Of Cells, Proteins and Cancer Drug Development

Our recent presentation at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting reported our work with a novel class of compounds known as the HSP90 inhibitors. AACR 2015-HSP90 Abstract

The field began decades earlier when it was found that certain proteins in cells were required to protect the function of other newly formed proteins hormone receptors and signaling molecules. Estrogen and androgen receptors, among others, require careful attention following their manufacture or they will find themselves in the cellular waste bin.

230px-Geldanamycin.svgAs each new protein is formed it risks digestion at the hands of a garbage disposal-like device known as a proteasome (named for its protein digesting capabilities). To the rescue comes HSP90 that chaperones these newly created proteins through the cell and protects them until they can assume their important roles in cell function and survival.

Recognizing that these proteins were critical for cell viability, investigators at Sloan-Kettering and others developed a number of molecules to block HSP90. The original compounds known as ansamycins underwent clinical trials with evidence of activity in some breast cancers. The next generation of compounds was tested in other diseases. Though the clinical results have been mixed, the concept remains attractive.

We compared two drugs of this type and showed that they shared similar function but had different chemical properties and that the concentrations required to kill cells differed. What is interesting is the activity of these drugs seems to be patient-specific. That is, each patient, whether they had breast or lung cancer, showed a unique profile that was not directly connected to the type of cancer they had. This has important implications.

Today, pharmaceutical companies develop drugs by disease type. Compounds enter Phase II trials with 30 to 50 lung cancer patients treated, then 30 to 50 breast cancer patients treated and so on. This continues until (it is hoped) one of the diseases provides a favorable profile and the data is submitted to the FDA for a disease-specific approval. As home runs are rare, most drugs never see the light of day failing to provide sufficient response in any disease to warrant the enormous expense of bringing them to market.

What we found with the HSP90 inhibitors is that some breast cancers are extremely sensitive while others are not. Similarly some lung cancers are extremely sensitive while others are resistant. This forces us once again to confront the fact that cancer patients are unique.

Pharmaceutical companies exploring the role of targeted agents like the HSP90 inhibitors must learn to incorporate patient individuality into the drug development process. Failing to do so not only risks the loss of billions of dollars but more importantly denies patients access to active novel agents.

The future of drug development can be bright if the pharmaceutical industry embraces the concept that each patient’s profile of response is unique and that these responses reflect patient-specific, not diagnosis-based drivers. Clinical trials must incorporate individual patient profiles. Drugs could be made more available once Phase I studies were complete by using biomarkers for response, such as the EVA-PCD assay, which has the capacity to enhance access and streamline drug development.

Future Cancer Shock: Two Lung Cancer Trials Fall Short of Goal

Hsp90 pathwayTwo related clinical trials were reported in the last several months describing the use of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibitors in lung cancer. Both trials fell short of their pre-specified endpoints casting a pall upon these drugs. However, the study of HSP90 inhibitors should not be abandoned based on these finding, as this is a fertile area of investigation and offers opportunities for the future.

Human cells marshal many defenses against stress. Thermal injury can damage basic cellular functions by denaturing (inactivating) proteins. The machinery of cells is largely comprised of protein enzymes. Excessive heat coagulates proteins much the same way the albumin of an egg turns white during cooking. The loss of fluidity and function ultimately results in cell death. The heat shock proteins come to the rescue by shepherding these proteins away from injury and protecting them from denaturation. There are many different heat shock proteins found in human cells, but one of the most abundant and active in cancer cells is known as HSP90 for its molecular weight in the range of 90-kilodaltons. Over the last two decades, investigators have explored the use of small molecules to inhibit these important proteins. Among the first compounds to be isolated and applied were derivatives of Geldanamycin. Although Geldanamycin itself is a poison that causes severe liver damage, its derivative 17-AAG, also known as Tanespimycin, has successfully entered clinical trials.

The current studies examined two other HSP90 inhibitors. One Retaspimycin, has been developed by the Infinity Pharmaceuticals. This clinical trial combined Retaspimycin with Docetaxel and compared results with Docetaxel alone in 226 patients with recurrent lung cancer. None of the patients had received Docetaxel prior to the trial. Drugs were administered every three weeks and the efficacy endpoint was survival with a subset analysis focused upon those with squamous cell cancer. The trial fell short of its pre-designated endpoint. Interestingly, the study failed to provide benefit even in patients who were specifically targeted by their tumor’s expression of the K-RAS, p53 or by elevated blood levels of HSP90, the putative biomarkers for response.

