UCLA Researchers Significantly Inhibit Growth of Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines With FDA-Approved Leukemia Drug Dasatinib (Sprycel®)

The drug dasatinib (Sprycel®), approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in patients with specific types of leukemia, significantly inhibited the growth and invasiveness of ovarian cancer cells and also promoted their death, say UCLA researchers in the November 10th issue of the British Journal of Cancer. The drug, when paired with a chemotherapy regimen, was even more effective in fighting ovarian cancer cell lines in which signaling of the Src family kinases — associated with approximately one-third of ovarian cancers– is activated. Clinical trials that involve the testing of dasatinib against ovarian cancer and solid tumors are currently ongoing.

Researchers affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Mayo Clinic and Harvard Medical School announced that they have established a biological rationale to support the clinical study of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved leukemia drug dasatinib (U.S. brand name: Sprycel®), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in patients with ovarian cancer. The study appears in the November 10th edition of the British Journal of Cancer.

Background

Dasatinib is an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Dasatinib is a small-molecule inhibitor that targets several tyrosine kinases, including the Src kinase family, Ephrin type-A receptor 2 ( EphA2) , and the focal adhesion kinase (FAK).

Src is the prototypic member of a family of nine non-receptor tyrosine kinases (Src, Lyn, Fyn, Lck, Hck, Fgr, Blk, Yrk, and Yes). The Src family kinase (SFK) proteins regulate four main cellular fuctions that ultimately control the behavior of transformed cancer cells:  cell proliferation, adhesion, invasion, and motility.

Eph receptors and ephrins are integral players in cancer formation and progression, and are associated with advanced ovarian cancer and poor clinical outcome.

FAK is a non-receptor tyrosine kinase involved in the regulation of cell adhesion, survival, and migration.  Preclinical studies indicate that FAK plays a signficant role in ovarian cancer cell migration and invasion.

Dasatinib Study Methodology & Findings

One of the dasatinib study authors is Dennis J. Slamon, M.D. Ph.D. Dr. Slamon is the Director of Clinical/Translational Research & Director of the Revlon/UCLA Women's Cancer Research Program, at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. He is also the co-discoverer of Herceptin®, a targeted therapy that revolutionized the treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer.

The researchers carried out the study by testing the effects of dasatinib on human ovarian cancer cells in vitro, using a panel of 34 established human ovarian cancer cell lines.  The 34 cell lines selected were representative of the major epithelial ovarian cancer subtypes:

• 18 cell lines were obtained from patients with serous papillary ovarian cancer;

• 8 cell lines were obtained from patients with clear cell ovarian cancer;

• 4 cell lines were obtained from patients with undifferentiated ovarian cancer; and

• 4 cell lines were obtained from patients with endometrioid or mucinous ovarian cancer.

On this basis, the researchers examined the effects of dasatinib on ovarian tumor cell proliferation, invasion, apoptosis, and cell-cycle arrest.  To more fully understand the activity of dasatinib, the researchers also studied the efficacy of chemotherapeutic drugs (i.e., carboplatin and paclitaxel) in combination with dasatinib against ovarian cancer cells that were previously determined to be dasatinib-sensitive.

The overarching goals of the study were (i) to provide a rationale to test dasatinib as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer, and (ii) to identify molecular markers that may help define subsets of ovarian cancer patients most likely to benefit from treatment with dasatinib.

Significant findings reported in the dasatinib study are summarized below.

• Concentration-dependent, anti-proliferative effects of dasatinib were seen in all ovarian cancer cell lines tested.

• Dasatinib significantly inhibited tumor cell invasion, and induced tumor cell death, but was less effective in causing tumor cell-cycle arrest.

• At a wide range of clinically achievable drug concentrations, additive and synergistic interactions were observed for dasatinib plus carboplatin or paclitaxel.

• 24 out of 34 (71%) representative ovarian cancer cell lines were highly sensitive (i.e.,  ≥ 60% growth inhibition) to dasatinib.

• 6 cells lines were moderately sensitive (i.e., 40% – 59% growth inhibition) to dasatinib.

