A Challenge for Personalized Medicine

Personalized medicine is the new Holy Grail of cancer therapy.  The drugs we currently use are stupid.  They don't actually target cancer cells, they target rapidly dividing cells.  Cancer cells divide rapidly, which is why chemotherapy works, but plenty of other cells in our bodies divide rapidly, and that is why chemotherapy causes so many side effects.

Not only that, but not every tumor of the same type responds similarly to the same chemotherapy.  For breast cancer, some tumors respond well to cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin, but others do not.

Cancer is, at its root, a genetic disease... meaning that changes in the genes within a cell cause it to transform from normal to cancer.  A lot of recent work has gone into identifying the specific mutations that lead to a particular tumor type, and using this information to gauge risk and make treatment decisions.

A by-product of this work has been the development of so-called targeted therapies... drugs that interfere with the abnormal function of a mutated enzyme, for example.  Because these drugs act only in cells that have that particular mutation, which presumably only happens in tumor cells, they are thought to be more specific and less prone to side effects.  The ultimate goal, then, of personalize cancer medicine would be to identify mutations in an individual's tumor and prescribe a regimen of targeted therapies that are specific for that tumor.  Not for the type of tumor... for the individual tumor.

An article in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine makes it clear that this approach is going to be more difficult than previously believed.

Most work aimed at identifying mutations in a specific tumor is based on a single biopsy of the tumor, the idea being that the important mutations will be present in every cell in the tumor.  Today's article addressed this issue directly by comparing the mutations found in multiple different biopsies from the same tumor.  What they found raises serious concerns.  Only about 1/3 of the mutations this group identified were present in every biopsy specimen from the same tumor.  The other 2/3 were found in only a subset of the biopsies.

At one level, this is not news.  Cancer scientists have been aware for years that tumors are heterogeneous... that is, not all of the cells are the same.  It stands to reason, then, that not every cell will have all of the mutations.  That there will be some cells with fewer mutations, and some with more.  And today's article does suggest that some mutations, probably the ones important for the original development of the tumor, are found throughout the mass.  However, if only a single biopsy is performed and used as the basis for making treatment decisions, most of the identified mutations will NOT be common throughout the tumor.

Photo Credit

It's not the end of the world, but it does mean that developing and testing this kind of treatment approach is going to be a lot messier than people have previously believed.

Related Posts:

A Smarter War on Cancer
Is the Medical Community Complicit?
Genomic Medicine -- The Hope and The Hype

This is not a drill!

 Today was the day.


I recently wrote about chemotherapy shortages.  They've been in the news more and more over the past 12 months.  But until today, at least in my practice, they were worries.

But now the drug in short supply is methotrexate.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most common cancer in children.  Cancer is the most common cause of death (other than trauma) in children.  Upwards of 80% of children with ALL are cured with modern treatment regimens.

But I don't know how to cure ALL without methotrexate.

Or osteosarcoma.

Or lymphoma.

There are several companies that supply methotrexate in the US, but all are experiencing production or distribution delays or suspensions.  The net result?  We had a meeting today to figure out if we have enough methotrexate to treat our current patients.  And, if we have a shortfall, to figure out who gets treated... and who doesn't.

The good news is we found a few vials we didn't know about yesterday, and for at least the next 2 weeks, all current patients can get treated on schedule.  But, if we don't get another shipment in 2 weeks, or if an adult-sized patient is diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma presents to the hospital tomorrow?  We won't have enough drug. 

And someone won't get treated.

I have already discussed the many reasons for drug shortages.  The list of drugs in short supply is mind-bogglingly long.  But we can work around a lack of Zofran.  We can find alternatives for Gentamicin.

But I can't cure ALL without methotrexate.

What's Sauce for the Goose May Not Be Sauce for the Gander

Avastin has been in the news a lot lately, and most of the press has been negative.  In November, the FDA revoked its approval of Avastin to treat newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer.  Then, in December, Genentech, who manufactures Avastin, announced it would not seek FDA approval for the treatment of ovarian cancer, based on studies showing an improvement in progression-free survival but not overall survival.  Of course, whether Avastin helps women with ovarian cancer remains a controversial question, depending how you value progression-free survival. Compare this report with this one, for example. 

In tomorrow's New England Journal of Medicine, there are two reports of clinical trials evaluating Avastin for patients with newly diagnosed HER2-negative breast cancer.  In both this study and this one, women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were given chemotherapy with or without Avastin.  The women with HER2-negative tumors had a higher rate of "pathological complete response" if they received Avastin.  "Pathologic complete response" means that when it was time for surgery, not living tumor could be found.  Women with a "pathologic complete response" tend to live longer than women who do not respond as well.

What does all this mean?  Will these studies "reignite the debate" about Avastin in breast cancer?  I guess that depends on who is doing the debating.  I think the role of Avastin in breast cancer, indeed the role of Avastin in treating any cancer, remains unclear.  In the end, I believe it will be shown that Avastin helps some cancer patients and not others, and it will all depend on the biology of each tumor type.  Clearly, not all breast cancer is the same, and breast cancer is not the same as ovarian cancer, let alone osteosarcoma or lymphoma.  Today's studies simply reinforce the fallacy of extrapolating from one tumor type to another.  A drug may be very helpful for one type of cancer, and useless for another.


That's why we do clinical trials like this one, sponsored by St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, in which we are participating, trying to see if Avastin helps osteosarcoma patients.

These studies do raise another important point, which I will discuss very soon.  These studies relied on a "surrogate end point."  That is, the studies were designed to see an effect on "pathologic complete response," but only because that is thought to correspond with improved overall survival.  Only time will tell whether the women who received Avastin do actually live longer.

More to come...

Related Posts:
My name is FDA, and I approve of this message
Yes, we have no...Zofran?
Access to Experimental Drugs for Dying Patients

Yes, we have no...Zofran?