The second trial examined a different HSP90 inhibitor developed by Synta Pharmaceuticals. The drug Ganetespib was combined with Docetaxel and the combination was compared with Docetaxel alone. The results just reported indicate that the combination provided a median survival of 10.7 month, while Docetaxel alone provided a median survival of 7.4 month. Although this represented a three-month improvement, it did not meet the pre-specified target.

Taken together these results could dampen enthusiasm for these agents. This would be unfortunate, for this class of drugs is active in a number of human tumors.

Through our EVA-PCD functional profile we have observed favorable activity and synergy for the HSP90 inhibitor Geldanamycin and its derivative 17-AAG as we reported at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in 2005 (Nagourney RA et al Proc. AACR, 2005). More importantly, 17-AAG (Tanespimycin) provided objective responses in 22 percent and clinical benefit in 59 percent of patients with recurrent HER2 positive breast cancer after these patients had failed therapy with Herceptin (Modi S. et al, Clinical Cancer Research August 2011). This clearly supports the role of HSP90 inhibition in breast cancer and would suggest that other more carefully selected target diseases could benefit as well.

The function of HSP90 is not completely understood as it influences the intracellular trafficking of dozens of proteins. One of the complexities of this class of drugs is that they protect and enhance the function of both good and bad proteins. After all, the HSP90 protein doesn’t know which proteins we as cancer doctors would like it to protect.

When we apply EVA-PCD analysis to these and other related classes of compounds, we focus our attention upon the downstream effects, namely the loss of cell survival. That is, whatever proteins are influenced, the important question remains “did that effect cause the cells to die?”

Classes of compounds with nonspecific targets like the HSP90 inhibitors will surely be the most difficult to characterize at a genomic or proteomic level: What protein? What gene? Functional platforms like the EVA-PCD offer unique opportunities to study these classes of agents. We are convinced that the HSP90 inhibitors have a role in cancer therapy. It would be unfortunate if these setbacks led us to “throw the baby out with the (hot) bathwater,” thus, slowing or preventing their use in cancer treatment.

New Cancer Drug: Breakthrough or Just Hype?

Having just passed through Ontario’s Pearson International airport on route from eastern Canada, I was struck by an email from one of my patient’s mothers who shared with me a 6/20/2013 article from the Toronto Globe and Mail, “Take news of cancer breakthrough with a big grain of salt,” by staff writer André Picard.

The author describes an announcement by two prominent cancer researchers, Tak Mak, PhD, of Princess Margaret Hospital Toronto, CA and Denis Slamon, MD, from UCLA, who reported the results from a new class of compounds known as “polo-like kinase 4 inhibitors.” Picard goes on to note, “This seemingly miraculous ‘breakthrough’ drug has not been tested on a single person. The experimental drug CFI-400945 has ‘prevented cancer growth’ in a bunch of mice.”

What troubles the author (and should probably trouble us all), is the lack of substance in this report. After all, many drugs reveal activity in animal models, yet most seemingly promising drugs fail to provide clinical benefit. Only 8 percent of cancer chemotherapy drugs that enter the earliest form of human clinical trials (Phase I) ever achieve FDA approval. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, fully 50 percent of drugs that make it to the final stage (Phase III) of clinical testing nonetheless fail to gain approval. Thus, there is ample reason for concern when “breakthrough” drugs achieve this level of public recognition, because it is distinctly unlikely that they will ever deliver on their promises.

When I attend the AACR meetings, I’m impressed by the level of scientific discovery. When I then attend the ASCO meetings, I’m even more concerned by the lack of clinically relevant progress. The divide between clinicians and scientists seems to grow ever wider. While TIME magazine and The New York Times (to use Andre Picard’s term) genuflect before these scientists’ reports of dramatic advances, most cancer patients continue to suffer through largely ineffective toxic therapies. The disconnect is becoming painfully evident. What we need is a better pathway from discovery to clinical application. What we don’t need is more hype.