• 4 cell lines were resistant (i.e., < 40% growth inhibition) to dasatinib.

• When comparing dasatinib sensitivity between cell lines based solely upon histological subtype (i.e., serous papillary, clear cell, endometrioid, mucinous, and undifferentiated ovarian cancer cell lines), no single histological subtype was more sensitive than another.

• Ovarian cancer cell lines with high expression of Yes, Lyn, Eph2A, caveolin-1 and 2, moesin, annexin-1 and 2 and uPA (urokinase-type Plasminogen Activator), as well as those with low expression of IGFBP2 (insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2), were particularly sensitive to dasatinib.

• Ovarian cancer cell lines with high expression of HER-2 (Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2), VEGF (Vascular endothelial growth factor) and STAT3 (Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 3) were correlated with in vitro resistance to dasatinib.

Based upon the findings above, the researchers concluded that there is a clear biological rationale to support the clinical study of dasatinib, as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy, in patients with ovarian cancer.

Gottfried E. Konecny, M.D., UCLA Assistant Professor of Hematology/Oncology, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Researcher & First Author of the Dasatinib Study

Ovarian cancer, which will strike 21,600 women this year and kill 15,500, causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. Few effective therapies for ovarian cancer exist, so it would be advantageous for patients if a new drug could be found that fights the cancer, said Gottfried E. Konecny, M.D., a UCLA assistant professor of hematology/oncology, a Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researcher, and first author of the study.

“I think Sprycel® could be a potential additional drug for treating patients with Src dependent ovarian cancer,” Konecny said. “It is important to remember that this work is only on cancer cell lines, but it is significant enough that it should be used to justify clinical trials to confirm that women with this type of ovarian cancer could benefit.”

Recent gene expression studies have shown that approximately one-third of women have ovarian cancers with activated Src pathways, so the drug could potentially help 7,000 ovarian cancer patients every year. Notably, a gene expression study published in 2007 reported Src activation in approximately 50% of the ovarian cancer tumors examined.

In the dasatinib study, the UCLA team tested the drug against 34 ovarian cancer cell lines and conducted genetic analysis of those lines. Through these actions, the researchers were able to identify genes that predict response to dasatinib. If the work is confirmed in human studies, it may be possible to test patients for Src activation and select those who would respond prior to treatment, thereby personalizing their care.

“We were able to identify markers in the pre-clinical setting that would allow us to predict response to Sprycel®,” Konecny said. “These may help us in future clinical trials in selecting patients for studies of the drug.”

Dasatinib is referred to as a “dirty” kinase inhibitor, meaning it inhibits more than one cellular pathway. Konecny said it also inhibits the focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and ephrin receptor, also associated with ovarian cancer, in addition to the Src cellular pathway.

The next step, Konecny said, would be to test the drug on women with ovarian cancer in a clinical trial. The tissue of responders would then be analyzed to determine if the Src and other pathways were activated. If that is confirmed, it would further prove that dasatinib could be used to fight ovarian cancer. In studies, women would be screened before entering a trial and only those with Src dependent cancers could be enrolled to provide further evidence, Konecny said, much like the studies of the molecularly targeted breast cancer drug Herceptin® enrolled only women who had HER-2 positive disease.

“Herceptin® is different because we knew in advance that it only worked in women with HER-2 [gene] amplification,” he said. “In this case, we don’t clearly know that yet. The data reassures us that the drug works where the targets are over-expressed but we need more testing to confirm this.”

The tests combining the drug with chemotherapy are significant because chemotherapy, namely carboplatin and paclitaxel, is considered the standard first line treatment for ovarian cancer patients following surgery. Because dasatinib proved to have a synergistic effect when combined with chemotherapy, it may be possible to add this targeted therapy as a first line treatment if its efficacy is confirmed in future studies.

Dasatinib Study Significance

The dasatinib study is potentially significant to the area of ovarian cancer treatment for several reasons.

First, although this study only tested dasatinib in vitro against ovarian cancer cell lines, the drug is already FDA-approved.  Accordingly, the general safety of the drug has already been established by the FDA.