Photo Credit



The issue of chemotherapy drug shortages has made the news a lot over the past 6 months or so, including an OpEd piece in the New York Times last August that pointed out that the situation is so bad that, in effect, cancer care is being rationed in the US.


How did this happen?

Well, the situation is quite complex, but much of what is going on was summarized beautifully by my colleague Michelle Hudspeth, Director of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology at Medical University of South Carolina (and graduate of our residency and fellowship programs), when she testified before Congress (her testimony is here).  Briefly, the problem can be traced, in part, to a rule by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) called the ASP + 6 Rule.  This rule limits what a private oncologist can charge for a chemotherapy drug to the Average Sale Price plus 6%. 

Why does that matter?  An article by the Director of the National Library of Medicine, and one in the New England Journal of Medicine, outlines the financial issues.  Because so many of the older chemotherapy drugs are available as generics and are consequently very inexpensive.  Consider the case of carboplatin.  A vial of carboplatin once sold for $125, but recently the cost has fallen to $3.50.  Add 6% to that, and you certainly don't recoup the cost of administering the drug in your office. Similarly, paclitaxel costs $312 per vial, while Abraxane (albumin-bound paclitaxel) costs $5,824 (all cost data come from this article in the New England Journal of Medicine).  There is almost no financial incentive to pharmaceutical companies to make generic chemotherapy drugs, nor is there a financial incentive to private oncology practices to use generics.

But this is just part of the problem.  There is currently a nationwide shortage of Doxil (liposomal doxorubicin), which is not a generic.  Why?  Through industry consolidation, there are fewer and fewer plants that manufacture these drugs, so when something happens at even a single plant, the entire market is affected.  Quality control issues at the only plant in the world that makes Doxil shut the plant down and with it, all drug production. 

 Photo Credit

So, it seems that industry consolidation, downward pressure on pricing of generics, as well as contamination, other quality control problems, and shortages of raw materials have conspired to create a perfect storm.

The consequences of these shortages go beyond just drug availability.  As the New York Times article discussed, and Dr. Hudspeth mentioned, medication errors are increasing as oncologists are forced to use less familiar drugs.  Research is affected, too. This article, published in the scientific journal Nature in October, discusses the effect of drug shortages on clinical trial enrollment.  Closer to home, the clinical trial I am running looking at Doxil and temsirolimus for sarcoma patients is on hold because Doxil is unavailable.  We haven't enrolled a new patient in months, and there is no end to the shortage in sight.

Photo Credit

The shortages are not limited to chemotherapy drugs (which, of course, is evidence that the problem is not due to the inability of oncologists to make a profit giving drugs to patients).  Drugs for ADHD, the components for iv nutrition, anesthetics, and many others are affected.  In fact, on Friday I was told our hospital has only a 5 day supply of Zofran, the mainstay anti-nausea drug used for patients receiving chemotherapy. 

I sure hope they get more.  I'm not looking forward to giving chemotherapy without it.


Related Posts:
My Name is FDA, and I Approve of this Message
A Smarter War on Cancer
When Translational Research Really Translates

Entering the Fray

The vast majority of biomedical research conducted in the United States is funded by taxpayers through grants distributed by the National Institutes of Health.  This includes investigator-initiated laboratory research (the work we do in our labs) as well as clinical trials, both large and small (NIH is a large supporter, for example, of the Children's Oncology Group).  In the not-too-distant past, the results of all of this research were published in scientific journals which were available to anyone who could gain entrance to a medical library.  With the rise of the internet, journals began publishing online, and charging a fee for viewing these articles on their websites.  Those of us who work at academic centers generally have free access to most (but not all) of these websites because our universities buy institutional subscriptions.  Others, including people who work at smaller centers and the general public, have less (or no) access to this work.

All of this changed in 2008, when the NIH instituted a Public Access Policy that stated, in brief, that results of research funded by the NIH had to be made freely available to the general public.  Along with NIH's Public Access Policy came the advent of the Public Library of Science, a non-profit organization co-founded by Michael Eisen, a professor at UC Berkley (and blogger), dedicated to open access to scientific research.  I have published in one of their journals, PLoS ONE.  I am a strong supporter of open access to the results of research, mine and everyone else's.

This concept of free access to taxpayer-funded research is under attack by a bill introduced into the House of Representatives last month, the Research Works Act.  In essence, this bill would forbid the NIH to require that its grantees provide copies of their papers to the National Library of Medicine for online, open access.  There are innumerable reasons to oppose this bill, and Dr. Eisen discussed them far more eloquently than I ever could in an Op-Ed piece published in the New York Times. 

If you agree that the results of research paid for by your tax dollars should be freely available, please contact your congressperson and express your opposition to the Research Works Act.  As the PLoS journals have demonstrated, high quality research can be published online and made freely available to all, and the research enterprise will flourish because of this, not suffer. 

"We need a better test"... or do we?

A study, published online January 6 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, claims to show that screening men 55 years old or older for prostate cancer does not significantly decrease mortality from the disease.

 Photo Credit

This study made headlines, in large part because it  runs contrary to conventional wisdom -- that cancer screening tests, by detecting the disease at an early stage, save lives.  A number of things struck me about this study and the way it was reported.

This is one of several relatively recent studies that has called into question the premise behind cancer screening tests.  Two years ago, I had a post about a revision of the US Preventive Services Task Force's position on Pap smears and mammograms.  In that post, I talked more about how screening tests might be applied to particular patient populations.  But cervical cancer and breast cancer are very different from prostate cancer.  Women rarely die WITH breast cancer... they die OF breast cancer.  In contrast, many men die WITH prostate cancer, but not because they had prostate cancer.  This is a key difference, and strongly influences thoughts about screening tests.  KevinMD did a great job addressing this issue, highlighting the idea that screening tests are not without their costs.

