In Cancer – If It Seems Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is

The panoply of genomic tests that have become available for the selection of chemotherapy drugs and targeted agents continues to grow. Laboratories across the United States are using gene platforms to assess what they believe to be driver mutations and then identify potential treatments.

Among the earliest entrants into the field and one of the largest groups, offers a service that examines patient’s tumors for both traditional chemotherapy and targeted agents. This lab service was aggressively marketed under the claim that it was “evidence-based.” A closer examination of the “evidence” however, revealed tangential references and cell-line data but little if any prospective clinical outcomes and positive and negative predictive accuracies.

I have observed this group over the last several years and have been underwhelmed by the predictive validity of their methodologies. Dazzled by the science however, clinical oncologists began sending samples in droves, incurring high costs for these laboratory services of questionable utility.

In an earlier blog, I had described some of the problems associated with these broad brush genomic analyses. Among the greatest shortcomings are Type 1 errors.  These are the identification of the signals (or analytes) that may not predict a given outcome. They occur as signal-to-noise ratios become increasingly unfavorable when large unsupervised data sets are distilled down to recommendations, without anyone taking the time to prospectively correlate those predictions with patient outcomes.

Few of these companies have actually conducted trials to prove their predictive values. This did not prevent these laboratories from offering their “evidence-based” results.

In April of 2013, the federal government indicted the largest purveyor of these techniques.  While the court case goes forward, it is not surprising that aggressively marketed, yet clinically unsubstantiated methodologies ran afoul of legal standards.

A friend and former professor at Harvard Business School once told me that there are two reasons why start-ups fail.  The first are those companies that “can do it, but can’t sell it.”  The other types are companies that “can sell it, but can’t do it.”  It seems that in the field of cancer molecular biology, companies that can sell it, but can’t do it, are on the march.

About Dr. Robert A. Nagourney
Dr. Nagourney received his undergraduate degree in chemistry from Boston University and his doctor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, where he was a University Scholar. After a residency in internal medicine at the University of California, Irvine, he went on to complete fellowship training in medical oncology at Georgetown University, as well as in hematology at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla. During his fellowship at Georgetown University, Dr. Nagourney confronted aggressive malignancies for which the standard therapies remained mostly ineffective. No matter what he did, all of his patients died. While he found this “standard of care” to be unacceptable, it inspired him to return to the laboratory where he eventually developed “personalized cancer therapy.” In 1986, Dr. Nagourney, along with colleague Larry Weisenthal, MD, PhD, received a Phase I grant from a federally funded program and launched Oncotech, Inc. They began conducting experiments to prove that human tumors resistant to chemotherapeutics could be re-sensitized by pre-incubation with calcium channel blockers, glutathione depletors and protein kinase C inhibitors. The original research was a success. Oncotech grew with financial backing from investors who ultimately changed the direction of the company’s research. The changes proved untenable to Dr. Nagourney and in 1991, he left the company he co-founded. He then returned to the laboratory, and developed the Ex-vivo Analysis - Programmed Cell Death ® (EVA-PCD) test to identify the treatments that would induce programmed cell death, or “apoptosis.” He soon took a position as Director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Cancer Institute of Long Beach Memorial Medical Center. His primary research project during this time was chronic lymphocytic leukemia. He remained in this position until the basic research program funding was cut, at which time he founded Rational Therapeutics in 1995. It is here where the EVA-PCD test is used to identity the drug, combinations of drugs or targeted therapies that will kill a patient's tumor - thus providing patients with truly personalized cancer treatment plans. With the desire to change how cancer care is delivered, he became Medical Director of the Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Memorial in 2003. In 2008, he returned to Rational Therapeutics full time to rededicate his time and expertise to expand the research opportunities available through the laboratory. He is a frequently invited lecturer for numerous professional organizations and universities, and has served as a reviewer and on the editorial boards of several journals including Clinical Cancer Research, British Journal of Cancer, Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Research and the Journal of Medicinal Food.

3 Responses to In Cancer – If It Seems Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is

  1. Shaker Farhat, MSc, PhD(c) says:

    Probably the utility and effectiveness of genomic profiling can be markedly expanded by adding other assays, such as functional profiling (e.g., EVA-PCD), to the patient’s individualized profile for guiding treatment planning/monitoring (probably with CETC?). Has this been tried, and did it show any improved patient outcome?

  2. The “validation standard” that private insurance carriers have been accepting from genomic profiling is “accuracy.” It shows that the test correlates with clinical outcomes. All they have to do for these tests is prove that the test has a useful degree of “accuracy” (and that isn’t much) and they reimburse for them. Nothing more!

    “Accuracy” is the exact same standard functional profiling is judged on. There have been more than 25 peer-reviewed publications showing significant correlations between cell-death assay results and patient response and survival. The functional profiling labs have compiled a compelling collection of both retrospective and prospective correlative analyses that strongly support the clinical utility of this methodology.

    The “standard of care” is to give the drug(s) with the least resistance and/or the drug(s) with the most sensitivity. By having additional support of drug patient-specific activity, as determined by extensive laboratory pre-tests to improve patient outcomes, could very well bolster the argument for private insurance carriers to reimburse for these assays.

    However, private functional profiling laboratories do not have the “marketing” apparatus (venture capitalists) to get into the “limelight.” It cannot “pressure” the multi-billion dollar cancer industry to do so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: