any tumor tests to predict which chemos work better?

[sarah]

Hello,
A member of our cancer support group is looking for a way to find which chemos will work for her, she feels she's running out of time and options, has mets to liver and bones, it's a genetic bc. She's looking at a company called Caris Life Science who purports to be able to do that for 5000 euro so I'm just wondering if any of you know of any tests that rule out certain chemos or suggest that others might be more beneficial???? any thoughts? very worried about this person. thanks
Does the oncotype test help? or just for ER status?
health and happiness
sarah

[chrisy]

What you are talking about is a chemo sensitivity test in which a (preferably large) sample of the tumor os taken, and they test actual chemos on it, looking for those chemos(or combinations) which work best against that tumor. There are at least 2 types of assays, measuring proliferation (growth activity) or apoptosis (cell death). The latter is thought to be superior.

Chemo sensitivity testing is not widely accepted in the US, as early versions of these tests had marginal predictive value. But, these tests have continued to evolve and in some cases have worked very well. The most reputable company doing these in the US is called Rational therapeutics", dr. Nagourney.

Although its not widely accepted in the oncology community yet, it is not "snake oil" either, and can be worth looking into.

Gdpawel frequently posts here on this topic.

[sarah]

Thanks Chrisy for this info
Sarah

[gdpawel]

The only thing I can tell you about Caris is that the only truly useful information relates to the common markers which are tested in most pathology laboratories, i.e. ER, PR, Her2, etc. Maybe DHFR (dihydrofolate reductase).

Caris begins with an immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis. IHC testing examines "dead" tissue. An IHC test measures the level of proteins in cancer cells providing clues about which therapies are likely to have clinical benefit and then what additional tests should be run. It never actually tests your tumor specimen against any drug agents.

If deemed appropriate, they will run additional tests. Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization (FISH) is used to examine gene copy number variation in the tumor. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) or DNA sequencing is used to determine gene mutations in the DNA of the tumor.

It is a tumor analysis coupled with clinical literature search, which tries to match therapies to patient-specific biomarker information to generate a treatment approach. In other words, information that may help when considering "potential" treatment options (theoretical analysis).

Rational Therapeutics and Weisenthal Cancer Group both use a functional profiling platform. It takes the tumor with the surrounding tissue (intact and live) and then puts chemo on it to see which chemos (actually) kill the cancer cells.

The ability to monitor cell "function" provides clinicians with a vital method to characterize and compare activity of cells. Programmed cell death, or apoptosis, is critical in cancer formation and is often used to determine if cells are functioning properly.

Phenotype (functional profiling) analyses, measure biological signals rather than DNA indicators, provides clinically validated information and plays an important role in cancer drug selection. The data that support phenotype analyses is demonstrably greater and more compelling than any data currently generated from genotype analyses.

Funtional profiling "actually" measures the response of the tumor cells to drug exposure. Following this exposure, they measure both cell metabolism and cell morphology. The integrated effect of the drugs on the whole cell, resulting in a cellular response to the drug, measuring the interaction of the entire genome. No matter which genes are being affected, functional profiling is measuring them through the surrogate of measuring if the cell is alive or dead.

Caris is testing for mutations, RT and WCG are testing for drugs. Rating the efficacy of population research vs rating the efficacy of drugs actually tested against an individual's cancer cells.

The endpoints (point of termination) of molecular profiling (genotyping analysis) are gene expression, examining a single process (pathway) within the cell or a relatively small number of processes (pathways) to test for "theoretical" candidates for targeted therapy.

The endpoints of functional profiling (phenotyping analysis) are expression of cell-death, both tumor cell death and tumor associated endothelial (capillary) cell-death (tumor and vascular death), and examines not only for the presence of the molecular profile but also for their functionality, for their interaction with other genes, proteins and other processes occuring within the cell, and for their "actual" response to anti-cancer drugs (not theoretical susceptibility).

Again, the choice is theoretical vs actual analysis.

Greg

[Rich66]

Is the person in France? Does the person have the financial and logistical means to pursue one of the various choices? Out of curiousity, was Caris offered by her oncologist or was it something she discovered?
More on the type of test Greg discussed here (http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=222355#post222355)

[fullofbeans]

It seems to me that the tumor needs to be live to have chemo-sensitivity test?? so yes i believe it helps i.e. not snake oil, but I believe that you need to keep them live at time of removal/biopsy no?, It would not make sense that frozen sample can be tested on... who does this (take live sample biopsy? and culture it for test commercially, rational therapeutic seems to..but how do you send sample to them.. not very practical unless the centre testing is linked to your hospital tho..