This episode also demonstrates that it is important to read the whole article, not just the headline.  (Reading the original research is best, but only if you know how to interpret it appropriately).  The Washington Post's headline, for example, reads, "Routine prostate cancer testing does not save lives."  Only if you read deep into the article does it become clear that one group of men was screened by the study doctors with PSA blood tests and digital rectal exams, while the other group of men were cared for by their regular doctors.  Of course, the regular doctors were allowed to do PSA tests and digital rectal exams, too.  But those data were not recorded, making it challenging to know how different the screening of the two groups really was.  This is important, because the "screened" group had a higher rate of cancer than the "unscreened" group, but no difference in the rate of death from prostate cancer.



How can that be?

The answer may come from pediatric oncology.  Neuroblastoma, the most common solid tumor (other than brain cancer) in children, can be detected by a simple urine test.  Since neuroblastoma primarily strikes kids less than 3 years old, a population of children who see their pediatricians quite frequently, it seems sensible to do a urine screening test for neuroblastoma as part of routine well child care.  In fact, that was the routine in Japan for many years.  In the beginning of this century, though, two large studies showed that screening for neuroblastoma increased the rate of diagnosis, but did not change the death rate.  On the basis of those two studies, Japan no longer screens children for neuroblastoma.

How can a screening program increase detection but not decrease the death rate, especially if there are effective treatments available?

Photo Credit

In the case of neuroblastoma, we believe the answer lies in the biology of the tumor.  Some tumors are very aggressive, grow rapidly, and kill a high proportion of patients, while others are more slow growing and can be cured pretty easily, often with surgery alone.  If screening detects more of the low grade tumors, but the high grade tumors end up being detected because they cause symptoms, then screening programs won't change the rate of detection of the aggressive tumors... the ones that cause most of the deaths. 

If this same biological principle applies to prostate cancer, the findings of the screening trial make sense.  Which brings me to my last point:  at the end of the article in the Post, Dr. Jonathan W. Simons was quoted as saying, "We need a better test than PSA."  That may be true, but it needs to be better not because it can detect prostate cancer even earlier, but because it can detect aggressive prostate cancer earlier.  Screening for that may change death rates.  Maybe we don't need a "better" test... we need a different test.

Related Posts:
More What You'd Call "Guidelines" than Actual Rules
Is the Medical Community Complicit?
HPV, STI's, and Teenaged Girls:  What does 1 in 4 mean, and what can be done?

My name is FDA, and I approve of this message

As the new year begins and election season accelerates, we will be hearing phrases like that more and more.  In the context of a political commercial, it is often pretty clear what is being approved and the basis for the approval.

But what about new drugs?  How does the FDA decide whether or not to approve a new cancer drug, and what exactly is being approved?  In the era of targeted therapies, which are incredibly expensive to develop, and therefore incredibly expensive for patients and their insurance companies, these are crucial questions.

Photo Credit

I think the case of bevacizumab (Avastin) is a perfect example.  Avastin was the first of a new class of drugs that treats cancer not by directly killing tumor cells, but instead by attacking the blood vessels that feed a growing tumor, essentially attempting to starve the tumor of oxygen and nutrients.  Avastin was approved by the FDA for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (kidney cancer) based on its ability to prolong the life of patients with this disease.   Avastin was given a provisional FDA approval to treat metastatic breast cancer, based on its ability to delay progression of the tumor.  It was big news last month, however, when further studies failed to show an improvement in "overall survival" (meaning how long the patient lives from the time she begins treatment) in women with metastatic breast cancer, and the FDA withdrew its approval.

Avastin is in the news again today.  In today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine there are two reports (links here and here) showing that Avastin prolongs Progression-free Survival (PFS; the time from beginning treatment until the tumor gets worse) but not Overall Survival (OS) in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.  Based on these results, Genentech, the manufacturer of Avastin, declared that they will not seek approval from the FDA to treat women with ovarian cancer using Avastin, because they know approval will not be granted without an effect on OS.

Overall survival, an extension of life expectancy, is clearly the ideal for a cancer drug.  I certainly treat all of my patients with drugs that I expect will allow them to live longer (hopefully to cure, but even in patients who are not likely to be cured, I would like them to live longer).  But is that the only goal of cancer treatment?  Perhaps there is a benefit to an increase in PFS.  If I told you that your child was going to die in 10 months no matter what I did, but that there is a treatment that will keep his tumor from growing for 7 of those months, and that during those 7 months he would develop no new tumor-related symptoms, would you want him treated with it?  Probably that would depend on the side effects the drug causes, right?  If the drug was very toxic, you might decide that treatment isn't worth it, but if all that happened to your child was high blood pressure that was easily controlled by medication, you might say yes.

The primary result the FDA wants to see before approving a new cancer drug is an improvement in OS.  Although FDA guidelines do allow for approval based on an improvement in PFS, the degree of improvement required for PFS-based approval is much more strict than what is required for OS-based approval.  I believe that there may be cases where even a modest change in PFS would be a more appropriate standard.  Demonstrating a change in OS requires large studies enrolling many patients.  For rare diseases, studies like this may not be feasible.  In that circumstance, FDA approval based on a change in OS may be an unattainable standard, and PFS may be a reasonable alternative.

Photo Credit

Some may ask whether lowering the standard will change the entire drug approval process, because PFS is an easier standard to reach.  Concerns could be raised that no pharmaceutical company will ever try to reach the OS standard (which is more expensive and more time-consuming) if PFS is sufficient to be granted FDA approval, and thus we will never know which, if any, drugs prolong patient survival. 

These are valid concerns, but I believe they can be addressed.  Perhaps a two-tiered approval process, with a lower tier for drugs that affect PFS and a higher tier for drugs that affect OS, with financial incentives for reaching the OS standard, would be a solution.  I'm sure there are others.  But the status quo gives the impression that if a drug doesn't change total survival time, it has no benefit.  And I'm quite sure that's not true.

Related Posts:
Access to experimental drugs for dying patients
Medicine from the Sea
I Can Buy it Over the Counter: FDA Followup

Why Study Rare Diseases?

The times they are a-changin’!  When I began my career as a scientist, NIH funded 25% of the applications they received.   That number is now down to less than 10%, and if there really are radical cuts in the discretionary federal budget, that number could fall even further.  Many of my colleagues (including myself) are concerned that this would lead to an emphasis on funding projects directly related to common problems (heart disease, breast cancer, emphysema) at the expense of less common diseases (like childhood cancer).

An article published on my birthday by Science:  Translational Medicine demonstrates the danger in cutting off funding for rare disorders.

In this study, Dr. Jaime Guevara-Aguirre and his colleagues published the results of their 22 year study of an isolated population of individuals living in a remote village in Ecuador.  The 99 subjects all have Growth Hormone Receptor Deficiency, or Laron Syndrome.  This is not a public health menace, even in Ecuador.  This article states that there are only 250 known people with Laron Syndrome worldwide.

Photo Credit

So why study such a rare disorder?  Well, interestingly, people with Laron Syndrome don’t get cancer (they also don’t get diabetes, but this is a blog about cancer, so we’ll focus on that).  This interesting observation raises a really obvious question:  Why not?

At first blush, there could be a very simplistic answer:  IGF-1 makes your body grow.  For you to grow from the size of an infant to the size of an adult, your cells have to divide many, many times.  Each time a cell divides, it risks developing a mutation, and the accumulation of mutations leads to cancer.  If you don’t grow any larger than a 7-year old, there are fewer cell divisions.  Fewer cell divisions means fewer mutations.

But if that were the answer, people with Laron Syndrome would have a lower than average rate of cancer.  That is not what was observed, however.  What was observed was an almost complete lack of cancer.  This must tell us something profound about how cancer develops.

It turns out that Growth Hormone Receptor Deficiency results in low circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1; also called somatomedin C because it mediates the effects of growth hormone, or somatotrophin).  IGF-1 has been in the news a lot recently because its receptor appears to be important for the growth and survival of a wide variety of tumors, making it a darling of drug developers.   The fact that people with Laron Syndrome don’t get cancer suggests that IGF-1 signaling through its receptor probably plays a role in cancer development, not just the survival of cancer cells once the tumor develops.  More importantly, this must be a general property of cancers, because it’s not the case that people with Laron Syndrome are protected from just one or a few types of cancer.  They don’t develop cancer at all.

This sort of insight could never have come about from a focused study of a particular tumor type, nor could it have been derived from studying cells in a lab.  Only because someone was interested in the biology of a rare disorder was this discovery made.  I can only hope that the people in charge of the federal government’s medical research budget consider this when deciding how much research we can afford, and whether to focus on the common disorders, or whether we can let scientists study what is interesting… because we never know where the next important discovery will come from.

Related Posts:
A Smarter War on Cancer
Is Cancer Contagious?
What Rufus Can Teach Us About Pain

Yoga – Not Just for Skinny, Pretty Women Anymore?

This post is dedicated to a close friend of mine, a budding scientist with an aversion to yoga.

The benefits of yoga for cancer patients were plastered throughout the popular press recently, in anticipation of a presentation by Dr. Karen Mustian from the University of Rochester Medical Center at this year’s meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology in Chicago. This study enrolled 410 cancer survivors (96% female, 75% had breast cancer) suffering from moderate or worse sleep disturbance. The participants were randomized to standard monitoring versus a 4 week yoga intervention. Participants in the yoga program had improvements in sleep quality, fatigue, and various measures of Quality of Life compared with the control arm (no intervention). The benefit was significant enough to be covered by mainstream media outlets like CNN as well as web-based media like Breastcancer.org. ASCO president Douglas Blayney, MD, stated that the results are “readily applicable” for a huge patient population.

But wait. As we scientists often ask, do the results support the conclusions?

I think the answer is a resounding “Maybe.”

There is mounting evidence that cancer survivors benefit from participating in yoga programs. Although this study is the largest thus far reported, it is certainly not the first to show a benefit to yoga. Back in 2003 a study presented at the ASCO meeting showed that participation in a yoga intervention improved the Quality of Life of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

But is it yoga, per se, that helps? So far none of the studies have compared participation in yoga with any other exercise program. This study, for example, published in 2001, demonstrated that a home-based walking exercise program improved fatigue and other Quality of Life measures in women being treated for breast cancer. The studies cited on this page of the American Cancer Society’s website demonstrate a benefit to using a treadmill or an outpatient wellness program involving aerobic exercise, strength training, flexibility and relaxation. So maybe it’s exercise in general, and not specifically yoga, that helps cancer survivors live better.

Are the results of the yoga study “readily applicable” to a huge patient population, as suggested by Dr. Blayney? Again, I think the answer is “Maybe.” It depends on how you define “a huge patient population.” Dr. Mustian’s study is certainly applicable to the very large number of women diagnosed with breast cancer every year, but her study involved essentially only women with breast cancer. Given the variety of ways various cancers are treated, it may be premature to conclude that because yoga helped these women, that it would make a difference for young adults being treated with intensive chemotherapy for leukemia.

So what can we conclude? I think it is safe to conclude that some degree of exercise is beneficial for cancer patients, probably regardless of where they are in the course of their therapy. But before we can state that yoga is the best form of exercise, the right study has to be performed: patients need to be randomized to various forms of exercise, and research participants need to include men as well. Perhaps for a relatively inflexible man like me, the frustration of not being able to do “downward dog” will make yoga a poor choice, while the feeling of accomplishment associated with being able to last 5 more minutes on the treadmill will make that form of exercise a much better choice. Only a well-designed experiment can tell us for sure.

