What is Personalized Cancer Therapy?

Personalized therapy is the right treatment, at the right dose for the right patient. Like the weather, however, it seems that everyone’s talking about it, but no one is doing anything about it.

In its simplest form personalized care is treatment that is designed to meet an individual’s unique biological features. Like a key in a lock, the right drug or combination opens the door to a good outcome.

When over the years I lectured on the development of the cisplatin/gemcitabine doublet, my two boys were quite young. I would show a slide depicting a doorknob with a key in the keyhole. I likened our lab’s capacity to identify sensitivity to the cisplatin/gemcitabine combination as “unlocking” an individual’s response.

At the time my wife and I would leave the key in the inside of the front door enabling us to unlock it when going out. We reasoned at the time that our 2-year-old would not be strong enough, nor tall enough to turn the key and let himself outside.  We reasoned wrong, for one day our son Alex reached up, turned the key and opened the door right in front of us. Lesson learned: Given the right key, anyone can open a door.

I continued my analogy by saying that even Arnold Schwarzenegger would be unable to open a door given the wrong key, but might, if he continued trying, snap it off in the lock.

The right key is the right treatment, effortlessly unlocking a good response, while the wrong key is the wrong treatment more often than not too much, too late, akin to a solid tumor bone marrow transplant.

In recent years, personalized care has come to be considered synonymous with genomic profiling. While we applaud breakthroughs in human genomics today, there is no molecular platform that can match patients to treatments.  The objective response rate of just 10 percent, almost all in breast and ovarian cancer patients in one study (Von Hoff J Clin Oncol 2010 Nov 20:28(33): 4877-83), suggests that cancer biology is demonstrably more complex than an enumeration of its constituent DNA base pairs. The unilateral focus on this area of investigation over others might be described as “the triumph of hope over experience” (James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791).

But hope springs eternal and with it the very real possibility of improving our patients outcomes. By accepting, even embracing, the complexity of human tumor biology we are at the crossroads of a new future in cancer medicine.

William Withering (1741-1799) the English physician and botanist credited with discovering digitalis as the therapy for dropsy, e.g. congestive heart failure (An Account of the Foxglove and some of its Medical Uses, Withering W. 1785), had absolutely no idea what a membrane ATPase was, when he made his remarkable discovery. It didn’t matter. Cardiac glycosides provided lifesaving relief to those who suffered from this malady for fully two centuries before Danish scientist, Jens Christian Skou, identified these membrane bound enzymes, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1997.

Similarly, penicillin, aspirin, and morphine were in all use for decades, centuries, even millenia before their actual modes of action were unraveled. Medical doctors must use any and all resources at their disposal to meet the needs of their patients. They do not need to know “how” something works so much as they (and their patients) need to know “that” it works.

The guiding principle of personalized medicine is to match patients to therapies. Nowhere in this directive is there a prescription of the specific platform to be used. Where genomic signatures provide useful insights for drug selection, as they do in APL (ATRA, Arsenic trioxide); NSCLC (EGFr, ROS1, ALK); CML (Imatinib, Dasatanib) then they should be used.

However, in those disease where we haven’t the luxury of known targets or established pathways, i.e. most human malignancies, then more global assessments of human tumor biology should, indeed must, be used if we are to meet the needs of our patients.  Primary culture analyses like the EVA/PCD® provide a window onto human tumor biology. They are vehicles for therapy improvement and conduits for drug discovery.  Scientists and clinicians alike need to apply any and all available methodologies to advance their art. The dawn of personalized medicine will indeed be bright if we use all the arrows in our quiver to advance clinical therapeutics and basic research.

If It is Too Good to Be True . . .

The February 12, 2012, CBS 60 Minutes covered a story that has sparked a great deal of interest among cancer patients and medical professionals. The topic was an investigator named Anil Poti who, while working at Duke University developed a laboratory platform for the study of human lung cancer.

