Gee (G719X) Whiz: Novel Mutations and Response to Targeted Therapies

In a recent online forum a patient described her experience using Tarceva as a therapy for an EGFR mutation negative lung cancer. For those of you familiar with the literature you will know that Lynch and Paez both described the sensitizing mutations that allow patients with certain adenocarcinoma to respond beautifully to the small molecule inhibitors.  The majority of these mutations are found in Exon 19 and Exon 21, within the EGFR domain. Response rates for the EGFR-TKI (gefitinib and erlotinib) clearly favor mutation positive patients. Depending upon the study, mutation positive patients have response rates from 53 – 100 percent, generally around 70 percent, while mutation negative response patients have a response rate of 0 – 25 percent, generally about 10 percent.

So why don’t all the mutation positive patients respond and conversely why do some mutation negative patients respond?

The story outlined in this online forum gives some insight. The individual in question carried a rare, and only recently recognized, Exon 18 mutation known as a G719X. This uncommon form of mutation had previously been unknown and few laboratories knew to test for it. Nonetheless, G719X positive patients respond to erlotinib and related agents. Indeed, there may be reason to believe that the more potent irreversible EGFR/HER2 dual inhibitor HKI-272, may be even more selective for this point mutation.

The excellent and durable response described by this individual, would not have been possible had the patient’s first physician followed the rules. That is, had her physician refused to give erlotinib to an (putatively) EGFR mutation negative patient she might well not be here to tell her story. More to the point, her good response (a clinical observation) led to the next level of investigation, namely the identification of this specific EGFR variant

The lessons from this experience are numerous. The first is that cancer biology is complex and, to paraphrase E.O. Wilson, was not put on earth for us to necessarily figure it out. The second, is that molecular biologists can only seek and identify that which they know about apriori.  To wit, if you don’t know about it (G719X) and you don’t have a test for it, and you don’t know to look for it, then it’s a virtual certainty that you aren’t going to find it.

The premise of our work at Rational Therapeutics is that the observation of a biological signal identifies a candidate for therapy whether we understand or recognize the target. Crizotinib was originally developed as a clinical therapy for patients who carried the CMET mutation. Serendipity led to the recognition that the responding subpopulation was actually carrying a heretofore-unrecognized ALK gene rearrangement. Sorafenib was originally evaluated for the treatment of BRAF mutation positive diseases. Yet it was the drug’s cross-reactivity with the VGEF tyrosine kinases that lead to its broad clinical applications. Each of these phenomena represents accidental successes. Were it not for the clinical observation of response in patients, the investigators conducting these trials would have been unlikely to make the discoveries that today provide such good clinical responses in others.

To put it quite simply, these patients and their disease entities educated the molecular biologists.

When we first identified lung cancer as a target for gefitinib, and began to administer the closely related erlotinib to lung cancer patients, neither Lynch nor Paez had identified the sensitizing EGFR mutations. That had absolutely no impact upon the excellent responses that we observed. It didn’t matter why it worked, but that it worked.  While the EGFR story has now been well-described, might we not use functional analytical platforms (functional profiling) to gain insights into the next, and the next generation of drugs and therapies that target pathways like MEK, ERK, SHH, FGFR, PI3K, etc., etc., etc. . . .

Cancer Medicine – A Humbling Experience

In his brilliant 1998 book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson, notes: “The cost of scientific advance is the humbling recognition that reality was not constructed to be easily grasped by the human mind.”

This sententious point has remained a guiding principle in my thinking about human cancer. It is critically important for scientific investigators to be humble. We are explorers in a field more complex than any man-made system. We must be instructed by biology – as biological events will always find a way to outsmart our best efforts to explain them.