 
Related Posts:
 
A new, old remedy for nausea
Cancer and Self-Image

More What You'd Call "Guidelines" than Actual Rules

Of course, Captain Barbossa was referring to The Pirate Code, but he could just as easily have been referring to documents released last month by the US Preventive Services Task Force or the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

In an unanticipated coincidence, these two groups, operating independently, reached similar conclusions about commonly utilized screening tests: mammograms and Pap smears. Both groups reviewed the data and concluded that routine use of these screening tests, as currently recommended, may not be warranted.

Much newsprint has been expended since then discussing the political implications of these new recommendations. As this is not a political blog, I will leave that discussion to others.

What I want to talk about is how guidelines (should) influence patient care.


I think a lot of the worry surrounding these guidelines stems from concerns that they will be interpreted by those who pay the bills in our system (meaning the Federal Government, through Medicare reimbursement regulations, and the private insurance industry) as “Actual Rules” rather than “Guidelines,” meaning that if you get a mammogram or a Pap smear but don’t meet the “Guidelines” your service won’t be covered. In the current environment, this may be true, but it shouldn’t be.

The key to my argument is the highlighted words above: “routine use” and “as currently recommended.”

The key to understanding why both groups reviewed the published data and reached similar conclusions is an understanding of the nature of screening tests as well as a bit on biostatistics. My work colleagues who read this will laugh at the idea that I am trying to teach anyone statistics, but that’s what I’m going to do.

To start, the accuracy and usefulness of any medical test can be described by the terms “sensitivity” and “specificity.” Sensitivity refers to how likely the test is to be positive if the condition is present. So a sensitive test will pick up every case. Specificity is the mirror image – if the test is positive, how likely is it that the condition is present. Screening tests are designed to be very sensitive, even if they are not very specific – that way, no cases are missed (very sensitive), but sometimes the test is positive even if the patient does not have the disease (not very specific).

The other statistical consideration is the concept of positive- and negative-predictive value. This means, how likely is a positive test to mean the disease is there, or how likely is a negative test to mean the disease is absent? Two concepts factor into the positive- and negative-predictive values of a test: the sensitivity and specificity AND how common the condition is in the population being tested.

These considerations underlie the new recommendations. Mammograms save lives. No one disputes that. Early detection of breast cancer saves lives. No one disputes that. But mammograms are not very specific, and the positive-predictive value of a positive mammogram is MUCH more if the woman is at risk of developing breast cancer than if the woman is at relatively low risk. Since a woman with a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer is at higher risk of developing breast cancer in her 40’s than a woman with no such history. Thus, the positive-predictive value of a mammogram in a 40 year old woman is higher if the woman is at higher risk. This is why the Task Force no longer recommended ROUTINE mammograms for women under 50.


This is where the practice of medicine comes in. As the doctor treating a 40 year old woman, it is important to remember that a mammogram will be valuable if the woman is at risk, but far less valuable if the woman is NOT at high risk. So blindly refusing to order a mammogram simply because the patient is 40 makes no sense (and an insurance company refusing to pay for it based solely on age makes equally little sense). A 40 year old woman whose mother had breast cancer should have a mammogram and it should be covered. A 40 year old woman with no relatives who have ever had cancer may not need a mammogram. Determining whether a screening test is needed is a decision for the doctor and the patient to make together.

This isn’t rationing care, this is good medicine.


Related Posts:
As Breast Cancer Month Draws to a Close
Breast Cancer Risk & Alcohol
Is the Medical Community Complicit?

A Smarter War on Cancer

The headline in the Washington Post caught my eye: “Fighting a smarter war on cancer,” [sorry, you must register to read the article] an opinion piece by Dr. John Marshall, a faculty member at the Lombardi Cancer Center in Georgetown. It is about the intersection between health care reform and cancer care - it seemed like just the thing to read while drinking my morning coffee. But halfway through the article I found myself feeling marginalized, and that got me thinking. Although Dr. Marshall makes some good points, I think he missed a golden opportunity to propose changes that could make a real difference in our lifetimes.


How did Dr. Marshall make me feel marginalized? He wrote the following about chemotherapy:

“The most common approach to treatment involves exposing large populations of patients to highly toxic poisons in the hopes that the treatment will kill the cancer cells and not the patient. This strategy has succeeded with several types of less-common cancers, curing some patients with leukemia, lymphoma, testicular cancer and most childhood cancers [emphasis is mine]. But it has not worked for more common forms of the disease, including breast, prostate, lung, colon, pancreas, stomach and ovarian cancers. These cancers represent an enormous public health problem, consuming the majority of our cancer-specific health-care costs and research dollars.”

I realize that childhood cancer is rare, and that to make an impact on the total health care system in our country will require real progress against such public health menaces as breast and lung cancer. However, I believe that rather than brushing aside the approach that transformed childhood cancer from a death sentence to a treatable disease, the medical oncology world needs to embrace it.

Most oncologists know this, but in a single generation, collaborative clinical research in pediatric oncology, exemplified now by the Children’s Oncology Group, has revolutionized the way childhood cancer is treated in this country. Once uniformly fatal, there are now some types of childhood cancer that are cured 95% of the time. This transformation did not come about by chance. It came about because of a culture change that is now a huge gulf between pediatric oncology and medical oncology: the role of the clinical trial.

Dr. Marshall hints at this in his article: “In cancer medicine, fewer than 5 percent of all patients in the United States enter clinical trials. That means more than 95 percent are treated with the ‘standard of care’ -- a legal term denoting a minimum level of care for an ill or injured person.” In contrast, being entered on a clinical trial IS the standard of care in pediatric oncology. Partly this is born out of necessity – childhood cancer is rare enough that unless nearly every child with cancer is treated on a trial, not enough patients can be studied to yield reliable results, making progress impossible.

