We met in Lyon, France for our the EACR Conference: Liquid Biopsies between 12 and 14 November 2024. The event was praised for its comprehensive overview of the liquid biopsies topic, covering what is already in clinical practice, what is on the horizon in cancer patient management and the latest techniques and applications for detecting solid tumours using liquid biopsies.
Supported by Worldwide Cancer Research, we were delighted to award several Travel Grants to help cancer researchers in need of financial assistance to attend the event.
Read on to learn about their experience of the conference.
1Diogo Ann Onuselogu
PhD student, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (University of Melbourne, Australia), and Cancer Research UK National Biomarker Centre (University of Manchester, United Kingdom)
Research: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is the DNA that cells release into the blood when they die. However, dying cancer cells can contribute to cfDNA as well. My PhD project is about using DNA sequencing technologies to “read” all the cfDNA fragments in a blood sample, then using computational methods to determine which of those samples are likely to have cfDNA from cancer. Without surgery or a scan, this blood test could help us detect if someone still has cancer after treatment or if their cancer is getting worse. I am currently working to create such a test for people with melanoma.
What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?
I had two key highlights. The first was when I got to meet a friend and fellow researcher who visited my home lab in Melbourne from his lab in Denmark earlier this year (Chris M.). It was great to see the outcomes of his research in Melbourne and introduce him to my new colleagues from the CRUK National Biomarker Centre in Manchester. He was also a travel grant recipient, so I’m especially thankful for these awards as they help to make the world smaller.
The second was when an industry representative referenced my poster in a question to a speaker regarding the use of machine learning in multiomics analysis. It was nice to know that it piqued the representative’s interest, so I made sure to ask him more about what he thought of my poster during the poster session. Our discussion, his own presentation, and the speaker’s response to his question helped me give me a new perspective for my research.
Were there any social or networking highlights you want to tell us about?
Given that I’ve been focussed on cell-free DNA deconvolution methods recently, it was nice to see many poster presenters referencing the cfDNA atlas published by Loyfer et al (2023) and explaining how they’ve been using it for deconvolution of their samples. Another networking highlight was how I met up with a travel grant recipient based in Thailand whose work and new methods I likely wouldn’t had heard of without the conference. We enjoyed discussing each other’s work and have since gotten connected on LinkedIn.
How was this conference different from others you have attended?
This conference was the first international liquid biopsy conference in the northern hemisphere that I have attended. It was wonderfully specific to my current research interests while still maintaining a large scope of topics within liquid biopsy. Therefore, it was amazing to see that it attracted such a diverse cohort of researchers that I could learn from and discuss ideas with.
Did you take part in any interesting local activities in your free time outside of the conference?
After the last day of the conference, me, a fellow PhD student from the CRUK National Biomarker Centre (Sophie R.), and the fellow PhD student who spent some time at my lab in Melbourne (Chris M; again, all travel grant recipients) climbed up the many steps to the Basilica of Notre Dame of Fourvière. On the way up and after finally reaching the top (after being told by an elderly couple on the way down, “Hup hup!”) we saw some wonderful views. The next day, Sophie and I visited Vieux Lyon, the Musée Cinéma et Miniature, the Musée des Confluences, the Zoo de Lyon, and several cafés and boulangeries. We walked and toured till our feet gave out. I thoroughly enjoyed my time, the great sights, and the wonderfully dry weather!
When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about?
Even before I got home, I was sending colleagues messages about some of the research I found most captivating. Eleni Tomazou’s group has been using deep learning on fragmentomics and methylation features to predict the cancer status at the level of cfDNA fragments instead of at the whole patient/healthy individual level. Another talk by Carolin Sauer introduced her tool SAVANA to pull copy number and structural variant features from long-read sequencing data. It’s amazing how quickly new workflows are being established for this “third generation” DNA sequencing. I have not yet worked with long-read sequencing data, but tools like hers increase my eagerness substantially!
Swipe left or click ‘Next’ at the top to see the next report
2Apiwat Sangphukieo
Researcher, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Research: Many people suffer and lose their lives to cancer, which drives my passion to develop technologies to fight this disease. Addressing cancer requires extensive knowledge across various disciplines, motivating me to explore diverse topics and technologies and to build expertise in bioinformatics. My current research focuses on developing innovative technologies based on DNA in blood for the early detection of cancer. The goal is to maximise the chances of successful treatment, save lives, and significantly reduce the cost of care.
What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?
I enjoyed hearing an inspiring keynote speaker who shared groundbreaking research and a fresh perspective on the liquid biopsy field. I also appreciated that the conference was focussed more on academic research and basic science, which aligns closely with my interests.