Using molecular profiling, Dr. Poti and his collaborators, reported their capacity to distinguish responding and non-responding cancer patients, providing survival curves that were nothing short of astonishing. I recall attending the original lectures given by these investigators at the American Association of Cancer Research meeting several years ago.

As an investigator in the field of drug response prediction, working in lung cancer I had a particular interest in their platform and I was extremely impressed by the outcomes they reported. At the time, I wondered how the static measurement of gene profiles could possibly characterize the nuances of human biology, to encompass the epigenetic, siRNA, pseudogene, non-coding DNA and protein kinetics that ultimately characterize the human phenotype. Nonetheless, with such compelling data I was prepared to be convinced.

That is until a relatively unheralded report in the Cancer Letter raised concerns by several biostatisticians regarding the reproducibility of Dr. Poti’s findings. And then more comments were followed by a full NIH investigation. A panel of biostatisticians was convened and a formal report provided the explanation for Dr. Poti’s excellent results.

They had been invented. The clinical outcomes were not real results. The findings had been retrofitted to match the patient responses and this was the subject of the 60 Minutes report.

What the 60 Minutes report did not address however, was the real problem. That being the inability of contemporary genetic profiling to truly define human biology. For all the reasons enumerated above, siRNA, non-coding DNA, etc., the simple measurement of gene sequences cannot accurately predict biological behavior. This is what the 60 Minutes reporters and the physicians they interviewed, never discussed. The problem at hand is not an errant investigator but an errant scientific community. Our love affair with the gene that began in 1953 (Watson and Crick) has now been confronted by a most heartbreaking example of infidelity (pun intended).

Genes do not make us what we are; they only (sometimes) permit us to become what we are, with the vagaries of transcription and translation lying between.

This leads us to the reasons I find this so critically important:

1. I cannot stress strongly enough that this is NOT what I do. Genomic analysis (their work) and functional analysis (our work) are distinctly different platforms.
2. I strenuously resist any attempt on the part of anyone to tar me or my work with this brush.
3. It is precisely because genomic analysis cannot accurately predict cancer patient outcomes, that these investigators found it necessary to invent their data.
4. Despite this, functional analyses can and do provide these types of predictive results in lung cancers and other diseases as we have reported in numerous publications.
5. Finally, while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this is one instance in which I would prefer to decline the compliment.

A Day at CHORI (Children’s Hospital of Oakland Research Institute)

As a hematology fellow at the Scripps Clinic in the 1980s, my friend and colleague Sheldon Hendler, MD, PHD, recommended that I read an article in Science magazine. The manuscript entitled “Cancer and Diet,” by Bruce Ames, PhD, described the mutagens and carcinogens to which we are exposed on a daily basis that are found in a normal diet. His paper then examined the defenses that we have developed as a species.

Dr. Ames has distinguished himself as a pioneer in the study of aging, degenerative disease and cancer and I have read many of his papers since then. You can imagine my delight when I received a phone call some months ago and found that my interlocutor was none other than Bruce Ames, inviting me to speak at his research institute.

On Tuesday, January 31, I traveled to Oakland to present a symposium. Dr. Ames arranged for me to meet many of his colleagues. The topics ranged from neuraminic acid residues expressed as neoantigens on dividing cancer cells, to antifungal agents as anti-cancer drugs. One discussion of particular interest surrounded sphingomyelin metabolism as an important mediator of tumor cell progression. A subject about which I knew little prior to this discussion but will certainly now examine with interest.

It is my hope that I might forge collaborations with some of these investigators. But, there is little that could have prepared me for the pleasure I experienced when sitting across the table from Dr. Ames, while sipping a freshly brewed espresso (deftly prepared by Dr. Ames himself), while we discussed Bruce’s six decades of extraordinary discoveries. Everywhere I looked was an award or a textbook that he had authored. Despite his many accomplishments he was humble, engaging and very witty.

My symposium that afternoon introduced the attendees to human tumor primary culture studies as predictors of response to cancer therapy. I then moved through the accumulated data supporting the clinical outcomes and finally examined our developmental work, finishing with our published collaboration with investigators at NYU and Cornell on the study of a novel class of Wnt inhibitors. Lively discussion ensued.