For non solid cancer it is easier because they can simply use blood and it is easy to do (so yes for non solid cancer it should be the norm). But I would love to be wrong but in my opinion unless your sample is live (kept live or cultured straight away), then it is snake oil.

But what they can do it to give you the mutation Her2, PTEN, PI3K... which can help select..

[gdpawel]

Her2, PTEN, PI13K, and all genes, are under the direct regulation and control of genetic elements that no one has ever studied. Two percent of the human genome that codes for known proteins (the part that everyone currently studies) represents only 1.20th of the whole story. One of the most important cancer related genes (PTEN) is under the regulation of 250 separate, unrelated genes. Drug selection would still be a guessing game, which a lot of empirical treatment is today.

While (apoptotic) cell death is of importance in hematologic (non-solid) cancers (easy to do with blood), like many leukemias and lymphomas, it does not represent cancer cell death in all circumstances and can be an unreliable parameter in many solid tumors. Labs that measure only one mechanism of cell death miss important cell responses that are critical to accurate prediction of clinical response.

While apoptosis represents an important mechanism of programmed cell death, it is only one of several cell death pathways. Apoptotic cell death occurs with certain mutational events, DNA damage, oxidative stress and withdrawal of some growth factors particularly within the immune system. Non-apoptotic programmed cell death includes: programmed necrosis, para-apoptosis, autophagic cell death, nutrient withdrawal, and subtypes associated with mis-folden protein response, and PARP mediated cell death.

Yes. The tumor needs to be live "fresh" to have "traditional" chemo-sensitivity testing. When it comes to drug selection, investigators can only measure those analytes (substance or chemical constituent) in paraffin wax that they know to measure. If you are not aware of and capable of measuring a biologically relevant event, you cannot seek to detect it. The cell-lines in paraffin-embedded tissue can change over time. These proliferating populations of cell are biologically distinct in their behavior from "fresh" live cells that comprise human tumors.

The functional platform (that Rational Therapeutics and Weisenthal Cancer Group) uses morphologic (structure) and metabolic (cell metabolism) endpoints (point of termination) to gauge cellular response to drugs in human tumor microspheroids (microclusters) isolated from surgical biopsies/specimens. By examining drug-induced cell death events in native-state microclusters, the functional profiling platform has the unique capacity to capture stromal, vascular and inflammatory cell interactions with tumor cells, known to be crucial for clinical response prediction. The microclusters recapitulate the human tumor environment.

Newer forms of assays are being provided by private U.S. companies such as Precision Therapeutics (ChemoFx and BioSpeciFx assays), Rational Therapeutics (EVA-PCD and TARxGET assays), DiaTech Oncology (the MiCK "microculture kinetic" assay), and the Weisenthal Cancer Group (CytoRx, EGFRx and AngioRx assays).

Going after a surgical/biopsy specimen has a role in eliminating ineffective agents and avoid unnecessary toxicity and in directing "correct" therapy. Patients benefit both in terms of response and survival from drugs and drug combinations found to be "active" in assays even after treatment failure with several other drugs, many of which are in the same class, and even with combinations of drugs found to have low or no activity as single agents but which are found in the assay to produce a synergistic and not merely an additive anti-tumor effect.

There would be a huge advantage to the patient to receive a "positive/sensitive" drug, compared to a "negative/resistant" drug. The time and energy required to conduct an excisional biopsy pales in comparison to the time, energy and lost opportunities associated with months of ineffective, toxic therapy. Only your tumor specimen goes to the lab, not the patient.

The choice of a lab is not a geographical consideration, but a technical consideration. All of the labs are experienced and capable of providing very useful information.

However, the labs vary considerably with regard to technologies, approach to testing, what they try to achieve with the testing, and cost. Some labs have been offering these assays as a non-investigational, paid service to cancer patients, in a situation where up to 30 different drugs and combinations are tested, at two drug concentrations in three different assay systems.

The labs will provide you and your physician with in depth information and research on the testing they provide. Absent the assays, the oncologist will perform "trial-and-error" treatment until he/she finds the right chemotherapy regimen. You should have the right chemo in the first-line of treatment.

By investing a little time on the phone speaking with the lab directors, you should have enough knowledge to present the concept to your own physician. At that point, the best thing is to ask the physician, as a courtesy to the patient, to speak on the phone with the director of the laboratory in which you are interested, so that everyone (patient, physician, and laboratory director) understand what is being considered, what is the rationale, and what are the data which support what is being considered.