Second, 71% of the ovarian cancer lines were highly sensitive to dasatinib.

Third, dasatinib was additive to, or synergistic with, the standard of care chemotherapy drugs used in first line ovarian cancer treatment, i.e., carboplatin and paclitaxel.

Fourth, the study established molecular markers that may be predictive of dasatinib effectiveness in particular patients.  In theory, a patient’s tumor biopsy could be tested for the presence of those molecular markers to determine whether a patient will benefit from dasatinib.

Fifth, one of the dasatinib study authors is Dennis J. Slamon, M.D. Ph.D. Dr. Slamon is the director of Clinical/Translational Research, and director of the Revlon/UCLA Women’s Cancer Research Program, at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Slamon is also the co-discoverer of Herceptin®, a targeted therapy that revolutionized the treatment of HER-2 positive breast cancer.  Herceptin® is a targeted therapy that kills HER-2 positive breast cancer cells while leaving normal cells unaffected.  The potential use of dasatinib to treat select ovarian cancer patients who test “positive” for specific molecular markers (e.g., Src cellular pathway activation) is similar to the extremely successful drug development approach used for Herceptin®.

Open Clinical Trials Testing Dasatinib (Sprycel®) Against Ovarian Cancer & Solid Tumors

As of this writing, there are several open (i.e., recruiting) clinical trials that involve testing dasatinib against ovarian cancer and solid tumors.

For a list of open clinical trials that involve testing dasatinib against ovarian cancer, CLICK HERE.

For a list of open clinical trials that involve testing dasatinib against solid tumors, CLICK HERE.

All potential volunteers must satisfy the clinical trial entrance criteria prior to enrollment.  Depending on the drug combination being tested, one or more of the solid tumor clinical trials may not be appropriate for an ovarian cancer patient.

About the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center

UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center (JCCC) has more than 240 researchers and clinicians engaged in disease research, prevention, detection, control, treatment and education. One of the nation’s largest comprehensive cancer centers, JCCC is dedicated to promoting research and translating basic science into leading-edge clinical studies. In July 2009, JCCC was named among the top 12 cancer centers nationwide by U.S. News & World Report, a ranking it has held for 10 consecutive years. For more information on JCCC, visit the website at http://www.cancer.ucla.edu.

Sources:

• Konecny GE, Glas R, Dering J,et. al. Activity of the multikinase inhibitor dasatinib against ovarian cancer cells. Br J Cancer. 2009 Oct 27. [Epub ahead of print, doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605381.] PubMed PMID: 19861960. [Full Study Text PDF Document]

• FDA Approved Leukemia Drug Shows Promising Activity in Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines, Press Release, In the News, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, November 10, 2009

• Dressman HK, Berchuck A, Chan G, et. al. An integrated genomic-based approach to individualized treatment of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 10;25(5):517-25. PubMed PMID: 17290060.

• Baggerly KA, Coombes KR, Neeley ES. Run batch effects potentially compromise the usefulness of genomic signatures for ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 1;26(7):1186-7.

• Dressman HK, Lancaster J, Nevins JR, Potti A. In Reply, Correpondence. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 1;26(7):1187-8.

New Study Shows Four-Year Window for Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer

A new study by Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers shows that most early stage ovarian tumors exist for years at a size that is a thousand times smaller than existing tests can detect reliably.  But the researchers say their findings also point to new opportunities for detecting ovarian cancer—a roughly four-year window during which most tumors are big enough to be seen with a microscope, but have not yet spread.

Tiny Early-Stage Ovarian Tumors Define Early Detection Challenge

Currently available tests detect ovarian cancer when it is about the size of the onion in the photograph. To reduce ovarian cancer mortality by 50 percent, an early detection test would need to be able to reliably detect tumors the size of the peppercorn. (Photo Source: Patrick O. Brown, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, Research News Release, July 28, 2009)

A new study by Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers shows that most early stage ovarian tumors exist for years at a size that is a thousand times smaller than existing tests can detect reliably.