Among the attendees was Bengt Mannervik, who asked several good questions. I note his presence for he is one of the leading experts in the field of glutathione metabolism and a scientist who I had met several times before. As one of the fathers of glutathione s-transferase chemistry, Bengt’s work had influenced my earlier studies. It was an unexpected honor to have him in the audience, as a visiting professor on sabbatical from Uppsala.

As I have noted before, the reception from the scientists in these fora improves as they examine the data on its own merit, unaffected by the clinical dogma and politicking that contaminates so much discourse in medical oncology today. There was no agenda, just scientific interest and open discussion. It was a refreshing departure and a welcome opportunity to interact with open-minded investigators.

In the audience was Dr. Ames’ wife, Giovanna, a former professor of biochemistry at Berkeley, and a scientist whose work included the earliest discovery of the ABC transporters, now recognized as the basis for the human p-glycoprotein drug resistance mechanisms. At the end of the lecture, Giovanna Ames, impressed by the data, raised her hand and asked, “If what you need is a small portion of each patient’s tumor to conduct these studies, what do we have to do to be sure that every doctor sends you a piece of tumor?” While I’m not sure I that have the answer to her question, I am very sure that I like the way she thinks.

Assessing the Benefit-Risk Ratio of Nitrates

Many readers may have come across a recent report linking the consumption of processed meats (sausage, bacon cold cuts, etc.) to the incidence of pancreatic cancer. Intriguingly, the higher risk seemed to only apply to men and not women. The explanation for this remains obscure, but may reflect other dietary habits more common to men or other factors, such as increased alcohol consumption or smoking. But this is only a speculation.

The presumptive mechanism of cancer causation seems to revolve around the presence of nitrates in these cured meats. Nitrates are added to meats as preservatives. Preservatives function to inhibit bacterial growth responsible for food spoilage. Nitrates under the acid conditions in the stomach, are converted to nitrites. And it is these nitrites, primarily in the form of nitrosamines, which may be the culprits.

When we exam these findings several issues must be considered. First, however nefarious the consuming public may think the meat packing industry, I for one am fully convinced that these companies do not add nitrates to cause cancer. Quite the contrary. The most dangerous organisms found in foodstuffs, through spoilage and lethal food toxins, are the anaerobic organisms. The most frightening of all is clostridium botulinum, which produces the fatal condition known as botulism. Nitrates converted to nitrites are potent inhibitors of clostridia.

In the grand scheme of things, it is highly likely, in fact certain, that many, many more people have been saved from nitrites in food than would ever die from pancreatic cancer. These risk-benefit ratios are the subjects that keep epidemiologists up at night.

Nitrates in food are not the only possible man-made exposures that we encounter on a daily basis. Take for example chlorinated water. The “chlorine” in water is, for all intents and purposes, bleach. That’s right every time you drink tap water you are being exposed to tiny quantities of bleach. It is probably unnecessary for me to explain to the average reader, the risks and hazards of common household bleach, which is a solution of hypochlorite. And, however toxic that bottle under your sink may seem, remember that is only a 5 percent solution.

Another example is fluoride. While the benefits of fluoridation of water are numerous, including bone density and improved hardness of the enamel of teeth, demonstrably reducing tooth decay, fluorine itself is not, at least theoretically, free of risk. We know that sodium fluoride is an inhibitor of phosphodiesterase, an enzyme responsible for regulating cyclic AMP and cyclic GMP levels in the cell. These protein kinase A signals events may be tonically affected by changing levels of fluoride in the cell, to what end it is hard to say.

Like chlorination or fluoridation of water, nitrates in food represent risks that we as a society have accepted, based upon what we deem as acceptable benefit-risk ratios.

It is possible, that the increased incidence of food-borne illness and enteric infections, increased dental caries associated with the elimination of all these risks, may far exceed the hazards associated with these exposures.