I was reminded of E.O. Wilson, when a colleague forwarded a recent publication from Molecular Cancer Therapy, “Molecular Profiling of Patient with Colorectal Cancer and Matched Targeted Therapy in Phase I Clinical Trials,” Dienstmann, R. et al MOL CANCER THER Sept 2012. The study conducted by the Molecular Therapeutics Research Unit at Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, evaluated 254 patients for evidence of specific genetic aberrations. Their genomic analyses included, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, PTEN, and pMET. Patients were then provided clinical therapy trials that matched the targeted agents (drugs with activity against the specific mutation) with their individual mutation profiles

In all, 68 patients received treatment constituting a total of 82 different molecularly targeted therapies. The clinical response rate for this population of patients who received molecularly selected therapy was 1.2%. No that isn’t a typo; it was really one point two percent.

While I applaud the scientific concept of this trial and must admit that I might have expected a somewhat higher response rate, I am not surprised by the result. In keeping with E. O. Wilson’s quote, human biology is not a puzzle designed to be solved by humans; it is instead the complex product of a billion years of evolution. Rather than demanding that cancer patients respond to those treatments we have selected for them based on genetic information, we should be instructed by the tumor’s behavior of each patient and use those insights to select amongst active drugs, whatever genetic elements they may have been originally designed to target. In my lectures, I describe this approach as the wisdom of whole cell experimental models.

I am continually humbled by the complexity of human tumor biology and delighted to have the insights that my patient’s cancer cells provide through the functional profile created by our EVA-PCD assay. Not only do I gain exciting scientific knowledge, but my patients have very good responses to the drugs we select. Not a bad day’s work.

Gee (G719X) Whiz: Novel Mutations and Response to Targeted Therapies

In a recent online forum a patient described her experience using Tarceva as a therapy for an EGFR mutation negative lung cancer. For those of you familiar with the literature you will know that Lynch and Paez both described the sensitizing mutations that allow patients with certain adenocarcinoma to respond beautifully to the small molecule inhibitors.  The majority of these mutations are found in Exon 19 and Exon 21, within the EGFR domain. Response rates for the EGFR-TKI (gefitinib and erlotinib) clearly favor mutation positive patients. Depending upon the study, mutation positive patients have response rates from 53 – 100 percent, generally around 70 percent, while mutation negative response patients have a response rate of 0 – 25 percent, generally about 10 percent.So why don’t all the mutation positive patients respond and conversely why do some mutation negative patients respond?

The story outlined in this online forum gives some insight. The individual in question carried a rare, and only recently recognized, Exon 18 mutation known as a G719X. This uncommon form of mutation had previously been unknown and few laboratories knew to test for it. Nonetheless, G719X positive patients respond to erlotinib and related agents. Indeed, there may be reason to believe that the more potent irreversible EGFR/HER2 dual inhibitor HKI-272, may be even more selective for this point mutation.

The excellent and durable response described by this individual, would not have been possible had the patient’s first physician followed the rules. That is, had her physician refused to give erlotinib to an (putatively) EGFR mutation negative patient she might well not be here to tell her story. More to the point, her good response (a clinical observation) led to the next level of investigation, namely the identification of this specific EGFR variant

The lessons from this experience are numerous. The first is that cancer biology is complex and, to paraphrase E.O. Wilson, was not put on earth for us to necessarily figure it out. The second, is that molecular biologists can only seek and identify that which they know about apriori.  To wit, if you don’t know about it (G719X) and you don’t have a test for it, and you don’t know to look for it, then it’s a virtual certainty that you aren’t going to find it.

The premise of our work at Rational Therapeutics is that the observation of a biological signal identifies a candidate for therapy whether we understand or recognize the target. Crizotinib was originally developed as a clinical therapy for patients who carried the CMET mutation. Serendipity led to the recognition that the responding subpopulation was actually carrying a heretofore-unrecognized ALK gene rearrangement. Sorafenib was originally evaluated for the treatment of BRAF mutation positive diseases. Yet it was the drug’s cross-reactivity with the VGEF tyrosine kinases that lead to its broad clinical applications. Each of these phenomena represents accidental successes. Were it not for the clinical observation of response in patients, the investigators conducting these trials would have been unlikely to make the discoveries that today provide such good clinical responses in others.