The Future of Cancer Research

The American Association for Cancer Research meeting held April 6 – 10 in Washington DC, provided a scientific perspective on oncologic developments. As opposed to the more clinical American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), basic scientists attend this meeting, a large percentage of who are PhDs. The conference affords these investigators the opportunity to discuss their basic research and to present methodology workshops. The meeting also provides an early overview of the general direction that cancer research will be taking over the coming years.

While ASCO reports what we’ve recently done, AACR reports what we will be doing.

RAN at ACCR 2013There were several overarching themes at this year’s meeting, the most prominent of these being the remarkable strides in immunologic therapy. Numerous investigators reported novel developments in the field. Where the immune system used to present as an insurmountable barrier of complexity, today we have dissected specific response elements and immune suppressive pathways that offer unique opportunities for therapy. Immunologic therapeutics are now specializing into sub-domains.

One productive area reflects de-repression. The most mature example being ipilimumab, the monoclonal directed against CTLA-4. This broadly expressed T-cell repressor molecule can be de-repressed resulting in significant anti-tumor activity, but with moderate to severe toxicity. The inhibition of PDL-1 is more selective and therefore less toxic, it has provided responses in melanoma, NSCLC and other diseases.

Earlier stage research is also focusing on tryptophan metabolism and the role of indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase. Manipulations of dendritic cells, altering prostaglandin TGF beta, IL-10, IL-6 and the STAT3 signaling pathway are also areas of active investigation. Additional studies included transferred receptors, like the CD19-related chimeric antigen receptor work and the targeting of co-stimulatory molecules like CD28.

Among the most striking observations in this field is the role of the human immune system and the tumor microenvironment in tumor promotion. Immunologists are rapidly learning that cancer is much more than just cancer cells.

The second broad concept that occurred repeatedly was the growing recognition of cancer as an organismal disease. When we realize that circulating tumor cells can be identified in the blood stream and bone marrow of virtually all cancer patients, even in many of those with putative in-situ disease, it becomes evident that invasive malignancies occur as the intersection of a primed cell and a receptive microenvironment. In light of our laboratory’s long held belief in the concept of native state microspheroids as predictive models (as used in our EVA-PCD® platform), this theme was highly appealing.

The developing principle that most closely approximated our work was captured in a special symposium organized by Charles Sawyer, president-elect of AACR. The topic of this well-attended session was the “N of 1.” That is, every patient is his or her own clinical trial. Nothing could be closer to our own work. During this session, two new directions for cancer research were described. The first, described as the “P2G,” was characterized by “exceptional responses.” The developing program through the NCI will collect tissue samples from patients who have had especially good responses from therapy and attempt to drill down on the mechanism of response. This exemplifies the phenotype to genotype (P2G). The second concept was the “G2P.” This reflects genomic screening, leading to the identification of lead targets followed by the administration of treatments. This “genotype to phenotype” approach is the one more closely aligned with investigations being conducted today at major centers here and abroad.

It is the exceptional response (phenotype to genotype) approach that most resonated. After all we have pioneered the field of phenotypic analysis. To wit, the use of human tissues in primary culture can offer the opportunity to explore literally dozens of exceptional responses in every patient’s tissues. A hit could provide insights for mechanistic discovery. It is my hope that this P2G paradigm will take hold – I see it as the most productive direction.

Do We Already Have the Tools We Need to Cure Cancer?

The rapid-fire sequence of the annual American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, held in May, followed by the annual American Society of Cllinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting, held in June, provides the opportunity to put scientific discoveries into perspective as they find their way from theoretical to practical.

Members of AACR, the basic science organization, ponder deep biological questions. Their spin-offs arrive in the hands of members of ASCO as Phase I and Phase II trials, some of which are then reported at ASCO meetings.

Many of the small molecules my laboratory has studied over the years are now slowly making their way from “Gee Whiz” to clinical therapy. At the ASCO meeting I attended many of the Phase I sessions, where alphabet soup compounds had their first “in-human” trials. As most of these compounds are familiar to me, I was very interested in these early, though highly preliminary, results.