The human species evolved over millennia in an environment exploding with free radical activity, fortunately we have developed defenses, superoxide dismutase, glutathione, peroxidase, catalase, etc., that counteract the toxic effects of these chemical compounds. Whether the man-made exposure substantively changed the balance will be a topic of discussion for years to come.

“Big Box” American Medicine

Over the last several months we have been engaged in construction work on our home. The kitchen and adjoining rooms required new floors. To accomplish this goal, we went online and examined the types of floors, patterns and qualities that met our needs. We shopped at various venues including small privately-owned flooring shops and larger national chains. The one-stop-shopping aspect of the larger chains (cabinetry, flooring, carpets, appliances, etc. all under one roof) had a certain appeal. After considering our options we proceeded with one of the chain stores. Although we greatly appreciated and respected the expertise of the consultant who worked with the big box store, the results proved less satisfactory.

First, we needed our space measured. The big box store contracted with a group who did their flooring measurements. Second, we needed to purchase the material. This was done through the large concern acting as our purchasing agent. Finally, after the several weeks delay for the “special order materials,” our flooring material was delivered to yet a third party, the flooring installation experts.

Despite the delays, everything was moving along reasonably well. And then came the problem. Our contractor had needed to resurface a section of our entranceway. This left a gap from the bare wood up to the existing surface that was about to be recovered by the installation staff. We contacted the installation group the night before their scheduled   arrival to explain that they would need to match the new surface level with that of the old one. And then the wheels came off.

“We can’t do this job for a fear that there could be a need for asbestos remediation.”

“What asbestos?” I responded.

Their response, “We don’t know, but it’s a possibility.”

“Well then, come out and take a look.”

“Oh, no, we can’t do that, it will be at least a week.”

I felt stymied. Our carefully scheduled flooring, followed by appliance replacement, followed by painting, followed by cabinetry installation was now on indefinite hold. Luckily, I had a personal contact with a privately-owned flooring company who provided their own installers. They arrived the next day, examined the situation and explained that there was no asbestos risk whatsoever. They neatly matched the floor levels using a plywood sheet and proceeded to perfectly complete the flooring job.

After all was said and done, I suddenly realized that I had almost double the flooring material I actually needed. After much discussion, we convinced the big box store to accept the excess material in return and to compensate us for the difference.

So what’s this got to do with medicine? Quite a lot I would suggest.

Like the big box stores, American medicine is migrating towards generic care with each function contracted out to a different entity. The internist who diagnoses the problem is then forced to refer the patient to an outside contracted diagnostic service provider (i.e. radiology, CT, MRI). Results then slowly percolate back to the primary care physician who, one or two weeks later, recognizes the problem and recommends hospital admission. At this point a contracted hospitalist starts all over again, examining the patient and taking a detailed history in an attempt to uncover that, which the internist already knew. With the best data the hospitalist can accumulate, he then turns again to a contracted provider for a final intervention. The patient all the while has waited weeks, undergone numerous  interventions and investigations and more often than not gets more, or in some circumstance less, than what they really needed.

As we continue to undervalue the abilities and expertise of individual private physicians functioning as quarterbacks in patient management, we abdicate the management of a patient’s delicate problems to the intersecting tectonic plates of medical systems: HMO, PPO, VHA, Medicare, HHS, AARP, etc., etc., etc.

Like the big box stores that adequately meet the average needs of the average customer with an average problem, these medical behemoths lack the insight to meet individual patient needs. Duplication of services and inefficiency are the inevitable result. In retrospect I would gladly have paid a slightly higher fee for a privately owned concern to have measured, purchased and installed my kitchen floor. The savings associated with big box stores, are like those associated with HMO care . . . nonexistent.

So long as you are 42 ½ years old, have a viral respiratory infection and don’t have any allergies or prior medical history, HMOs provide great care. For everyone else,  Caveat Emptor!