To put it quite simply, these patients and their disease entities educated the molecular biologists.

When we first identified lung cancer as a target for gefitinib, and began to administer the closely related erlotinib to lung cancer patients, neither Lynch nor Paez had identified the sensitizing EGFR mutations. That had absolutely no impact upon the excellent responses that we observed. It didn’t matter why it worked, but that it worked.  While the EGFR story has now been well-described, might we not use functional analytical platforms (functional profiling) to gain insights into the next, and the next generation of drugs and therapies that target pathways like MEK, ERK, SHH, FGFR, PI3K, etc., etc., etc. . . .

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.

American Association of Cancer Research 2012

In my last blog, I described my recent attendance at the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) meeting held in Chicago. This is the premier cancer research convention for basic and translational research. The AACR was the original cancer research organization that pre-dated its sister organization – the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The focus of the AACR meeting is basic research and the presentations are often geared toward PhD level scientific discovery. I find this meeting the most informative for it provides insights into therapy options that may not arrive in the clinical arena for many years.

Among the presentations was a discussion of NextGen genomic analysis allowing an entire human genome to be sequenced within 24 hours. Mapping genetic elements has enabled investigators at the University of Pennsylvania to explore acute leukemia patients at diagnosis and at the time of recurrence. Based upon mutation analysis, different subsets of patients are observed. Mono and Oligo-clonal populations yield new subpopulations following cytoreductive therapy, wherein a small percentage of tumor cells survive and repopulate as the dominant clone.

The NextGen genomic analysis serves as the basis for new solid tumor studies in which breast biopsies are obtained, before and after therapy with aromatase inhibitors, to examine the clonality of the surviving populations.

William R. Sellers, MD, vice president of Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research Oncology, described a high throughput robotic technology capable of conducting tens of thousands of combinatorial mixtures to determine drug interactions. What I found most interesting was the observation by this investigator that, “Cell culture remains the most effective means of testing drug combinations.” We agree wholeheartedly.

New classes of lymphoma therapies are in development that target B cell signaling pathways. A prototypic agent being Ibrutinib, the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Additional developments are examining SYC as a target for small molecule inhibitors.
Our growing understanding of immune regulation is enabling investigators like James Allison to trigger tumor specific immunity. Agents like ipilumimab (AntiCTLA4), combined with other classes of small molecules and/or antibodies directed toward CD28, PD1, and ICOS regulation have the potential to change the landscape in diseases that extend from melanoma to prostate and breast.

The meeting had innumerable sessions and symposia that were geared toward or touched upon the field of metabolomics. As cells jockey for survival they both up- and down-regulate pathways essential to not only energy production but to the biosynthesis of critical metabolic intermediates. The regulation of PKM2 (pyruvate kinase isoenzyme) is now recognized as a pivotal point in the cell’s determination of catabolism (energy production), over anabolism (biosynthesis), with Serine concentrations playing an important regulatory role.

The PI3K pathway is an area of rapidly growing interest as new compounds target this key regulatory protein complex. Both selective and non-selective (pan PI3K) inhibitors are in clinical testing. Paul Workman’s group was honored for their seminal work in this and related areas of drug development. We reported our findings on the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor BEZ235 (Nagourney, RA et al Proc AACR, 2586, 2012).

The double-edged sword of immune response was deftly covered by Dr. Coussens who described the profound tumor stimulatory effects of T-cell, B-cell and Macrophage infiltration into the tumor microenvironment. Small molecules now in development that down-regulate macrophage signaling may soon show promise alone or in combination with other classes of drugs.