Departing from one Developmental Therapy (Phase I) session, with visions of signal transduction pathways in my head, I attended a poster discussion on triple negative breast cancer. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it refers to an increasingly common form of breast cancer that doesn’t mark for the usual estrogen, progesterone, or HER-2 features. Often occurring in younger patients, this form of breast cancer can be aggressive and unresponsive to some forms of therapy. Much work has gone into defining sub-types of this disease and slow progress is being made.

As I examined the posters, one caught my eye, “Clinical Characteristics and Chemotherapy Options of Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Role of Classic CMF regimen. (Herr, MH et al, abstract #1053, ASCO 2012.) What these investigators showed in a series of 826 breast cancer patients was that those treated with the oldest drug combination for breast cancer (CMF) did better than those who received the more modern and more intensive anthracycline or taxane-based regimens. CMF, originally developed by Italian investigators in the 1970s, was the principal therapy for this disease for two decades before it was replaced, first by anthracycline and later by taxane-based treatments. What struck me was the unexpected superiority of this old regimen over its more modern, toxic and expensive brethren.

I began to wonder about other modern therapies and their real impact upon cancer outcomes. One study in HER-2 positive patients revealed relative equivalency between weekly taxol, every three-week Taxotere and Abraxane-based therapy. Once again, the cheaper, older, less toxic Taxol regimen proved superior. While most of the attendees at the ASCO meeting were considering how the newest VEGF inhibitor Regorafenib, or the addition of aflibercept, might impact their practices, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the results of these statistically significant, but clinically marginal survival advantages, all associated with great expense.

As I pondered the implications of the CMF results in triple negatives and those of the taxol results in HER-2 positives, I considered other old-fashioned therapies with newfound potential. Among them, losartan, the angiotensin antagonist that influences tumor stroma or the results of an earlier published study that identified intraconazole (a widely available anti-fungal therapy), as an inhibitor of the hedgehog pathway. While the pharmaceutical industry promotes the use of vismodegib, a hedgehog inhibitor for basal cell skin cancer, and dozens of trials examine VEGF and FGF inhibitors, I wondered whether losartan or intraconazole or other simple compounds and combinations might not already provide many of the tools we need. Is it possible that effective treatments for cancer are at hand?

Lacking the tools to decipher the signals and combine the agents to greatest effect, are we destined to continue to blindly administer increasingly expensive, toxic, yet arguably no more effective therapies? With the myriad of drugs and combinations available today, might it be that we “can’t see the forest for the trees.”

Tumor Ecology, Not Tumor Biology

During the first years of this millennium as the newly discovered field of anti-angiogenesis was reaching a fevered pitch, I had the opportunity to attend an AACR Special Symposium, held at Whistler Resort in British Columbia. While there I attended a symposium by Dr. Rakesh Jain. Dr. Jain a long-time colleague of Judah Folkman, MD,  at Harvard University presented his observations on tumor vascularity and its implications for therapy. Despite the prevailing belief that tumor angiogenesis was a linear phenomenon, from cessation of blood supply – and thereby nutrients and oxygen – to the death of cancer, Dr. Jain provided compelling evidence to the contrary.

Every so often I read an article, hear a lecture, or attend a symposium that changes the way I think. Dr. Jain’s presentation that year was just that type of lecture. In the span of an hour he described the dynamics of blood flow through the network of disorganized tumor blood vessels. He showed that anti-angiogenic factors actually “pruned” the blood supply and returned normal flow. He went on to point out that most of the experiments being reported at that time by other investigators had short windows of observation during which the effects of Bevacizumab could be captured, photomicrographed and published to great acclaim in the most prestigious journals. But there was a fly in the ointment. Bevacizumab by itself had a miniscule response rate. Indeed, in the absence of chemotherapy, it was single digits.

Jain, an engineer by training, developed a novel tissue “window” method that enabled him to explore the temporal sequence of cellular response to VEGF therapy. He found that it all wasn’t as simple or tidy as it had seemed. The short-term control of vasculature was followed by revascularization. Cells deprived of oxygen and nutrients devolved into more stem cell-like phenotypes. Therapies based on an incomplete understanding of angiogenesis might, in his opinion, be adding to the problem.