The Death of Christopher Hitchens

Among the more colorful writers, orators and pundits in the later part of the 20th Century and the early part of the 21st was Christopher Hitchens. Born in England in 1949, he moved to the United States where he became famous for his deeply held political views. An outspoken critic of injustice, he called it as he saw it. While his political leanings were mostly liberal, he was willing to take on the establishment on both sides of the political isle when he saw injustice and political hypocrisy.

Christopher Hitches died at age 62 from cancer of the esophagus. Although unapologetic for his use of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, his lifestyle may have contributed to his diagnosis. What saddens me most is the possibility that he could have done better. And didn’t.

Like so many celebrities when they are diagnosed with cancer, Hitchens entered a realm that I call, “social medicine.” Not to be confused with socialized medicine and related political issues, social medicine is the process whereby the rich and famous receive care from the “right” doctors. These luminaries, through their channels and connections, are hand carried to the most famous physicians in the country. Their prominent and widely published ivory tower investigators then provide the best care money can buy. Yet, more often than not it is exactly the same therapy that they would have received from their home-town oncologists, who read the same journals, attend the same meetings and adhere to the same NCCN guidelines as the “best and the brightest” academics. We then conveniently chalk these patient’s failures up to the biology of the disease and the patient’s drug resistance rather than examining the more discomforting reality that protocol therapy doesn’t work for famous patients any better than it does is for anyone else.

But what if these patients just got the wrong treatment? What if the drugs these doctors chose were the very best for many, but not right for them? What if the right treatment was just right around the corner, but these prominent academics couldn’t see it? What if these patients had submitted a tumor sample for an EVA-PCD® assay and knew which drug or combinations would kill their cancer cells?

It isn’t that Christopher Hitchens or Steven Jobs are more important than any other patient. Their collective suffering and the losses to their families are no greater than any other cancer patient who confronts this illness. It’s just that they are famous and we know about it from the beginning to the end. We watch as these patients suffer through the toxicities and side effects of randomly administered therapies. And, in the case of Hitchens we are provided a blow-by-blow description in his writings. Unlike other patients who seek their care outside of the limelight, these celebrities are above the fray, protected by their handlers, PR agents and managers – they are unapproachable. With Jobs or Hitchens I would have relished the opportunity to offer any assistance possible, and through contacts at Apple I actually tried, but to no avail.

These individuals suffer and die in the public eye. Like salt in a wound, investigators like my colleagues and myself who are engaged in the pursuit of better, more intelligently delivered therapies, suffer with them. No, they are not more important, but it just seems so when you watch it every day on television, online, or in the print media, you clearly see an “in your face” example of a failing paradigm of cancer therapeutics.

Breast Cancer and Avastin, the Ongoing Saga

As many are now aware, in November of 2011, the United States FDA withdrew approval for bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of breast cancer. Medicare and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  (NCCN) are now re-examining their guidelines. In the interim, reimbursement for Avastin is a patchwork of approvals and denials across the country.

Into this mix comes an interesting concept apparently floated by Roche’s European affiliates. Described in a brief press release was the suggestion that Roche might be prepared to attach Avastin reimbursement to its efficacy. That is – Roche would only demand payment from patients and third party payers if the treated patient revealed objective evidence of response. This is an interesting idea!

The concept of conditional reimbursement is extremely intriguing. Contrary to contemporary reimbursement policy, the purveyors of therapy would only receive compensation if they could prove benefit, not mind you, benefit in the broad brush Phase III tiny statistically significant result (e.g. the FDA approval of erlotinib plus gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer for a median survival advantage of 10.6 days!), but instead very real benefit on a patient-by-patient basis.

We use erlotinib plus gemcitabine, as well as Avastin combinations, to great benefit for many of our patients and applaud the availability of these drugs and combinations. But we never, just give them. Were the federal government, major payers or HMOs to be prepared to reimburse novel therapies predicated on their efficacy, we might envisage a meaningful advance in cancer therapeutics.