The two labs that provide the functional profiling platform are Rational Therapeutics and Weisenthal Cancer Group.

http://www.rationaltherapeutics.com/Contact-Us.aspx
http://www.rationaltherapeutics.com/cancer-testing/test-candidates.aspx

http://weisenthalcancer.com/Contact_Us.html
http://weisenthalcancer.com/Specimens.html

Best wishes!

[ElaineM]

Try http://www.precisiontherapeutics.com/
They can test up to 12 different chemos to see which one might work the best.

[sarah]

greg et al,
many thanks for all this info, so helpful.
yes, she's Dutch living in France.
One of our members discovered Caris in hopes of it helping his wife.
Love this site, you are all so knowledgable and kind, what would I do without you.
just learnt that probably thanks to the heavy radiation I had, I have a blocked artery, cholesterol also involved, think Femara may have added to that also. just back from intense test so my typing and spelling are probably weird. will have angioplasy and stent, I know it's off subject but if you have any info on this - a totally new area for me, I'll welcome it!!
health and happiness
love sarah
I'll pass this info along to our member and friend.

[fullofbeans]

response from rationa therapeutics:

Thank you for your interest in the work of Dr. Robert Nagourney and Rational Therapeutics.

IF chemotherapy is being considered, and IF we can easily obtain a 1-2 cm piece of viable tumor (solid tumor, lymph node, cytologically positive pleural or ascites fluid), received in our laboratory within 24-48 hours of collection, our goal would be to expose the living tumor cells to a wide panel of standard agents and novel combinations. Under this approach, “functional profiling” measures the response of tumor cells when exposed to chemotherapies in the laboratory. By identifying which agents induce the tumor to shut down and die and also which ones do not, we can aid your oncologist in choosing the most effective chemotherapy regimen based on your unique tumor makeup; additionally sparing unnecessary toxicity associated with ineffective treatments.


Functional profiling is not intended to be a scale model of chemotherapy in the patient, anymore than the barometric pressure is a scale model of the weather. But it’s always more likely to rain when the barometer is falling than when it is rising, and chemotherapy is more likely to work in the patient when it kills the patient’s cancer cells in the laboratory. Data reveals that our personalized "functional profile" increases response rates 2-3 times that of standard protocols.

We would be happy to discuss specifics or answer any questions. International specimens are do-able although complicated and problematic due to the timeframe in receiving viable tumor tissue. We have worked with World Courier to handle international shipments. They are expert and Customs, etc. but are not inexpensive (I would estimate $1000-$2000 just for transportation). If our program makes sense, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.



Rational Therapeutics
Physician/Patient Relations

[sarah]

Thank you, this is good to know about. I don't think she is having an operation at this time but if she does, this would be a good idea.
thanks again.
sarah

[Rich66]

For what it's worth, some patients have a biopsy specifically for the test.

[sarah]

oh ok so maybe she do that. many thanks Rich.

[Joan M]

A few days ago, a friend recommended Ralph Moss's book, Customized Cancer Treatment, published by Equinox Press, 2010. I have not yet read it. My friend said that Moss discusses chemosensitivity. Diatech (diatech-oncology.com) and Rational Therapeutics (rational-t.com) are two of the labs mentioned by Moss for chemosensitivity testing.

Joan

[gdpawel]

Ralph W. Moss, PhD, is the former science writer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. For over thirty years, he has independently investigated new and promising cancer treatments around the world. He is the recipient of many awards and the author of twelve books and three films, including the PBS documentary, The Cancer War.

Dr. Robert Nagourney, one of the pioneers along with Dr. Larry Weisenthal of functional profiling analysis, says the new book talks about the functional profile platform. He previously penned Cancer Therapy, Herbs Against Cancer, Questioning Chemotherapy and The Cancer Industry, which took another look at what's working and what isn't with today's treatments.

Moss' new book makes a very good case for drug sensitivity tests to see which drugs will work best. He does a tremendous job in turning over every single stone why The Test (as he calls it in the book) has struggled to gain acceptance in the billion dollar cancer medicine industry.

Also intriguing is Moss' association of cell culture assays and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the final conclusions of the book. He feels that there are many treatments of natural origin that have been proposed as candidates for cancer therapy. Some of these may have great value.

