Marie McCullough, STAFF WRITER
When
President Obama announced his "precision medicine" initiative a year
ago, the White House spotlighted Emily Whitehead as an example of patients who
have already benefited from an approach most people have never heard of. The
central Pennsylvania girl, now 10, was near death in 2012 when researchers at
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia engineered her own immune system's T cells
to recognize and attack her leukemia cells.
Little
wonder, then, that there is confusion over just what this phrase means.
"The
definition of precision medicine is in the eye of the beholder,"
acknowledged Children's Hospital oncologist Stephan Grupp, who treated Emily. "For me, precision medicine is about
trying to go after a tumor a lot more specifically. Chemotherapy is as
imprecise as it gets - somewhere between a bomb and a shotgun."
Grupp
will be a speaker at Cancer Precision Medicine, Big Ideas in Research,
Treatment and Prevention, a half-day public conference Thursday
presented by The Inquirer and the American Association for Cancer Research.
Directors of six Pennsylvania cancer centers will offer their perspectives on
the promise of precision cancer medicine and answer / questions from the
audience.
Despite
its name, precision medicine covers a lot of imprecise ground. In that regard,
it is much like an earlier incarnation, so-called personalized medicine - a
field that even has a five-year-old scholarly journal. Considerable vagueness
and hype surround these concepts and terminology. Still, precision medicine is
emblematic of a revolution underway in health care, particularly oncology. The
transformation reflects the convergence of three things: molecular technologies
that can decipher and manipulate basic cellular interactions; the advent of
rapid, lower-cost DNA sequencing methods; and computer platforms that can
crunch vast amounts of data. "Precision medicine addresses the
unique characteristics of patients at the level of their genes and metabolism
in a way that hasn't been done historically in medicine," said Lankenau Institute
president and CEO George C. Prendergast, who will be a panelist at the
conference.
Of
course, some types of genetic assessment are already standard in modern health
care. Think of prenatal testing for Down syndrome, and newborn testing for
inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. But
only in oncology have both diagnosis and treatment become increasingly
personalized and precise.
Why
cancer instead of, say, diabetes or heart disease? "A lot of
conceptual and molecular advances were pioneered in cancer," Prendergast
said. "The genetic revolution has had the most influence in cancer."
More than other diseases, cancer is the result of
cumulative, continual genetic defects that turn the body's own cells into
rogues and then keep the immune system from killing them. Conventional oncology weapons that cut out
or kill cancer cells - surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation - are effective,
but they involve collateral damage to healthy tissue. And when cancer
metastasizes, such blunt weapons can't stop it.
The
mid-1970s brought several breakthroughs in the search for ways to marshal the
immune system against cancer. Scientists discovered interleukin 2, which has
direct effects on disease-fighting T cells. They also developed monoclonal
antibodies, genetically engineered proteins that target an identifying marker,
or antigen, on tumor cells, then deliver a deadly blow. Today,
"targeted" therapies such as Avastin and Gleevec - drugs that disrupt
specific molecules involved in the growth and spread of cancer - have become
the backbone of oncology. More than 50 such drugs have been approved, with
sales rising from 11 percent of the global oncology market in 2003 to 48
percent in 2014, according to the market research firm IMS Health. And although
targeted drugs are not yet available for most patients, these medicines
accounted for the majority of the 45 new cancer drugs launched between 2010 and
2014, IMS found.
Increasingly,
such therapies are approved for use with molecular diagnostic tests to identify
patients who have the relevant target. Although that adds to the complexity and
cost of treatment, it also offers
reprieves to patients like Albert Snite, 67, of Philadelphia.
Last
January, when the retired Common Pleas Court judge was diagnosed with lung
cancer that had spread to his brain, his genetic tests at the University of
Pennsylvania found no targetable mutation. He was treated with radiation and
chemotherapy. But over the summer, researchers announced the discovery of
a new target - a mutation involved in malignant- cell migration and invasion - for crizotinib,
a metastatic lung cancer drug approved in 2013. Shortly afterward,
as Snite's lung tumor progressed, his doctors reviewed his test results and
realized he had the newly identified mutation. "I started crizotinib
in September. I had one scan after six weeks. My lungs looked significantly
better. And I feel good! It is truly amazing," Snite said, adding that
another scan this month was unchanged.
Even
targeted therapies are not magic bullets. Patients who respond - and not all do
- often see their cancers develop resistance. The good news, however, is that
efforts to harness the immune system in novel ways are yielding successes.
Witness patients like Emily Whitehead, who remains cancer-free. Three
main "immunotherapy" approaches have worked to varying degrees - and
with varying toxic side effects: Bioengineered T cells: T cells, the
soldiers of the immune system, are removed from the patient's own blood,
genetically rigged to recognize
and attack a cancer cell antigen, the grown into the billions and put
back in the patient. Penn, CHOP, the National Cancer Institute, and other
centers have achieved high rates of long-lasting remissions of certain blood
cancers, but this approach has yet to work for solid-tumor cancers. Penn's
therapy often has severe but manageable toxicity. Because of the complexity and
cost of this approach, it won't be widely used, some experts believe.
Therapeutic
vaccines: Unlike preventive vaccines, which preset the immune system
to recognize and kill infectious invaders, treatment vaccines are designed to
provoke a
heightened
immune response to cancer cell antigens. In 2010, Provenge for prostate cancer
became the only approved therapeutic vaccine, but it
was costly to customize and barely effective; maker Dendreon filed for
bankruptcy last year. Still, this technique is improving. For example, two
Penn scientists - Yvonne Paterson and David B. Weiner - each developed novel vaccine technology that
separate biotech firms have licensed and are using in clinical trials for
cervical and other cancers.
Overcome
immune tolerance: Instead of directly revving up the
immune response, this approach interferes with one of cancer's main defenses -
its ability to evade and suppress the immune system. Since 2011, three
"checkpoint inhibitors" have been approved for advanced melanoma and
lung and kidney cancers. These drugs and even newer versions are being tested
in cancers of the pancreas, colon, brain, and other organs. Prendergast,
at Lankenau, has been a leader in research of an enzyme pathway called IDO (for
indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase) that cancer uses not only to escape immune
detection, but to attract a blood supply and metastasize."The field has
stressed how to activate the immune system," Prendergast said. "In
the last 10 years, we realized the tumor is standing on the brakes of the
immune system. We have to take off the brakes. That was one of the shocks
of my career." Some people have immune systems that are
inherently superior at unmasking and managing dangerous cells. That's why most
smokers don't get lung cancer and many old men have prostate cancer
that will never harm them. "The
problem is not that there are rogue cells in the body, but that the body is
mismanaging them," Prendergast said.
Figuring
out why is part of precision medicine. "You can match a blood
transfusion to a blood type - that was an important discovery," Obama said
a year ago. "What if matching a cancer cure to our genetic code was just
as easy, just as standard?
No comments:
Post a Comment