Today, few small laboratories, start-up companies and early stage biotech firms have the resources to marshal multi-million dollar clinical trials to test new therapies. This may in part be why advances in cancer therapy are moving so slowly forward.  The barriers to entry are insurmountable, causing many good ideas to fall by the wayside for lack of the hundreds of millions of dollars required to achieve FDA approval and Medicare reimbursement. But what if on an individual basis, reimbursement policies reflected the most meaningful of all endpoints – individual patient response and survival. Even the largest pharmaceutical companies are now coming to realize that despite their clout they too are suffering under the guidelines forced upon drug developers in this era of ever increasing regulation.

This is a concept worth pursuing. Let’s see where it goes.

Thank You

I would like to take the time to thank everyone who responded to my last blog entry about the passing of my father. His memorial service is this Sunday.

Perhaps next week, I will be better able to focus my attention to communicating, via this blog, about medical matters.

Cancer Gets Personal

Early in the morning of Nov 21, I suffered the loss of my father. However prepared one might be for this eventuality, there is nothing that can really prepare you.

At 95 years of age, he had lived longer than many. I had cared for my father as a patient since 1974, when he was first diagnosed with inoperable prostate cancer. I remember the day I received notification of the diagnosis. I felt a sense of deep sorrow that my father at 74 would soon die of high-grade locally advanced prostate carcinoma. As a member of the generation that forgot to have children, I was saddened that my father would not live to see grandchildren.

I remember traveling to Connecticut for his initial evaluation and then scouring the literature for the best possible options. Fortunately, despite the aggressiveness of the disease it had not metastasized.

I arranged for my father to travel to California where I then oversaw his care in collaboration with Dr. A.M. Nisar Syed in radiation oncology. There is a well-known dictum in medicine that only doctors and their families suffer unexpected complications. In my father’s case it certainly rang true. First, the radiation implants did not penetrate the tumor and needed to be removed and replaced. As a result of this double procedure, he then developed bleeding that required emergency hospitalization several days later.

Despite these hiccups, the combination of implant and external beam radiation provided excellent control. With a full recovery my father returned to his normal activities.

As so often happens in medicine a personal experience provides a focused interest. I delved into the prostate cancer literature and became increasingly interested in the biology of this disease. One area of particular interest was the role of hormonal therapy. When? How much? How long?

When my father’s PSA began to rise the second year, I had a unique opportunity to examine these questions at a very personal level. Would the early institution of androgen blockade induce the hormone refractory state? Was there a “trigger” value of the PSA that dictated the institution of the therapy? I remember discussing these questions with a prostate cancer expert and chairman of the ECOG committee, Dr. Basil Kasimis, whom I had had the pleasure of working with several years earlier. I agonized over starting hormonal therapy as my father’s PSA rose from 4 to 10, to 25, to 54, and up to 150. Despite these frightening PSA values, there was no evidence of metastatic disease on serial bone scans, which I performed religiously every six to 12 months.

Almost a decade passed but there was still no metastatic disease. And then my father developed severe coronary artery disease in his early 80s. Coronary artery bypass graft was the only option. To avoid the possibility of seeding the sternal wound, I bit the bullet and treated him with hormonal suppression – immediately driving the PSA to nearly 0.

With his coronary artery bypass surgery a success, he came off hormonal therapy and I let his PSA drift upward again.

As he had returned to Connecticut, his urologist became increasingly concerned by the rising PSA, and, without my knowledge, decided to rechallenge him with hormonal ablation. While I understood the motivation for this intervention, I didn’t agree and took him off all hormones for a prolonged period of time. Over the subsequent years, I would intervene occasionally to shepherd my father through pneumonia, a broken hip, a bleeding ulcer, and a variety of other maladies so common in patients who transition from their 80s to their 90s. On several occasions, we gave brief courses of hormonal ablation to suppress the PSA, when the steepness of the rise gave concern. Twenty-one years after his diagnosis my father died of natural causes, with no evidence of metastatic prostate cancer.

The experience was instructive on many levels. First, I realized how important it is to treat all patients as if they are a member of your own family. Second, it takes a lot of guts to step outside the normal guidelines and to do what you believe to be best. Third, I realize that in medical oncology it is the most “aggressive” physician who has the courage not to treat.