How has the conference inspired you in your research?
Because the technology in liquid biopsy advances very quickly, it is important to know the trends and get fresh knowledge from the main players in the field. It was a very good chance to meet and chat with the conference committee who largely contribute in this area of research.
Have you brought back any specific knowledge that has benefited your research?
Yes, I gained valuable comments and discussion during the conference that have directly benefited my research on liquid biopsy using cfDNA. For instance, I gained an idea to extract specific regions in the genome for cfDNA analysis, which might improve sensitivity and specificity in detecting early-stage cancer. Discussions with experts also provided perspectives on overcoming technical challenges, which I am now exploring in my work.
Swipe left or click ‘Next’ at the top to see the next report
3Christoffer Trier Maansson
PhD student, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
Research: My research focuses on improving early cancer detection through innovative blood-based analysis techniques. By studying cell-free DNA in lung cancer patients, I develop more sensitive methods to identify genetic mutations and understand how tumours evolve. Using advanced technologies like next-generation sequencing and chromatin immunoprecipitation, I can detect tiny epigenetic changes that traditional methods can miss. This research is crucial because it could help doctors diagnose cancer earlier, track disease progression more accurately, and potentially personalise treatment strategies.
How was this conference different from others you have attended?
This conference is different from other conferences I have attended like the AACR Annual Meeting and IASLC WCLC, which are very big conferences with multiple talks at the same time. This one lane strategy with longer days is great, I think. Then you will not miss anything and you will get closer to the participants because everyone has the same agendas.
How has the conference inspired you in your research?
I think the conference had a lot of great talks and posters on cfDNA methylation. This is an interesting topic we are not currently working on in our lab, but something we have considered for quite some time. It was great that companies involved in this were also present at the conference.
Were there any networking highlights you want to tell us about?
I knew some of the participants from previous collaborations and conferences and it was really great to get to see them again. The poster sessions were long so you had the time to get around to all the posters and I think the priority to make the poster sessions such a focus is a great idea because you can easily talk to the researchers behind the projects.
What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?
Besides the poster sessions, I think one of the highlights was the informal discussion between the four organisers. Without a doubt they are all world leading within their fields of research and sit and listen to them give their opinions on different research questions, which was super interesting! Especially Nicola Aceto’s talk on CTCs was especially great. I do not work with CTCs but he made me rethink that.
Swipe left or click ‘Next’ at the top to see the next report
4Heura Domènech García
PhD student, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Spain
Research: Our project focuses on improving personalised advanced breast cancer treatment by studying DNA and proteins from tumour cells in the blood. We detect changes in small pieces of cancer DNA in the bloodstream and specific biomarkers in cancer cells that travel through the blood. These findings help us understand how well patients are responding to the treatment. By tracking these changes, we aim to provide better guidance for doctors in deciding the next steps of treatment, ensuring that therapies are more effective and personalised to each patient’s needs over time.
What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?
The major highlight of the conference, from my point of view, was that it was topic-specific. Although I have learnt a lot in the previous EACR big congresses, the amount of information there was sometimes overwhelming and I did not have the opportunity to interact much with researchers that work in the same field as me, namely in circulating tumour cells and drug resistance. This time, I have been able to talk and to spend more quality time to discuss about my project and to learn from novel techniques which were unknown to me, and that will for sure help me in overcoming the challenges I am currently facing within my PhD project.
Were there any networking highlights you want to tell us about?
Yes, finally I was able to meet Dr. Nicola Aceto, whose work I have been following since the beginning of my graduate studies and I was able to ask him advice on some aspects of my project. I also had the opportunity to meet other experts within the CTC research field, which I did not know, and that are potential collaborators.
How has the conference inspired you in your research?
This conference has been eye-opening in many ways. I learned from lectures and by talking to experts about new approaches and biological aspects of CTCs and ctDNA sequence which I wasn’t aware of, and that have made me rethink and reorganise some parts of my project.
When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about?
Yes, two main things: first, there was a poster, which was about a new methodology to isolate single CTCs and that kept them perfectly intact. This new approach is of high interest for me because I am working with CTCs and I need them intact for my research proposes. So, I have talked to my supervisor about it. The second was about a lecture, which they talk about how to cope with low allele frequencies in cfDNA sequencing because I am working also within this field and I have also encountered some issues, so that maybe consider alternative approaches when analysing my data.