The RAS/RAF pathway becomes ever more complex as we begin to unravel the feedback loops that respond to small molecule inhibitors like Erlotinib or Vemurafanib. Investigators like Dr. Neal Rosen from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center have long argued that simple inhibition at one node in a cascade of signaling pathways will absolutely change the dynamic and redirect up and down stream signals that ultimately overcome inhibition. Strategies to control these “resistance” mechanisms are being developed. Once again we find that simple genomic analyses underestimate the complexity of human systems.

Among the regulatory topics at this year’s meeting was a special symposium on the development and testing of multiple novel (non-FDA approved) compounds in the clinical trial setting. There will need to be a new level of cooperation and communication forged between academia, regulatory entities and the pharmaceutical industry if we are to move this process forward. I am encouraged by the early evidence that all three are recognizing and responding to that reality.

The themes of this year’s meeting included:
1. A renewed focus on the biochemistry of metabolism
2. Clear progress in field of tumor immunology
3. The growing recognition that human tumors exist as microenvironments and not isolated single cells.

We are particularly gratified by the last point.

Our EVA/PCD focus on human tumor aggregates (microspheroids) isolated directly from patients as the most accurate models for chemotherapy selection and drug discovery appears to be gaining support.

A New Target in Breast Cancer Therapy

In many ways the era of targeted therapy began with the recognition that breast cancers expressed estrogen receptors, the original work identified the presence of estrogen receptors by radioimmunoassay. Tumors positive for ER tended to be less aggressive and appear to favor bone sites when they metastasized. Subsequently, drugs capable of blocking the effects of estrogen at the estrogen receptor were developed.  Tamoxifen competes with estrogen at the level of the receptor. This drug became a mainstay with ER positive tumors and continues to be used today, decades after it was first synthesized.

Recognizing that some patients develop resistance to Tamoxifen, additional classes of drugs were developed that reduced the circulating levels of estrogen by inhibiting the enzyme aromatase, this enzyme found in adipose tissue, converts steroid precursors to estrogen.  Despite the benefits of these classes of drugs known as SERMS (selective receptor modulators), many patients break through hormonal therapies and require cytotoxic chemotherapy.

With the identification of HER-2 amplification, a new subclass of breast cancers driven by a mutation in the growth factor family provided yet a new avenue of therapy – trastuzumab (Herceptin). For HER-2 positive breast cancers Herceptin has dramatically changed the landscape. Providing synergy with chemotherapy this monoclonal antibody has also been applied in the adjuvant setting offering survival advantage in those patients with the targeted mutation.

Reports from the San Antonio breast symposium held in Texas last December, provide two new findings.

The first is a clinical trial testing the efficacy of pertuzumab. This novel monoclonal antibody functions by preventing dimerization of HER-2 (The target of Herceptin) with the other members of the human epidermal growth factor family HER-1, HER-3 and HER-4. In so doing, the cross talk between receptors is abrogated and downstream signaling in squelched.

The second important finding regards the use of everolimus. This small molecule derivative of rapamycin blocks cellular signaling through the mTOR pathway. Combining everolimus with the aromatase inhibitor exemestane, improved time to progression.

While these two classes of drugs are different, the most interesting aspect of both reports reflects the downstream pathways that they target. Pertuzumab inhibits signaling at the PI3K pathway, upstream from mTOR. Everolimus blocks mTOR itself, thus both drugs are influencing cell signaling that channel through metabolic pathways PI3K is the membrane signal from insulin, while mTOR is an intermediate in the same pathway. Thus, these are in truest sense of the word, breakthroughs in metabolomics.

The Molecular Origins of Lung Cancer

I had the luxury of attending the AACR-IASLC Joint Conference on Molecular Origins of Lung Cancer; Biology, Therapy and Personalized Medicine held in San Diego earlier this month. I say luxury, for as my schedule closes in on me and I sometimes find myself working 13-hour days, it can be difficult to take even a couple of days away to attend meetings. But this conference was too good to pass up (hats off to Marge Foti and all the AACR staff for all their great work).