As the years have gone on I’ve carried the insights from that lecture with me. At a subsequent AACR presentation by Napoleon Ferrara, PhD, many years later, Dr. Ferrara, who developed Bevacizumab, reminded his audience that VEGF was originally known as VPF (vascular permeability factor). Perhaps this aspect of the VEGF effects were responsible for its minimal single agent activity, yet profound combinatorial effect.

With this as a backdrop, I sat among 15,000 medical oncologists at the plenary session lecture where Dr Jain presented his work and I delighted in the possibility (however slight) that his message of experimental analysis and systems biology would sink in.

Cancer is not a cell, it is a system. Tumor cells are but a small portion of the process. Carcinogenesis may represent a response to cellular stress, some of which, we as “therapists” may inflict. The indiscriminate use of cytotoxic agents and antivascular drugs may, in some circumstances, be more harmful than helpful to our patients.

What is the appropriate dose of Bevacizumab? How should it be given? In what sequence with radiation or chemotherapy? With what drugs or targeted agents? Are low doses better than high doses? Is the effect of VGEF inhibition a driver of response or an epiphenomenon? What about the fibroblast matrix, lymphatic vessels, infiltrating monocytes, T-cells, B-cells and neutrophils? Dr. Jain elegantly outlined the complexities of the human tumor microenvironment.

It was with more than a small amount of satisfaction, that I realized how quite correct our approach to this disease has been over the years. It is not just the cancer cell that is important, but the tumor as a whole. Cancer cells are just part of the problem. Using native state microspheroids replete with vasculature, cytokines, stromal elements and tumor cells; we feel that we are now poised to advance the growing use of effective targeted therapies in ever-expanding ways.

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.

The Tyranny of Medical Experts

Over the last several years a number of decisions have been handed down from medical experts, I use the term “handed down” advisedly. Like the Olympian Gods or appellate court judges, these dictates are provided to the unsuspecting medical public as fiats. Among these are the roles of mammograms for women under 50 (not recommended), PSA screening for men (not recommended), and a variety of determinations that seem to many counterintuitive. In the past, similar recommendations have been handed down regarding a series of “unnecessary” tests, the cessation of which could save millions of dollars annually.

These topics were the subject of a recent article by Drs. Pamela Hartzband and Jerome Groopman, members of the faculty at Harvard Medical School. Published in the Saturday, March 31, 2012, Wall Street Journal, their article “Rise of the Medical Expertocracy,” focuses on the new paternalism that has come to define “Best Practices” in the healthcare. What most concerns these authors is the transition from physicians as experts, to governmental entities as experts. With this new bureaucracy comes an entirely new industry dedicated to the generation of medical metrics designed to provide doctors and hospitals report cards on their performance. Like evidence-based medicine, yesterday’s catchphrase for improving treatments, “Best Practices” are now being forced upon practitioners.

Where the purveyors of these approaches have gone wrong, is their misguided attempt to apply average treatments to average patients with the expectation of average outcomes. Despite the appeal of simplified treatment algorithms, there are no average patients and it follows that there are no average outcomes.

In a recent presentation at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting held in Chicago March 31 – April 4, 2012, one of the presenters at the melanoma session described whole genome sequencing on 21 human melanomas. To their chagrin they found 21 completely different phosphoprotein signatures. From the macroscopic to the most microscopic mankind in general and his tumors in particular, distinguish themselves for their unique attributes.

The theme of Drs. Hartzband and Groopman’s article echoes loudly in our study of cancer patients. We will only succeed in saving money and saving lives when we stop banging round pegs into square holes and get down to the challenging, but very doable work of matching each individual to their best treatment option – truly personalized medicine.

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.

Poster from Rational Therapeutics Session at 2011 AACR Meeting

As I mentioned in a previous post, on April 3, 2011, I traveled to Florida to present our most recent findings on novel compounds that target two parallel circuits in cancer cells at the American Association of Cancer Research Meeting.

Following are shots of the poster that was presented. I encourage you to leave any comments and/or questions here, as I would be pleased to respond to your inquiries.

Rational Therapeutics Cancer Reseach Poster (AACR) Panel 1

Rational Therapeutics Cancer Reseach Poster (AACR) Panel 2

Rational Therapeutics Cancer Reseach Poster (AACR) Panel 3

Rational Therapeutics Cancer Reseach Poster (AACR) Panel 4