The cultural difference in the view of clinical trials between medical and pediatric oncology is readily apparent in my every day practice, particularly when I have to approach an insurance company about enrolling a patient of mine on a trial. In the “adult” world, a clinical trial is something offered when there is nothing “standard” to offer, just as Dr. Marshall implies. What this means is that insurance companies often feel justified in denying coverage for trials, since these are “experimental therapies” and “not standard.” In the “pediatric” world, everyone goes on a clinical trial. Coverage is routine, because the trial IS the standard.

Dr. Marshall makes an excellent point about where the future of cancer therapy lies. He believes, as do I, that the future is in “personalized medicine,” meaning treatments that are individualized for each patient, based on the molecular and cellular composition of their individual cancer. Unfortunately, therein lies the problem. In the world of “personalized medicine,” there will be no standard. What works for Patient A will not necessarily help Patient B. Destruction of the concept of “standard of care” in oncology will make coverage decisions by insurance companies far more complex. This will need to be accounted for as we move towards a reformed health insurance system.

More importantly, demonstrating the value of “personalized medicine” will require more clinical trials. Only by enrolling patients in such trials, painstakingly dissecting the molecular changes in each patient’s tumor, and carefully proving that tailoring therapy based on these changes dramatically improves outcomes can real progress be made. Because these molecular changes will, by definition, vary widely from patient to patient, treating only 5% of adults with cancer on clinical trials will never get us to where we need to be. The medical oncology world needs to learn from the successes of pediatric oncology. Being treated on a clinical trial needs to be the standard, not something that is reserved for use when “standard of care” fails.

Instead of marginalizing pediatric oncology, hold our system up as the model. Only then will real progress be made in the war on cancer.

Related Posts:
Is the Medical Community Complicit?

When Bad Things Happen to Famous People

In a press release issued earlier this week, former NBA star and actor Kareem Abdul-Jabbar announced that he has been diagnosed with leukemia. Specifically, he has chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Abdul-Jabbar went on to say that his disease can be managed by taking daily oral medication and he expects to live a long healthy life.

With leukemia? How is that possible?

Abdul-Jabbar has benefited from one of the first and most exciting applications of the translational research I have blogged about in the past.

Before 2000, CML was treated with a combination of a chemotherapy drug called cytarabine and another drug called alpha-interferon. Patients treated with this combination usually responded well, but none were cured. The only curative treatment was a bone marrow transplant, and in adults, bone marrow transplantation carries a significant risk of death.

So how will Kareem Abdul-Jabbar lead a long healthy life by just taking a daily oral medication?

The answer lies in the molecular biology of CML. It shows how basic research, undertaken for no reason other than to understand the biology of cancer, can lead to unexpected therapeutic breakthroughs. Such research can transform a disease like CML from one that kills without a bone marrow transplant into one that is managed just like high blood pressure.

Here’s how it happened:

Working in Chicago in the 1970’s, Janet Rowley discovered that the “Philadelphia Chromosome,” an abnormal chromosome seen only in the leukemia cells of patients with CML, is actually composed of pieces of two different chromosomes. Her idea, that so-called chromosome translocations could result in the creation of new genes that can cause disease, was heretical at the time, but is now a part of the standard dogma of oncology. She was rewarded with a Lasker Award (often called the “American Nobel”) in 1998.

Subsequent research demonstrated that the Philadelphia Chromosome instructs the leukemia cells to make a new enzyme (called a tyrosine kinase) that causes the leukemia.

Researchers led by Brian Druker eventually developed a drug that blocks the activity of the tyrosine kinase that results from the Philadelphia chromosome. This drug, called imatinib (the trade name is Gleevec), is a pill that, taken daily, kills CML leukemia cells. This work was also rewarded with a Lasker Award in 2009.

The net result of the work of Dr. Janet Rowley, Dr. Brian Druker, and a host of others is that CML has been transformed from a disease curable only by bone marrow transplantation, into a disease that can be managed as a chronic condition, by taking pills every day. An incredible change over a short period of time!

This is the model of basic and translational research those of us in the field emulate, and the prime example of targeted therapy for cancer.

Work that started out as very basic science, motivated only by a desire to understand biology, has led to a transformative new medicine, and now Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (and many people far less famous than him) should be able to lead a healthy, active life taking daily oral medication, despite having leukemia.

Related Post:
When Translational Research Really Translates

As Breast Cancer Awareness Month Draws to a Close

As breast cancer awareness month draws to a close, I wanted to highlight a few breast cancer posts from other medical bloggers:

Suture For a Living asks: "Is Breast Cancer Over-Diagnosed?"

Bayblab writes about research on a diabetes medication killing breast cancer stem cells.

Science Update Blog discusses claims that we are "Two years from breast cancer cure".

Highlight Health's Allison Bland says "The Review is in: Lifestyle Changes Prevent Breast Cancer
and Healthcare Hacks discuss the benefits of weightlifting in breast cancer survivors.

If you've found any interesting breast cancer blogs or posts, link to them in the comments!

Related posts:
Does Vitamin D Help Prevent Breast Cancer?
Breast Cancer Risk & Alcohol
Cancer Stem Cells and Familial Cancer Risk for Breast Cancer

When Translational Research Really Translates

All of us who work in a lab and see patients say the same thing: “I do this because I hope one day to be able to discover something in the lab that will really help patients.” This is the essence of what is called “Translational Research.”

Our laboratory studies cancer stem cells. I have blogged about these cells before. Cancer stem cells are thought to be a small population of cells within a tumor that are resistant to chemotherapy and are capable of regenerating a new tumor. Thus, these cells are thought to be responsible for local relapses and for metastatic disease. Because they are resistant to chemotherapy, our usual treatments don’t get rid of them, so finding ways to kill these cells is critical to the further advancement of cancer treatment.