This symposium organized by David Carbone and Roy Herbst, brought together a broad spectrum of sophisticated scientists and international investigators, as well as community members and fundraising organizations who had the opportunity to present a special session on patient advocacy.

The meeting began with a keynote address examining microRNAs and lung cancer presented by Frank Slack from Yale University. He examined the growing recognition that lung cancer arises not only from gene mutations but also from small fragments of RNA that can up- or down-regulate normal genes in abnormal ways. This was the topic of discussion for many subsequent presentations.

As an aside, many of the readers will know that I am generally underwhelmed by genomic analyses for the prediction of cancer response. The fact that normal genes can function abnormally under the control of these small RNA sequences is just one more example of the genotype–phenotype dichotomy that cannot be adequately examined on static contemporary genomic platforms.

Many presentations examined the molecular biology of lung cancer with important distinctions being drawn between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinomas. While adenocarcinomas reveal a growing number of targets – EGFR, ALK, ROS, RAS, and others – all the subject of small molecule inhibitors; squamous cell carcinomas provide fewer opportunities for the use of these classes of drugs.

One of the interesting discussions was the frequent mutation of LKB1 in lung cancers. Work going back several years by John Minna, a pioneer in this field, identified changes in this metabolic regulator as a common finding in lung malignancies.

Additional presentations examined chemoprevention, molecular pathology, new mechanisms to categorize lung cancer subtypes, and a very interesting discussion of field cancerization. In a particularly interesting analysis, Ignacio Wistuba from M.D. Anderson, showed that molecular changes in the surface epithelium of the lung bronchioles recapitulated the molecular biology of the final tumor in a step-wise manner, inversely related to the distance to the tumor. That is, starting at the main bronchi, one or two mutational changes were detected. Moving closer to the site of the tumor, additional mutations were accumulated. Finally arriving at the site of the established malignancy, all of the constituent mutations associated with this particular cancer became manifest; a saltatory slide into cancer presumably associated with exposure to carcinogens.

Among the other exciting presentations were updates on redox-based approaches to cancer presented by Kenneth Tew and Garth Powis.

Jeff Engelman presented an update on a new class of agents that target the RAS pathway. This is ongoing work that he and his group have reported on over the last several years. We have been engaged in related work using an MEK/ERK inhibitor similar to the compound that Dr. Englemen reported on at this meeting. It is exciting indeed to see early clinical results with this class of compounds, for we have identified many patients who might benefit from this pathways’ inhibition. We wait with great anticipation for FDA approval of these compounds so that our patients currently being identified as candidates in the laboratory may soon receive these treatments.

What Exactly are the Targets of Targeted Therapy?

The term “targeted therapy” has entered common parlance. Like personalized medicine, targeted therapy is a generic description of drugs and combinations that inhibit specific cancer-related pathways. I am impressed by how quickly esoteric phenomena like the downstream signal in the insulin factor pathway have entered the lexicon of medical oncologists. With the advent of temsirolimus and everolimus, both rapamycin derivatives that target mTOR, we now have at our disposal agents that are every bit a part of the therapy repertoire. Unlike erlotinib that targets a specific tyrosine kinase, mTOR is a complex and multifaceted target.

There are actually two separate forms of mTOR, TORC1 and TORC2, and they sit at a critical point in cellular determination. Stimulated by the insulin growth pathway, cells must decide whether they will grow in size or divide. The mTOR proteins participate in this process by regulating protein synthesis and glucose uptake among other functions. In turn, the mTOR pathway is regulated by numerous other factors like AMP kinase and AKT. The current crop of mTOR inhibitors all target TORC1.

New classes of compounds are being developed that inhibit both TORC1 and TORC2. More interesting are the compounds that influence upstream signaling, including phosphoinositol kinase (PI3K) and AKT. What we are coming to learn, however, is that these are not targets but collections of targets. Indeed, the PI3K inhibitors themselves have influence on one, two or all of the distinct classes of phosphoinositol kinases.

