A scientist building the future of precision oncology

Cancer care is increasingly informed by information that did not exist a generation ago — tumour biology, molecular data, disease evolution, therapeutic response and a fast-expanding evidence base. The difficulty is no longer obtaining that information. It is holding it together coherently.

That is where this work sits.

Why this work

A great deal of effort in modern oncology goes into generating data, and comparatively little into the harder question of what any particular result means for the person in front of you. The gap between those two things is the whole of the problem.

In practice the most common finding on reviewing a complex case is not a missed drug target. It is a question that was never asked — an assay read as excluding something it could not have detected, a receptor status never reassessed after the disease changed, a germline discussion that never happened. Those are not exotic failures. They are what happens when information arrives faster than anyone can integrate it.

The journey, briefly

Training in cancer genomics and data sciences at the Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, brought together cancer genome biology and the quantitative methods used to interpret it. Training in genetic counselling sits alongside it — which is where the abstraction of a variant classification meets a family who have to decide what to do about it.

Work since has spanned computational biology, bioinformatics and research leadership across the United Kingdom and India, including rare cancer genomics and artificial intelligence. The through-line is not an institution or a discipline but a consistent problem: turning molecular complexity into something a clinician can act on.

Current work centres on an academic and research association with Newcastle University, and on building the Kwatra Precision Cancer Institute & Research Centre in New Delhi.

How the work is done

Every case is read the same way: clinical history, pathology, molecular findings, treatment response and the relevant evidence, assembled into a structured account of what the record supports and — just as importantly — where it does not.

The work is analytical and advisory. It supports the treating clinical team rather than replacing it, and prescribing, administration and clinical responsibility remain with the treating clinician throughout.

Where to check the record

Claims on a site like this should be checkable. The research record is maintained on public research profiles, linked alongside this page and in the footer. Qualifications, memberships and the academic record are set out on their own pages, and the technical methods behind the work are described on the expertise page rather than here.

This page is deliberately brief. The substance of the work is better judged from the research, the disease pages and the writing than from a biography.