Swipe left or click ‘Next’ at the top to see the next report
5Oksana Mankovska
Research Scientist, Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics, NAS of Ukraine, Ukraine
Research: My research explores how long non-coding RNAs, molecules that do not produce proteins but but act like regulators of other genes, influence cancer. I study their potential as biomarkers and therapeutic targets, alongside DNA methylation—a process that acts like a gene “switch.” By analysing methylated tumor DNA and long non-coding RNAs in biological fluids, I aim to develop less invasive methods for predicting cancer outcomes and therapy responses, particularly in prostate and bladder cancers. This work could pave the way for improved cancer diagnostics and personalised treatments.
What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?
My personal highlight of the conference was the Meet the Experts discussion and Ann Hendrix’s talk about extracellular vesicles in liquid biopsy. The discussion was particularly valuable to me because, since beginning my liquid biopsy journey nearly ten years ago, I have often questioned whether I was addressing the right issues. During this insightful session, I repeatedly found validation that my thinking aligns with current challenges, particularly concerning the complexities of implementing liquid biopsy biomarkers in clinical practice. Ann Hendrix’s talk on EVs was also very important and valuable to me. As our lab is currently establishing methods for exosome isolation, purification, and analysis, her expertise and shared experiences were highly relevant and incredibly useful.
Were there any networking highlights you want to tell us about?
I had engaging conversations with several colleagues during the conference. Emilie Mamessier kindly invited me (or my PhD students) to visit her lab for research purposes. Additionally, Viola Bianca Serio from the University of Siena and I discussed the possibility of collaboration, as she shares an interest in prostate cancer research. I also had the chance to consult Ann Hendrix regarding challenges in exosome isolation, and her insights were incredibly helpful.
Furthermore, I gained valuable knowledge from the exhibitors about advancements supporting liquid biopsy research. Qiagen representatives visited my poster and told about their solutions for urine sample collection and storage, addressing some challenges in my work.
How was this conference different from others you have attended?
The poster session at this conference exceeded my expectations and was the most engaging I’ve experienced. Several factors likely contributed to its success: the timing of the sessions, the strategic placement of the posters, and the focused nature of the conference theme. Since the topic was highly specialised, participants could easily understand each other’s work and find valuable insights for their own research. This created an atmosphere of high interest and productive discussions.
How has the conference inspired you in your research?
I was inspired simply by the fact that the EACR dedicated an entire conference to liquid biopsy research. This highlights not only the importance of the topic but also its rapid development, as evidenced by the diverse participants who attended from around the globe. During the poster session, I felt highly motivated by colleagues who showed their interest, asking questions about my concept and methodology.
I was also deeply inspired by experienced scientists who have worked in the field of liquid biopsies for years. They have witnessed the evolution of methods and approaches, starting their work without the methodological diversity available today. Yet, they persevered, contributing significantly to the advancements we now benefit from. Their dedication serves as a profound source of inspiration, not just for my work in liquid biopsies but also for navigating the challenges of a career in research science.
Have you brought back any specific knowledge that has benefited your research?
Yes, I have brought the knowledge about the shallow sequencing method and its potential application to my research. Learning how other researchers measure tumour fractions was particularly significant for me. Additionally, the lecture by Ann Hendrix and her recommendations on selecting methods for exosome isolation were highly beneficial. We are already implementing some of her advice in our lab.
Swipe left or click ‘Next’ at the top to see the next report
6Sophie Richardson
PhD student, Cancer Research UK National Biomarker Centre, Manchester, UK
Were there any networking highlights you want to tell us about?
There were a few networking highlights for me. The main highlight would be speaking to Eleni Tomazou both after her talk and at my poster, as we are both using liquid biopsies in Ewing Sarcoma. It was interesting to discuss her approach to machine learning with small sample numbers, an issue everyone working with rare cancer types has! I also enjoyed speaking to some of the exhibitors. It was great to connect with them both in person and on LinkedIn after the conference, to hopefully start opening doors for my future career. James Hadfield, from AstraZeneca, was also interesting to speak with, as he brought a different perspective from the world of pharma into discussions and his questions throughout the conference.
How was this conference different from others you have attended?
This was my first liquid biopsy-focused conference, which made for the perfect opportunity to improve my awareness of the latest technologies and approaches in the field. All attendees were so engaged throughout the entire conference, to the point where I felt like the poster session was over before it had even begun because I was so busy! It was incredible to speak to so many people about their work and my own to understand how they all fit into the liquid biopsy space and complement one another.
Did you take part in any interesting local activities in your free time outside of the conference?
