Scientifically-based Functional Profile Under Fire
August 7, 2012 2 Comments
Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” I am reminded of this quote by a “conversation” that recently took place on a cancer patient forum.
A patient wrote that they had requested that tissue be submitted for sensitivity analysis and their physician responded by describing this work as a scam. A scam is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as slang for a “fraudulent business scheme.”
Continuing Churchill’s thread, we might respond, “that laboratory directed therapies are the worst form of cancer therapy, except for all the others that have been tried.”
Using functional profiling we measure the effect of drugs, radiation, growth factor withdrawal and signal transduction inhibition upon human tumors. Using our extensive database we compare the findings with the results of similar patients – by diagnosis and treatment status – to determine the most active and least toxic drug or combination for each patient.
The test isn’t perfect. Some patient’s cancer cells (about 5 – 7 percent of the time), do not survive the transport and processing, so no assay can be performed at all. Some patients are resistant to all available drugs and combinations. And finally, based on the established performance characteristics of the test, we can only double or in some circumstances triple, the likelihood of a clinical response. This is all well documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
Despite this, it appears that in the eyes of some beholders these strikingly good results constitute a “scam.” So let us, in the spirit of fairness, and academic discourse examine their results.
First, it must be remembered that today in 2012 only a minority of cancer patients actually show objective response to available cancer therapies. Five-year survivals, the benchmark of success for advanced disease in oncology (those whose disease has spread beyond the primary site), have not changed in more than five decades.
The highly lauded clinical trial process, according to a study from the University of Florida, only provides a better outcome for a new drug over an old one, once for every seven clinical trials conducted
More disturbing, only one out of 14 clinical trials provide a survival advantage of 50 percent or greater for the successful treatment group.
According to a study from Tuft’s University, it takes 11 years and more than $1,000,000,000 dollars for a new drug to receive FDA approval.
And in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine only 8 percent of drugs that complete Phase I (safe for human use) ever see the light of day for clinical therapy. This is the legacy of NCCN-guided, University-approved, ASCO-authorized clinical therapeutics programs to date.
As a practicing medical oncologist I am only too familiar with the failings of our modern clinical trial system. Having witnessed the good outcomes of our own patients on assay-directed protocols whose benefits derive from the intelligent use of objective laboratory data for the selection of chemotherapy drugs, I for one will NEVER return to business-as-usual oncology, regardless of what moniker the naysayers might choose to attach to this approach.