But the researchers say their findings also point to new opportunities for detecting ovarian cancer—a roughly four-year window during which most tumors are big enough to be seen with a microscope, but have not yet spread.

“Our work provides a picture of the early events in the life of an ovarian tumor, before the patient knows it’s there,” says Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher Patrick O. Brown. “It shows that there is a long window of opportunity for potentially life-saving early detection of this disease, but that the tumor spreads while it is still much too small to be detected by any of the tests that have been developed or proposed to date.”

According to the American Cancer Society, some 15,000 women in the United States and 140,000 women worldwide die from ovarian cancer each year. The vast majority of these deaths are from cancers of the serous type, which are usually discovered only after the cancer has spread.

“Instead of typically detecting these cancers at a very advanced stage, detecting them at an early stage would be enormous in terms of saving lives,” says Brown, who is at Stanford University School of Medicine. Early detection would enable surgeons to remove a tumor before it spreads, he adds.

The article—co-authored by Chana Palmer of the Canary Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on early cancer detection—was published July 28, 2009, in the open access journal PLoS Medicine.

“Like almost everything with cancer … the more closely you look at the problem, the harder it looks,” Brown says. “That’s not to say that I don’t believe it’s a solvable problem. It’s just a difficult one.” — Patrick O. Brown, M.D. Ph.D.

Patrick O. Brown, M.D. Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, Stanford Univ. School of Medicine

“Like almost everything with cancer … the more closely you look at the problem, the harder it looks,” Brown says. “That’s not to say that I don’t believe it’s a solvable problem. It’s just a difficult one.”

In the quest to develop early detection methods for ovarian cancer, Brown says, science hasn’t had a firm grasp on its target. So he and Palmer took advantage of published data on ovarian tumors to generate a better understanding of how the cancer progresses in its earliest stages.

The team analyzed data on serous-type ovarian tumors that were discovered when apparently healthy women at high genetic [BRCA1 gene mutation] risk for ovarian cancer had their ovaries and fallopian tubes removed prophylactically. Most of the tumors were microscopic in size; they were not detected when the excised tissue was examined with the naked eye.

The analysis uncovered a wealth of unexplored information. Thirty-seven of the early tumors had been precisely measured when they were excised – providing new details about the size of the tumors when they were developing prior to intervention, Brown says. By extrapolating from this “occult” size distribution to the size distribution of larger, clinically evident tumors, the researchers were able to develop a model of how the tumors grew and progressed. “We are essentially trying to build a story for how these tumors progress that fits the data,” Brown explains.

Among the study’s findings:

• Serous ovarian tumors exist for at least four years before they spread.

• The typical serous cancer is less than three millimeters across for 90 percent of this “window of opportunity for early detection.”

• These early tumors are twice as likely to be in the fallopian tubes as in the ovaries.

• To cut mortality from this cancer in half, an annual early-detection test would need to detect tumors five millimeters in diameter or less – about the size of a black peppercorn and less than a thousandth the size at which these cancers are typically detected today.

Brown’s lab is now looking for ways to take advantage of that window of opportunity to detect the microscopic tumors and intervene before the cancer spreads.

One strategy the laboratory is pursuing is to examine tissues near the ovaries, in the female reproductive tract, for protein or other molecular markers that could signify the presence of cancer. Brown says answering another question might also prove helpful: whether there is any reliable flow of material from the ovaries and fallopian tubes through the uterus and cervix into the vagina—material that might be tested for a specific cancer marker.

Despite science’s broad understanding of cancer at a molecular level, it has been challenging to identify simple molecular markers that signal the presence of early disease. One current blood marker, CA-125, has proven useful in monitoring later-stage ovarian cancer, but it has not been helpful for early detection. So Brown’s lab is also looking for biomarkers that are present only in ovarian tumors and not in healthy cells, instead of relying on tests that look for unusually high levels of a molecule that is part of normal biology (like CA-125).

