer cells from early metastasis to sepsis. [7,8]

Drug delivery system.  

In the author’s opinion, there is no accident around any major breakthrough or discovery in medicine. With the concurrent advancements in immunology, genetics, nanotechnologies, and nanomedicine, it is only a matter of time before a more personalized targeted drug delivery system will appear. In fact, researchers are already proposing targeted treatment using microfluidic chips designed to destroy metastatic tumor cells. [7]

Which Non-biologic 3D printing companies are focusing on cancer care? 

Like any emerging technology, it is often a trial and error process in finding the best market product fit. We actively curate a list of companies, private and public, that use 3D printing as a core technology in their products and services. You can find the latest companies using our Company Directory, under the search term “cancer”.  Here is an infographic we recently shared including these companies, excluding bioprinting companies (see the following section): 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

Which bioprinting companies are focusing on cancer care? 

You can find the latest companies using our Company Directory, under the search term “cancer”. Here is an infographic we recently shared including bioprinting companies and microfluidics companies that use 3D printing as a core technology.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

Conclusion:

Like many other emerging technologies, 3D printing is a powerful tool that can transform healthcare and provide solutions that we could not imagine yesterday. It is important to understand the fundamental advantages of the technology to best utilize them in solving problems, and it is also important to always keep an open mind to learn and leverage technological advancements from adjacent fields. One step at a time, the battle against cancer will be won with these exciting technological advancements.

References:

1. Tingting Liu, Clement Delavaux, Yu Shrike Zhang, 3D bioprinting for oncology applications, J. 3D Print.Med. (2019) 3(2), 55–58
2. Aishwarya Satpathy, Pallab Datta, Yang Wu, Bugra Ayan, Ertugrul Bayram & Ibrahim T. Ozbolat (2018). Developments with 3D bioprinting for novel drug discovery, Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 13:12, 1115-1129,DOI: 10.1080/17460441.2018.1542427
3. Yu Shrike Zhang, Margaux Duchamp, Rahmi Oklu, Leif W. Ellisen, Robert Langer, and Ali Khademhosseini. Bioprinting the Cancer Microenvironment. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2016 2 (10), 1710-1721. DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00246
4. Georgia Makin, The current landscape of 3D printing in oncological surgical interventions Future Oncol. (2019) 15(26), 2999–3002
5.  Reza Amin et al. 3D-printed microfluidic devices. 2016 Biofabrication 8 022001
6. 3D Printing for Cancer Treatment – Radiation Therapy Liver Phantom
7. Alena Gribko, et al.  Is small smarter? Nanomaterial-based detection and elimination of circulating tumor cells: current knowledge and perspectives. Int J Nanomedicine. 2019; 14: 4187–4209.
8. The Growing Role of Microfluidics in Point-of-Care Diagnostics
9. Emerging Oncology Trends: 2021 And Beyond
10. Cancer to surpass heart disease as leading cause of death in US by 2020
11. Delivering innovation: 2020 oncology market outlook
12. Age and Cancer Risk
13. The use of 3D-printed models in patient communication: a scoping review

Want to write a piece for 3DHEALS Expert Corner? Email us: info@3dheals.com

About The Author:

Jenny Chen, MD, is currently the Founder and CEO of 3DHEALS, a company focusing on education and investing in the space of bioprinting, regenerative medicine, healthcare applications using 3D printing. She is trained as a neuroradiologist. With a focus on health technology, Dr. Chen also serves as a startup Mentor to IndieBio EU and French Tech Hub, tech accelerators that help IT and life science companies launch and expand their product offerings, identify customers, and manage operations. Her interests lie in the applications of emerging technologies (especially in the field of 3D printing and bioprinting), automated biology, and has a vision of a decentralized and personalized healthcare delivery system for our near future.

Related Links:

3D Bioprinting Cancer (On-Demand, 5/5/22)

Bioprinting Vasculatures (On-Demand, 3/24/22)

3D Printing for Cancer Treatment – Radiation Therapy Liver Phantom

Manufacturing of Functional Tissues In Vitro Using Bioprinting and Bioreactors

Vahid Serpooshan: Repairing Heart with Tissue Engineering

Enabling Futuristic Bioelectronics With Bioprinting: Beyond the Obvious

3D Printing for the Human Organ Shortage: Putting Bio back into Bioprinting

The post Guide: 3D Printing For Cancer Care appeared first on 3DHeals.

