Industry-academic partnerships: an approach to accelerate innovation.

BACKGROUND Biotechnology companies are process-driven organizations and often struggle with their ability to innovate. Universities, on the other hand, thrive on discovery and variation as a source of innovation. As such, properly structured academic-industry partnerships in medical technology development may enhance and accelerate innovation. Through joint industry-academic efforts, our objective was to develop a technology aimed at global cervical cancer prevention. METHODS Our Center for Medical Innovation assembled a multidisciplinary team of students, surgical residents, and clinical faculty to enter in the University of Utah's annual Bench-to-Bedside competition. Bench-to-Bedside is a university program centered on medical innovation. Teams are given access to university resources and are provided $500.00 for prototype development. Participation by team members are on a volunteer basis. Our industry partner presented the validated need and business mentorship. The team studied the therapeutic landscape, environmental constraints, and used simulation to understand human factors design and usage requirements. A physical device was manufactured by first creating a digital image (SOLIDWORKS 3D CAD). Then, using a 3-dimensional printer (Stratasys Objet30 Prime 3D printer), the image was translated into a physical object. Tissue burn depth analysis was performed on raw chicken breasts warmed to room temperature. Varying combinations of time and temperature were tested, and burn depth and diameter were measured 30 min after each trial. An arithmetic mean was calculated for each corresponding time and temperature combination. User comprehension of operation and sterilization was tested via a participant validation study. Clinical obstetricians and gynecologists were given explicit instructions on usage details and then asked to operate the device. Participant behaviors and questions were recorded. RESULTS Our efforts resulted in a functional battery-powered hand-held thermocoagulation prototype in just 72 d. Total cost of development was <$500. Proof of concept trials at 100°C demonstrated an average ablated depth and diameter of 4.7 mm and 23.3 mm, respectively, corresponding to treatment efficacy of all grades of precancerous cervical lesions. User comprehension studies showed variable understanding with respect to operation and sterilization instructions. CONCLUSIONS Our experience with using industry-academic partnerships as a means to create medical technologies resulted in the rapid production of a low-cost device that could potentially serve as an integral piece of the "screen-and-treat" approach to premalignant cervical lesions as outlined by World Health Organization. This case study highlights the impact of accelerating medical advances through industry-academic partnership that leverages their combined resources.

[1]  K. Semm New apparatus for the "cold-coagulation" of benign cervical lesions. , 1966, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  Mehmet Toner,et al.  Invention, innovation, entrepreneurship in academic medical centers. , 2008, Surgery.

[3]  Nancy Santesso,et al.  World Health Organization Guidelines: Use of cryotherapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2012, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  N. Haddad,et al.  Tissue Destruction Following Cold Coagulation of the Cervix , 1988 .

[5]  M. Jacoba,et al.  Experience using cryotherapy for treatment of cervical precancerous lesions in low-resource settings , 2005 .

[6]  E. Partridge,et al.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  J. Oosterhuis,et al.  Minimum Extension and Appropriate Topographic Position of Tissue Destruction for Treatment of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia , 1990, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  Daniel J. Rocke,et al.  Surgical innovation, industry partnership, and the enemy within , 2014, Head & neck.

[9]  G. Duval The benefits and threats of research partnerships with industry , 2005, Critical care.

[10]  R. Sankaranarayanan,et al.  Meta‐analysis of the efficacy of cold coagulation as a treatment method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review , 2014, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  Thomas M. Krummel,et al.  Innovation in Surgery: A Historical Perspective , 2006, Annals of surgery.

[12]  Patrick D. Loftus,et al.  Addressing challenges of training a new generation of clinician-innovators through an interdisciplinary medical technology design program: Bench-to-Bedside , 2015, Clinical and Translational Medicine.

[13]  Joanna Poyago-Theotoky,et al.  Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University–Industry Partnerships , 2002 .

[14]  H. Gooszen,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  A. Stevens The Enactment of Bayh–Dole , 2004 .

[16]  F. Abdul-Karim,et al.  Morphometric Study of Intraepithelial Neoplasia of the Uterine Cervix , 1982, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  A. Kesselheim,et al.  Origins of Medical Innovation: The Case of Coronary Artery Stents , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[18]  H. Dickinson,et al.  Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.