The researchers are doing extensive sequencing of all messenger RNA molecules (which carry information for the production of specific proteins) in ovarian cancer cells, searching for evidence of proteins in these cells that would never be found in non-cancer cells. These variant molecules could be produced as a result of chromosome rearrangements—when the genome is cut and spliced in unusual ways—in ovarian cancers. “It’s a long shot,” says Brown, “but it’s important enough to try.”

Source: Tiny Early-Stage Ovarian Tumors Define Early Detection Challenge, Research News, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, July 29, 2009 [summarizing Brown PO, Palmer C, 2009 The Preclinical Natural History of Serous Ovarian Cancer: Defining the Target for Early Detection. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000114. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000114].

President of M.D. Anderson Outlines 10 Steps To Achieve Progress Against Cancer.

“The Houston Chronicle recently published a commentary by John Mendelsohn, M.D., president of M. D. Anderson, outlining actions the nation should take to achieve great progress against cancer. … Here are 10 steps we can take to ensure that deaths decrease more rapidly, the ranks of survivors swell, and an even greater number of cancers are prevented in the first place. …”

“Ten Pieces Help Solve Cancer Puzzle

John Mendelsohn, M.D., President, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

The Houston Chronicle recently published a commentary by John Mendelsohn, M.D., president of M. D. Anderson, outlining actions the nation should take to achieve great progress against cancer.

An American diagnosed with cancer today is very likely to join the growing ranks of survivors, who are estimated to total 12 million and will reach 18 million by 2020. The five-year survival rate for all forms of cancer combined has risen to 66%, more than double what it was 50 years ago.

Along with the improving five-year survival rates, the cancer death rate has been falling by 1% to 2% annually since 1990.

According to the World Health Organization, cancer will be the leading worldwide cause of death in 2010. Over 40% of Americans will develop cancer during their lifetime.

While survival rates improve and death rates fall, cancer still accounts for one in every five deaths in the U.S., and cost this nation $89.0 billion in direct medical costs and another $18.2 billion in lost productivity during the illness in 2007, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Here are 10 steps we can take to ensure that deaths decrease more rapidly, the ranks of survivors swell, and an even greater number of cancers are prevented in the first place.

#1.  Therapeutic cancer research should focus on human genetics and the regulation of gene expression.

Cancer is a disease of cells that have either inherited or acquired abnormalities in the activities of critical genes and the proteins for which they code. Most cancers involve several abnormally functioning genes – not just one – which makes understanding and treating cancer terribly complex. The good news is that screening for genes and their products can be done with new techniques that accomplish in days what once took years.

Knowledge of the human genome and mechanisms regulating gene expression, advances in technology, experience from clinical trials, and a greater understanding of the impact of environmental factors have led to exciting new research approaches to cancer treatment, all of which are being pursued at M. D. Anderson:

• Targeted therapies.  These therapies are designed to counteract the growth and survival of cancer cells by modifying, replacing or correcting abnormally functioning genes or their RNA and protein products, and by attacking abnormal biochemical pathways within these cells.
• Molecular markers.  Identifying the presence of particular abnormal genes and proteins in a patient’s cancer cells, or in the blood, will enable physicians to select the treatments most likely to be effective for that individual patient.
• Molecular imaging.  New diagnostic imaging technologies that detect genetic and molecular abnormalities in cancers in individual patients can help select optimal therapy and determine the effectiveness of treatment within hours.
• Angiogenesis.  Anti-angiogenesis agents and inhibitors of other normal tissues that surround cancers can starve the cancer cells of their blood supply and deprive them of essential growth-promoting factors which must come from the tumor’s environment.
• Immunotherapy. Discovering ways to elicit or boost immune responses in cancer patients may target destruction of cancer cells and lead to the development of cancer vaccines.

#2.  Better tests to predict cancer risk and enable earlier detection must be developed.

New predictive tests, based on abnormalities in blood, other body fluids or tissue samples, will be able to detect abnormalities in the structure or expression of cancer-related genes and proteins. Such tests may predict the risk of cancer in individuals and could detect early cancer years before any symptoms are present.