There are many theories to explain the resistance of cancer stem cells to chemotherapy. One of these is that there are important metabolic differences between cancer stem cells and most other cancer cells. One such difference might involve a signaling pathway called mTOR. mTOR stands for “mammalian target of rapamycin.” Rapamycin is a drug that is used primarily to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. It turns out that rapamycin works by interfering with the function of a specific enzyme that was given the name mTOR.

For a variety of reasons, inhibiting mTOR activity has been predicted to make cells more sensitive to chemotherapy. In collaboration with another researcher at Johns Hopkins, Jonathan Powell, our laboratory has done some experiments that seem to show that inhibiting mTOR increases the sensitivity of cancer stem cells to chemotherapy.

Last winter, we responded to a call from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for research proposals utilizing an mTOR inhibitor for the treatment of cancer. Based on our laboratory data, we proposed a clinical trial that would treat patients with a combination of a chemotherapy drug (liposomal doxorubicin, or Doxil) and an mTOR inhibitor (in this case temsirolimus, or Torisel).

In March we learned that our proposal would be funded.

On Monday, I signed the contract that will allow our clinical trial, now approved by the Institutional Review Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Committee, to begin to enroll patients. We hope to treat our first patients in late August.

I can’t wait to see whether we are able to help the patients willing to enroll in this trial! How gratifying it would be to know that work in our lab led to a new way to treat cancer patients. That, after all, is why we do this.

Related Posts:

The Stem Cell Thing

Stem Cells, or "A Rose By Any Other Name..."

Cancer Stem Cells and Familial Cancer Risk for Breast Cancer

A new old remedy for nausea

I am often asked my opinions about herbal remedies. Patients seem more attuned than ever to alternative therapies, but many still want a physician’s opinion about what does and does not work.

Giving an educated opinion is often a challenge, because rarely are herbal remedies tested in traditional medical trials. With the introduction of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a part of the National Institutes of Health, this was supposed to change. Slowly, but surely, it is.

Last week, in advance of the upcoming meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, results from a number of studies scheduled to be presented were released to the public. One of these was designed to test whether ginger, a traditional folk remedy for nausea, can help with the nausea produced by chemotherapy.

No one suggested that ginger alone was sufficient, but instead, patients were who experienced chemotherapy-induced nausea were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) treatment with their regular anti-nausea drug alone, 2) treatment with their regular anti-nausea drug plus 0.5g ginger, 3) treatment with their regular anti-nausea drug plus 1.0g ginger, or 4) treatment with their regular anti-nausea drug plus 1.5g ginger. The ginger was administered in the form of a capsule containing ginger extract, and neither the patients nor their doctors knew who was in what group. Patients reported their daily nausea on a 7 point scale. A total of 664 patients were treated, 90% women, 66% with breast cancer. All doses of ginger significantly reduced the nausea patients experienced while receiving chemotherapy. You can read the original abstract here.

So what does this mean? Ginger may interfere with blood clotting, so patients should still consult with their doctors prior to adding this to their routine, but on the whole ginger is safe and effective. And if the form doesn’t matter (something not tested in this trial), imagine how easy it would be to convince patients to add ginger in the form of ginger ale or cookies! Of course, not all ginger ale contains actual ginger – and artificial ginger flavoring is unlikely to be a good substitute.

What else does it mean? I think it reinforces something I tell all of my patients who ask about herbal remedies. Some work, some don’t. The ones that work should withstand the sort of testing we do for other medical treatments, including the “gold standard,” a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Just like this one. Ginger passed the test.

I’m going to go make my patients some ginger snaps!

Related Posts:
Medicine from the Sea

Is The Medical Community Complicit?

Gina Kolata wrote a fascinating piece this week on the subject of The War on Cancer, first declared by President Richard Nixon back in 1971. The main focus of her article is how elusive a “cure” is turning out to be, and how expensive the search has become.

As she points out, over the past 50 years the age-adjusted death rate from cancer has fallen a mere 5%, despite the federal government having spent well over $100 billion on cancer research. Details of cancer research funding can be found here.

What really caught my attention, though, was not the fact that a “cure for cancer” is so elusive, but rather her acknowledgement that the public believes that cancer is almost always preventable, and that failing prevention, if caught early enough it is almost always curable.

To some extent, these ideas are true. Quitting smoking clearly decreases a person’s risk of developing lung cancer. But does this mean all lung cancer is preventable? No. As discussed in this recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, 10% of lung cancer patients in the US have never smoked a cigarette. Lung cancer in never smokers (LCINS) is a distinct entity, with its own epidemiology, risk factors, molecular biology, and treatment outcomes. A focus on cigarettes as the major cause of lung cancer is appropriate, because 90% of lung cancer is smoking-related, and lung cancer remains one of the most common types of cancer in the US (lung cancer causes more deaths in women than breast cancer), but by focusing on smoking almost exclusively, are we complicit in making the public believe that all lung cancer is preventable?

Numerous other interventions have been proposed to decrease the risk of cancer, including low fat diets, high fiber diets, the use of antioxidants, taking vitamins – but rigorous testing has rarely shown a benefit to these lifestyle changes when it comes to cancer.

What about early detection? Localized cancer is clearly easier to treat than metastatic cancer, and some cancers are readily detected by screening (including breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer). However, some types of cancer, such as pancreatic and ovarian cancer, remain difficult if not impossible to detect by a screening program.

Does early detection by screening actually save lives? On the surface, it seems the answer would have to be “Yes.” But in reality, not every screening program saves lives. Two very recently published articles failed to demonstrate a decrease in prostate cancer-related death in men randomized to an intensive screening program compared with “usual care.”

How is this possible? The benefit to screening and early detection of cancer is based on the idea that cancer progresses in an orderly fashion from a pre-cancerous lesion to a localized tumor and finally to metastatic disease.