There is a growing trend of automated biology in recent life science research and development. In this issue of “From Academia”, we share with you two publications focusing on the eventual realization of automated bioprinting. The first article focus on a new 3D printing method that can produce self-supporting elastomeric microfluidics without sacrificial ink, therefore, reduces contamination while maintaining desired mechanical properties. The author suggests this methodology will allow automatable fabrication. The second article reports an automated one-step bioprinting technique for the production of COC-microbeads of reproducible size and shape and demonstrates that this 3D in vitro maturation (IVM) improves oocyte nuclear maturation and cytoplasmic parameters, biomarkers of oocyte bioenergetic and developmental potential.

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (info@3dheals.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

3D printed self-supporting elastomeric structures for multifunctional microfluidics

Authored by Ruitao Su, Jiaxuan Wen, Qun Su, Michael S. Wiederoder, Steven J. Koester, Joshua R. Uzarski Michael C. McAlpine. Science Advances, October 2020 

One-step automated bioprinting-based method for cumulus-oocyte complex microencapsulation for 3D in vitro maturation

Authored by Antonella Mastrorocco, Ludovica Cacopardo, Nicola Antonio Martino, Diana Fanelli, Francesco Camillo, Elena Ciani, Bernard A. J. Roelen,Arti Ahluwalia, Maria Elena Dell’Aquila. PLOS ONE. 11 September 2020

Related Articles

3D Printed Drug Delivering Medical Devices

3D Printing Ceramic Implants

3D Bioprinting Knee, Aneurysm Model, 3D Organization Using Microfluidics

3D Printing Pharmaceuticals and Drug Delivery Devices

3D Bioprinting The Heart & Cardiovascular System

Machine Learning in 3D Printing and Bioprinting, a Collection of Recent Publications

3DHEALS Guides (Collective) – This is where we dive deep into subjects that you will find helpful for your projects and career.

3DEALS Expert Corner (Collective) – This is where we invite field experts to write their perspectives in a first-person narrative. To write for this column, please email: info@3dheals.com

3DHEALS From Academia (Collective) – This section features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications in the space of healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Other similar articles

The post Automation and Bioprinting appeared first on 3DHeals.

The design and development of lab-on-a-chip devices enables high-throughput screening of drugs. In this week’s issue of “From Academia”, we share with you the three latest publications focusing on alternative materials for the fabrication of microfluidics or organ-on-a-chip, 3D cell culturing microfluidic devices, and microfluidics using digital light processing. The first article explores the design and development of a cost-effective 3D cell culturing microfluidics device using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), allowing high-throughput screening of anti-cancer drugs in 3D tumour spheroids. The second article demonstrates the feasibility of a 3D printed PDMS-based Microfluidic Device utilizing Digital Light Processing (DLP) printing technique. Beyond the use of PDMS materials, the third article reviews the fabrication of organ-on-a-chip and Microphysiological systems using alternative materials other than PDMS.

“From Academia” features recent, relevant, close to commercialization academic publications. Subjects include but not limited to healthcare 3D printing, 3D bioprinting, and related emerging technologies.

Email: Rance Tino (info@3dheals.com) if you want to share relevant academic publications with us.

Characterising a PDMS based 3D cell culturing microfluidic platform for screening chemotherapeutic drug cytotoxic activity

Authored by M. Ibrahim Khot, Mark A. Levenstein, Greg N. de Boer, Gemma Armstrong, Thomas Maisey, Hafdis S. Svavarsdottir, Helen Andrew, Sarah L. Perry, Nikil Kapur & David G. Jayne, Nature Scientific Reports. 28 September 2020 

Fabrication and Functionalization of 3D Printed Polydimethylsiloxane‐Based Microfluidic Devices Obtained through Digital Light Processing

Authored by Gustavo Gonzalez  Annalisa Chiappone  Kurt Dietliker  Candido Fabrizio Pirri  Ignazio Roppolo. Advanced Material Technologies. 29 July 2020

Beyond Polydimethylsiloxane: Alternative Materials for Fabrication of Organ-on-a-Chip Devices and Microphysiological Systems

Authored by Scott B. Campbell, Qinghua Wu, Joshua Yazbeck, Chuan Liu, Sargol Okhovatian, and Milica Radisic. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 11 August 2020

Related Articles:

3D Printing Ceramic Implants

3D Bioprinting Knee, Aneurysm Model, 3D Organization Using Microfluidics

3D Printing Pharmaceuticals and Drug Delivery Devices

3D Bioprinting The Heart & Cardiovascular System

Machine Learning in 3D Printing and Bioprinting, a Collection of Recent Publications

3D Printing for Neurosurgery Training, Vat Photopolymerization, soft robotic microsystem

Open-Source 3D printed Medical Devices and New Sensor for COVID

Other similar articles

The post The Fabrication of Microfluidics, 3D Cell Culture, Organ-on-a-Chip appeared first on 3DHeals.