Before we flew home, I tried a Lyonnaise specialty – the brioche aux pralines! On every corner, there was another bakery to try. I also walked up the hill to the Basilica of Notre Dame of Fourvière, visited the zoo and botanical gardens in the Parc de la Tête d’Or, and explored the traboules.
How has the conference inspired you in your research?
The question of extracellular vesicle RNA versus total cell-free RNA, and whether there are any benefits to enriching for EVs, was thought-provoking for me as someone who is working with total cfRNA. If I had more than one year left of my PhD, this would be a question I would be interested in exploring further as there are still so many questions about the biology of cfRNA (although Bogdan Mateescu answered some with his presentation on cfRNA and RNA binding proteins, which was very exciting).
When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about?
Aside from the amazing pastries, I wanted to talk to colleagues about a variety of different posters and talks. The national biomarker centre focuses on all areas of liquid biopsy, so there was something to tell everyone! I was particularly keen to talk to others about Eleni Tomazou’s method of using fragments rather than individual patients in her machine learning approach. I was also excited to discuss Cristina Saura Manich’s work on breast milk for early detection of breast cancer due to the novelty of the analyte. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) were also a hot topic of the conference, so I was keen to discuss the use of EVs with my colleagues. Particularly, a question raised early in the conference regarding whether we need to enrich for EVs to perform RNA analysis, or whether total cfRNA from minimally processed plasma is sufficient.
Swipe left or click ‘Next’ at the top to see the next report
7Tina Moser
Postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Human Genetics, Diagnostic & Research Center for Molecular BioMedicine, Medical University of Graz, Austria
Research: Patients with cancer need better tools to monitor their treatment. Current methods are invasive, costly and cannot be performed frequently. My research focuses on liquid biopsy – a non-invasive and fast blood test to track cancer treatment in real-time. Using machine learning, we analyse the data to adjust therapies promptly, therefore minimising ineffective treatments, reducing costs and more importantly improving the quality of life of our patients.
What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?
One of the things I always look forward to at conferences is catching up with colleagues from all over the world. I’m a huge fan of Florent Mouliere and his team’s work, so his talk on Thursday was definitely a highlight for me. I really enjoyed chatting and discussing our current projects with him. Another highlight was the talk by Ann Hendrix. I haven’t worked with extracellular vesicles yet, so her introductory talk was great for bringing everyone up to speed. Her groundbreaking and much-needed efforts in standardising EV research are really impressive.
How was this conference different from others you have attended?
I really appreciated the idea of the “”Meet the Expert” session and the Discussion Panel. It was fascinating to hear their perspectives on specific topics. You get a variety of viewpoints, insights, and personal opinions that are incredibly valuable – things you wouldn’t find in any publication.
Did you take part in any interesting local activities in your free time outside of the conference?
I’m really glad I stayed in Lyon for two extra days after the conference. I used this time to go on a culinary journey through the city – I highly recommend the so-called Bouchons Lyonnais. The food is absolutely amazing! What more could you wish for than a day enjoying pains au chocolat, crêpes, and boeuf bourguignon?
How has the conference inspired you in your research?
Sometimes you just need a little reminder of why you chose this career path. This conference gave me exactly that. The speakers’ excitement and passion when sharing their data with others were so clear and contagious. And Caroline Dive’s closing words perfectly captured this as well. It was truly this visible joy that inspired me – so I wanted to thank you all.
Have you brought back any specific knowledge that has benefited your research?
The talk by Eleni Tomazou from St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Vienna, was really informative. I liked how she set up and structured her machine learning models – it made me think about how we could approach things in a similar way. Her ideas were very valuable and will definitely influence our future strategies.
Is there anything else you’d like to mention?
Thank you to the scientific team for the fantastic programme and to the organisation team – you did an amazing job! Thank you for awarding me with an EACR Travel Grant, which gave me the chance to attend this incredible event filled with fascinating and insightful talks. The warm and welcoming atmosphere made it easy to have lively discussions where everyone shared their knowledge and expertise.
Interested in EACR Conferences and further Travel Grants?
We organise a variety of excellent cancer research conferences, both in person and virtual, where the latest research topics and interaction for participants are the very highest priorities.
To assist researchers who need financial assistance to attend our in-person conferences, we offer EACR-Worldwide Cancer Research Travel Grants. Recipients also get the opportunity to present their work as an oral or poster presentation. Each Travel Grant includes a free registration and funds to support travel and accommodation costs.
Make sure you add the dates of upcoming EACR Conferences to your diary now. Don’t forget we offer EACR member discounts on all of our registration fees!