Photo Credit

If a pre-cancerous lesion or a localized tumor is detected on a screening test and treatment is begun immediately, the belief is that metastatic disease can be prevented and lives will be saved. But what if some cancers are more aggressive than others and have already spread when the primary tumor is detected? Early detection of cancers like this will not change the disease-specific death rate (the death rate attributed specifically to cancer) because metastatic disease, which is what usually kills patients, will not be prevented from developing. What if the tumor that is detected is one that grows slowly and only rarely kills? Finding a tumor like this early may not save lives.

So does that mean screening programs don’t work? Not at all. But it does mean that such programs need to be rigorously tested. The introduction of Pap smears has had a profound impact on death from cervical cancer. Screening programs for breast and colon cancer have been shown to decrease cancer-related death from these diseases. However, screening for prostate cancer may not. Prostate cancer is a slow growing disease, and most tumors picked up by screening tests are small enough that they do not need to be treated – men with these tumors are more likely to die of something else (a heart attack or a stroke) rather than dying of prostate cancer. So finding this tumor early does not save lives. As future screening tests become available, they will need to be tested carefully to determine whether or not they should be widely applied.

What does all this mean? I think it means we as a medical community need to be very careful in how we discuss concepts like screening, prevention, and even treatment. Words are powerful. We need to choose ours carefully. We need to avoid complicity in misleading the public into believing that if they just eat right, exercise, and submit to a variety of screening procedures, they won’t die from cancer.

As Ms. Kolata also points out, “Research lurches from fad to fad — cancer viruses, immunology, genomics. Advocacy groups have lobbied and directed research in ways that have not always advanced science.”

Those of us involved in cancer research must continue to carry the fight forward, guided by science, so that one day cancer will be no more feared than high blood pressure.

Related Posts:
Does Vitamin D Help Prevent Breast Cancer?
HPV, STI’s and Teenaged Girls

Is Cancer Contagious?

This question actually comes up a lot in my practice.

When a family is first coming to terms with a cancer diagnosis, so many questions pass through their minds. Does it run in families? Do my other kids need to be checked? Is it contagious?

In humans, the answer is “No,” although now that we know cervical cancer is usually caused by Human Papilloma Virus (HPV; a sexually transmitted infection) this answer is a bit fuzzy. Although viruses like HPV that can cause cancer are contagious, cancer itself is not.

But is that true for all animals? Apparently not. Recently I came across this fascinating article about one of my favorite animals from childhood: The Tasmanian Devil.



When not chasing Bugs Bunny, Tasmanian Devils live in, well… Tasmania. They are marsupials, carrying their young in pouches like a kangaroo or opossum. They are the largest carnivorous marsupial to escape extinction.

Sadly, though, over the last decade, the population has crashed. In some areas by as much as 90%. The cause? Cancer. A cancer that is contagious!

How does that happen? The cancer, known as Devil Facial Tumor Disease, causes a tumor on the face of the Tasmanian Devil, and when an animal with such a tumor bites another Devil (which isn’t a rare event, as you might imagine), the cancer cells are transmitted to the victim and grow into a tumor. The tumor makes it hard for the animal to feed, so it starves.

Why doesn’t the animal’s immune system protect it against the cancer? In most other species, if you inject cells from one animal into another, the recipient’s immune system destroys them. That’s why organ transplants don’t work without strong immune suppressive medications. This immune defense is based on differences in a set of genes called MHC genes that are so variable that (for the most part) only identical twins share the exact same gene sequences. This holds for humans, dogs, cats, mice, monkeys, kangaroos… almost every animal.

Except, apparently, the Tasmanian Devil. Tasmanian Devil MHC genes are not very diverse, and this allows the cancer cells to evade the immune system and grow.

But the mystery does not end there. There are other animals with very little MHC diversity, like cheetahs and beavers, but they don’t have contagious cancer. Also, Devil Facial Tumor Disease is new, first spotted in 1996. This suggests that the situation is more complex than it would seem on the surface, and raises the possibility that the cancer cells have evolved in ways that make them more transmissible.

How? No one knows. It’s just one more of the many unsolved mysteries surrounding cancer and the immune system.

Related Posts:

Kaposi's Sarcoma and the Virus/Cancer Connection (Part 1)

Kaposi's Sarcoma and the Virus/Cancer Connection (Part 2)

Kaposi's Sarcoma and the Virus/Cancer Connection (Part 3)

HPV, STIs, and Teenaged Girls

Back to the Future: Another Meeting in Denver

Last week I attended the annual meeting of the Children’s Oncology Group. Like last year, the meeting was held in Denver, Colorado. The Children’s Oncology Group is the organization that coordinates the majority of clinical research into childhood cancer in North America. We conduct clinical trials ranging from early Phase I studies of brand new drugs through Phase III trials designed to optimize the treatment of children with a wide variety of cancers.

Unfortunately, this year I was only able to attend part of the meeting. I did get to spend a full day attending various meetings related to ongoing and upcoming bone cancer-related clinical trials. It was an exciting day because we are entering the era I spoke about as “the future” when I was interviewing for medical schools back in the 1980’s – the era of “molecular medicine.” All of the upcoming studies under discussion involved the use of at least one drug that works differently from traditional chemotherapy. Drugs that target specific biological differences between normal cells and cancer cells. These drugs have tremendous potential to improve our treatment of children (and adults) with cancer by being more effective and having fewer side effects. As George Allen, the coach of my favorite football team when I was a kid, used to say, “The future is now.”

Like last year, I also took some time to relax while I was out west. Last year, I wandered around Denver, but this year I rented a car and explored the mountains. South of Denver, west of Colorado Springs, lies Pikes Peak, which already had snow at the summit.

Nearby were the amazing rock formations of Garden of the Gods.

Needless to say, the scenery was stunning, and my little camera doesn’t begin to do it justice.

I can’t wait to get back there for a vacation, when I can really spend time in the Rockies and enjoy it all.

Related Posts:

Children's Oncology Group: A Meeting of the Minds in Denver, CO