The prostate-specific antigen test for prostate cancer currently is the best known marker test to detect the possible presence of early cancer before it has spread. Abnormalities in the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes predict a high risk for breast cancer, which can guide the decisions of physicians and patients on preventive measures. Many more gene-based predictors are needed to further our progress in risk assessment and early detection.

#3.  More cancers can and must be prevented.

In an ideal world, cancer “care” would begin with risk assessment and counseling of a person when no malignant disease is present. Risk factors include both inherited or acquired genetic abnormalities and those related to lifestyle and the environment.

The largest risk factor for cancer is tobacco smoking, which accounts for nearly one-third of all cancer deaths. Tobacco use should be discouraged with cost disincentives, and medical management of discontinuing tobacco use must be reimbursed by government and private sector payors.

Cancer risk assessment should be followed by appropriate interventions (either behavioral or medical) at a pre-malignant stage, before a cancer develops. Diagnosis and treatment of a confirmed cancer would occur only when these preventive measures fail.

A full understanding of cancer requires research to identify more completely the genetic, environmental, lifestyle and social factors that contribute to the varying types and rates of cancer in different groups in this country and around the world. A common cancer in Japan or India, for example, often is not a common cancer in the U.S. When prostate cancer occurs in African-Americans it is more severe than in Caucasians. A better understanding of the factors that influence differences in cancer incidence and deaths will provide important clues to preventing cancer in diverse populations worldwide.

#4.  The needs of cancer survivors must become a priority.

Surviving cancer means many things: reducing pain, disability and stress related to the cancer or the side effects of therapy; helping patients and their loved ones lead a full life from diagnosis forward; preventing a second primary cancer or recurrence of the original cancer; treating a difficult cancer optimally to ensure achieving the most healthy years possible, and more.  Since many more patients are surviving their cancers – or living much longer with cancer – helping them manage all the consequences of their disease and its treatment is critically important.  It is an area ripe for innovative research and for improvement in delivery of care.

#5.  We must train future researchers and providers of cancer care.

Shortages are predicted in the supply of physicians, nurses and technically trained support staff needed to provide expert care for patients with cancer.  On top of this, patient numbers are projected to increase.  We are heading toward a “perfect storm” unless we ramp up our training programs for cancer professionals at all levels.   The pipeline for academic researchers in cancer also is threatened due to the increasing difficulty in obtaining peer-reviewed research funding. We must designate more funding from the NIH and other sources specifically for promising young investigators, to enable them to initiate their careers.

#6.  Federal funding for research should be increased.

After growing by nearly 100% from 1998-2002, the National Cancer Institute budget has been in decline for the past four years. Through budget cuts and the effects of inflation, the NCI budget has lost approximately 12% of its purchasing power.  Important programs in tobacco control, cancer survivorship and support for interdisciplinary research have had significant cuts.  The average age at which a biomedical researcher receives his or her first R01 grant (the gold standard) now stands at 42, hardly an inducement to pursue this field. This shrinks the pipeline of talented young Americans who are interested in careers in science, but can find easier paths to more promising careers elsewhere.  Lack of adequate funding also discourages seasoned scientists with outstanding track records of contributions from undertaking innovative, but risky research projects.  The U.S. leadership in biomedical research could be lost.

Biomedical research in academic institutions needs steady funding that at least keeps up with inflation and enables continued growth.

#7.  The pace of clinical research must accelerate.

As research ideas move from the laboratory to patients, they must be assessed in clinical trials to test their safety and efficacy. Clinical trials are complicated, lengthy and expensive, and they often require large numbers of patients.  Further steps must be taken to ensure that efficient and cost-effective clinical trials are designed to measure, in addition to outcomes, the effects of new agents on the intended molecular targets. Innovative therapies should move forward more rapidly from the laboratory into clinical trials.

The public needs to be better educated about clinical trials, which in many cases may provide them with access to the best care available.  Greater participation in trials will speed up drug development, in addition to providing patients with the best options if standard treatments fail.  The potential risks and benefits of clinical trials must continue to be fully disclosed to the patients involved, and the trials must continue to be carefully monitored.