So often in this field doctors institute treatment, not because it is needed, nor because it will work, but because by doing so they have “done their job,” the rest is no longer their responsibility.

But “doing your job” as a physician, particularly in medical oncology may demand that you step outside of the NCCN guidelines, however uncomfortable it may make you, to do the right thing. Virtually every urologist or oncologist in America would have treated my father for his rising PSA 20 years ago. While I cannot say with certainty, I feel fairly confident that he lived the past 21 years in part because I didn’t treat him. Every patient needs an advocate. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction that I was there to be my father’s. He lived a long and productive life, I hope and believe that I helped him to do so.

Every experience, even traumatic ones, can have a silver lining. My father’s diagnosis lead me to develop a combined modality approach for locally advanced prostate cancer that has provided among the best biochemical relapse-free survival rates ever observed in this disease. Had I known then what I know today, I would have certainly treated my father with this approach.

Secondly, my interest in prostate cancer lead me to examine the lifestyle, nutritional, and micro-nutritional aspects of this disease – knowledge that I apply to this day. This lead to my analysis of an herbal remedy for prostate cancer that unfortunately uncovered the adulteration of an herbal mixture as we reported. (Herbal Composition PC-SPES for Management of Prostate Cancer: Identification of Active Principles: Journal of National Center Institute, Vol. 94, No. 17, September 4, 2002.) Despite our disappointment at the discovery, it lead me to reexamine the use of estrogenic substances as therapies in this disease, insights that have provided benefit to many of my patients ever since.

In retrospect, it may have been my father’s natural inquisitiveness (that he imparted to me) that leads to my pursuit of these lines of investigation. And for that I will always be grateful.

To read more about Alphonse Nagourney, click here.

Targeted Therapies for Cancer Confronts Hurdles

The September 1 issue of the ASCO Post, a periodical published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, features an article entitled “Research in Combining Targeted Agents Faces Numerous Challenges.” Contributors to the article by Margo J. Fromer, participated in a conference sponsored by the Institute of Medicine. These scientists representing both public and private institutions examined the obstacles that confront researchers in their efforts to develop effective combinations of targeted agents.

One of the participants, Jane Perlmutter, PhD, of the Gemini Group, pointed out that advances in genomics have provided sophisticated target therapies, but noted, “cellular pathways contain redundancies that can be activated in response to inhibition of one or another pathway, thus promoting emergence of resistant cells and clinical relapse.”

James Doroshow, MD, deputy director for clinical and translational research at the NCI, said, “the mechanism of actions for a growing number of targeted agents that are available for trials, are not completely understood.” He went on to say that the “lack of the right assays or imaging tools means inability to assess the target effect of many agents.” He added that “we need to investigate the molecular effects . . .  in surrogate tissues,” and concluded “this is a huge undertaking.”

Michael T. Barrett, PhD, of TGen,  pointed out that “each patient’s cancer could require it’s own specific therapy.” This was followed by Kurt Bachman of GlaxoSmithKline, who opined, “the challenge is to identify the tumor types most likely to respond, to find biomarkers that predict response, and to define the relationship of the predictors to biology of the inhibitors.”

When I read this article I dashed to my phone and waited breathlessly for these august investigators to contact me for guidance. It was obvious that they were describing precisely the work that my colleagues and I have been doing for the past two decades. Obviously, there had been an epiphany. The complexities and redundancies of human tumor biology had finally dawned on these investigators, who had previously clung unwaiveringly to their analyte-based molecular platforms.

Eureka! Our day of vindication was at hand. The molecular biologists humbled by the manifest complexity of human tumor biology had finally recognized that they were outgunned and would, no doubt, be contacting me presently. Whole-cell experimental models had gained the hegemony they so rightly deserved. The NCI and big pharma would be beating a path to my door.

But the call never came. Perhaps they lost my number. Yes, that must be it. So let me provide it: 562.989.6455. Remember I’m on Pacific Daylight Time.