Most of the studies to date have used compounds that affect all the classes equally (pan-inhibitors). Pharmaceutical companies are now developing highly selective inhibitors of this fundamental pathway. In addition, duel inhibitors that target both PI3K and mTOR are in clinical trials. What we are coming to realize is the complexity of these pathways. What may prove more vexing still is their redundancy. One well-established by-product of successful inhibition of mTOR (principally TORC1) is the upstream activity of AKT via a feedback loop. This has the undesirable affect of redoubling mTOR stimulation through the very pharmacological manipulation that was designed to inhibit it. Again, an unintended consequence of a well laid plan.

To unravel the complexities and redundancies of these processes, we have utilized the primary culture platform. It enables us to examine the end result of signal inhibition and dissect disease specific profiles. Using this approach we can partner with collaborators to define the specific operative pathways in each disease entity.

Biological complexity is the hallmark of life. We ignore it at our peril.

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.

The False Economy of Genomic Analyses

We are witness to a revolution in cancer therapeutics. Targeted therapies, named for their capacity to target specific tumor related features, are being developed and marketed at a rapid pace. Yet with an objective response rate of 10 percent (Von Hoff et al JCO, Nov 2011) reported for a gene array/IHC platform that attempted to select drugs for individual patients we have a long way to go before these tests will have meaningful clinical applications.

So, let’s examine the more established, accurate and validated methodologies currently in use for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. I speak of patients with EGFR mutations for which erlotinib (Tarceva®) is an approved therapy and those with ALK gene rearrangements for which the drug crizotinib (Xalkori®) has recently been approved.

The incidence of ALK gene rearrangement within patients with non-small cell lung cancer is in the range of 2–4 percent, while EGFR mutations are found in approximately 15 percent. These are largely mutually exclusive events. So, let’s do a “back of the napkin” analysis and cost out these tests in a real life scenario.

One hundred patients are diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer.
•    Their physicians order ALK gene rearrangement     $1,500
•    And EGFR mutation analysis     $1,900
•    The costs associated $1,500 + $1,900 x 100 people =    $340,000
Remember, that only 4 percent will be positive for ALK and 15 percent positive for EGFR. And that about 80 percent of the ALK positive patients respond to crizotinib and about 70 percent of the EGFR positive patients respond to erlotinib.

So, let’s do the math.

We get three crizotinib responses and 11 erlotinib responses: 3 + 11 = 14 responders.
Resulting in a cost per correctly identified patient =     $24,285

Now, let’s compare this with an ex-vivo analysis of programmed cell death.

Remember, the Rational Therapeutics panel of 16+ drugs and combinations tests both cytotoxic drugs and targeted therapies. In our soon to be published lung cancer study, the overall response rate was 65 percent. So what does the EVA/PCD approach cost?

Again one hundred patients are diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer.
•    Their physicians order an EVA-PCD analysis    $4,000
•    The costs associated: $4,000 x 100 people =    $400,000
•    With 65 percent of patients responding, this
constitutes a cost per correctly identified patient =     $6,154

Thus, we are one quarter the cost and capable of testing eight times as many options. More to the point, this analysis, however crude, reflects only the costs of selecting drugs and not the costs of administering drugs. While, each of those patients selected for therapy using the molecular profiles will receive an extraordinarily expensive drug, many of the patients who enjoy prolonged benefit using EVA/PCD receive comparatively inexpensive chemotherapeutics.

Furthermore, those patients who test negative for ALK and EGFR are left to the same guesswork that, to date has provided responses in the range of 30 percent and survivals in the range of 12 months.

While the logic of this argument seems to have escaped many, it is interesting to note how quickly organizations like ASCO have embraced the expensive and comparatively inefficient tests. Yet ASCO has continued to argue against our more cost-effective and broad-based techniques.

No wonder we call our group Rational Therapeutics.