The issue of how to pay for clinical trials must be addressed. The non-experimental portion of the costs of care in clinical trials currently are borne in part by Medicare, and should be covered fully by all payors. The experimental portion of costs of care should be covered by the owner of the new drug, who stands to benefit from a new indication for therapeutic use.

#8.  New partnerships will encourage drug and device development.

One way to shorten the time for drug and device development is to encourage and reward collaboration among research institutions, and collaboration between academia and industry.  Increasingly, partnerships are required to bring together sufficient expertise and resources needed to confront the complex challenges of treating cancer. There is enormous opportunity here, but many challenges, as well.

Academic institutions already do collaborate, but we need new ways to stimulate increased participation in cooperative enterprises.

Traditionally, academic institutions have worked with biotech and pharmaceutical companies by conducting sponsored research and participating in clinical trials.  By forming more collaborative alliances during the preclinical and translational phases prior to entering the clinic, industry and academia can build on each other’s strengths to safely speed drug development to the bedside. The challenge is that this must be done with agreements that involve sharing, but also protect the property rights and independence of both parties.

The results of all clinical trials must be reported completely and accurately, without any influence from conflicts of interest and with full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

#9. We must provide access to cancer care for everyone who lives in the U.S.

More than 47 million Americans are uninsured, and many others are underinsured for major illnesses like cancer. Others are uninsurable because of a prior illness such as cancer.  And many are indigent, so that payment for care is totally impossible.

Depending on where they live and what they can afford, Americans have unequal access to quality cancer care. Treatment options vary significantly nationwide. We must find better ways to disseminate the best standards of high-quality care from leading medical centers to widespread community practice throughout the country.

Cancer incidence and deaths vary tremendously among ethnic and economic groups in this country. We need to address the causes of disparities in health outcomes and move to eliminate them.

We are unique among Western countries in not providing direct access to medical care for all who live here. There is consensus today among most Americans and both political parties that this is unacceptable.  Especially for catastrophic illnesses like cancer, we must create an insurance system that guarantees access to care.

A number of proposals involving income tax rebates, vouchers, insurance mandates and expanded government insurance programs address this issue. Whatever system is selected should ensure access and include mechanisms for caring for underserved Americans.  The solution will require give-and-take among major stakeholders, many of which benefit from the status quo.  However, the social and economic costs have risen to the point that we have no choice.

#10.  Greater attention must be paid to enhancing the quality of cancer care and reducing costs.

New therapies and medical instruments are expensive to develop and are a major contributor to the rising cost of medical care in the U.S.  The current payment system rewards procedures, tests and treatments rather than outcomes.  At the same time, cancer prevention measures and services are not widely covered.  A new system of payment must be designed to reward outcomes, as well as the use of prevention services.

Quality of care can be improved and costs can be reduced by increasing our efforts to reduce medical errors and to prescribe diagnostic tests and treatments only on the basis of objective evidence of efficacy.

A standardized electronic medical record, accessible nationwide, is essential to ensuring quality care for patients who see multiple providers at multiple sites, and we are far behind many other nations.  Beyond that, a national electronic medical record could provide enormous opportunities for reducing overhead costs, identifying factors contributing to many illnesses (including cancer), determining optimal treatment and detecting uncommon side effects of treatment.

What the future holds in store.

I am optimistic. I see a future in which more cancers are prevented, more are cured and, when not curable, more are managed as effectively as other chronic, life-long diseases. I see a future in which deaths due to cancer continue to decrease.

Achieving that vision will require greater collaboration among academic institutions, government, industry and the public.  Barriers to quality care must be removed.  Tobacco use must be eradicated.  Research must have increased funding.  Mindful that our priority focus is on the patient, we must continue to speed the pace of bringing scientific breakthroughs from the laboratory to the bedside.

M. D. Anderson resources:

John Mendelsohn, M.D.”

Primary Source:  Ten Pieces Help Solve Cancer Puzzle, by John Mendelsohn, M.D., Feature Article, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Cancer News, Mar. 2009.