[Mandamoo]

I have been following this thread with interest.
I live in Australia and currently have tumor tissue from my initial surgery being tested. It is being tested by a government laboratory and the testing is in R&D phase - I understand that initial testing is chemosentivity of which we have preliminary results after a few months. The additional testing is various types of assays?
I have to admit to finding the above discussion confusing - can anyone explain perhaps in more lay terms the types of testing.

I tried to get samples of the lung mets this week with biopsy but was only able to get 2 cores and that was only enough for the lab to do the standard tests - we may get a bit of tissue for the R&D testing. The pathologist working on my tissue talks about developing testing for individualised cancer treatments. The reason I am so interesting is I went from a stage 2b to stage 4 while receiving, FEC, Taxotere and Herceptin. Quite obviously FEC was completely useless in fighting the cells in my bloodstream and so far Herceptin has done little either.

[Joan M]

gdpawel,

Thanks for the information about Moss.

It seems that testing which drugs would work best contradicts the trend lately to cut back on medical tests. Also, testing patients upfront is not in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies. That is, fewer patients would be getting treated with particular drugs. For example, several years ago one of my oncologists and I were discussing what was then a new drug for lung cancer, Tarceva, which as it turned out only works if a patient's cancer is genetically compatible, or has a specific genetic mutation. The oncologist noted that compatibility is not tested clinically: that is, the drug either works or doesn't work, and that indicates whether the cancer was genetically compatible. As a result, patients who are not compatible get the drug anyway. A waste of the drug. A waste of money. And unnecessary stress to a patient hoping for a good result and suffering from side effects. Seems kind of a backward process. Unless, of course, that's changed lately, and oncs are now able to test whether a person would benefit from Tarceva.

As more cancer drugs become targeted therapies -- which seems like the direction it's going -- upfront testing would have to become the rule.

Joan

[sarah]

Wow this whole discussion is so interesting and informative. The future looks so promising; we may have ways to tell what will work and what won't. I'm overwhelmed by all this fantastic and exciting information. Again, many, many thanks to all of you and to this site for creating the place for all this information to be exchanged. Despite being in my 12th year of cancer i feel like such an idiot about so much and still have trouble with many of the medical reports but thanks to all of you, I know I have a great resource to count on and by helping me, you also help our little group of expats in living in the south of France who find themselves with a deadly disease and dealing it with a language that is in some cases they don't understand well and in others is their 2nd or 3rd. Grand merci as they say here.
love sarah

[sarah]

I just wanted to add that I think of all of you who are struggling with mets and I know in my heart that solutions are coming and with all my heart I hope they are coming today. Keep up the fight. I do understand that fight, 7 years ago, I was sure I was a goner but I have 7 years of reprieve and I have enjoyed at least 5 of them and still am. This testing thing seems to have such great potential.
hugs and love and good health to all of you - you are such kind and knoweldgeable people. I would be lost without you. excuse my mushiness but it is sincere.
love sarah

[gdpawel]

Amanda

The pathologist establishes a cell-line (immortalizes it) with your tumor cells. A cell-line is a product of immortal cells that are used for biological research. Cell lines can perpetuate division indefinitely. Regular cells can only divide approximately 50 times.

Cell lines are useful for experimentation in labs as they are always available to researchers as a product and do not require harvesting (acquiring of tissue from a host) every time cells are needed in the lab. They can clone cells from a cell line (HeLa cells). However, this is not what is called "chemosensitivity" testing.

Problem is (and why it will be hard for the pathologist to develop testing for individualized cancer treatments), cell lines don't recapitulate drug response patterns which exist in the body. For "drug selection," it is better to directly remove tumor microclusters straight from the body and immediately test them, before they change, as what US functional profiling labs like Rational Therapeutics and Weisenthal Cancer Group do.

Cells are taken fresh "live" in their three dimensional, floating clusters, cultured in conical polypropylene microwells for 96 hours to increase the proportion of tumor cells, relative to normal cells.

Polypropylene is a slippery material which prevents the attachment of fibroblasts and epithelial cells and encourages the tumor cells to remain in the form of three dimensional (3D), floating clusters. Our body is 3D, not 2D in form, undoubtedly, making this novel step better replicate that of the human body.

When allowed to grow in vitro, "living" cancer cells develop into these tiny microspheroid clusters that form a complex biosystem in which each malignant cell reacts upon its fellow colonists in subtle but important ways.

Analysis of microspheroids (microclusters) with cell-death assays, provides a snapshot of cancer's behavior within the human body and provides a more accurate representation of how cancer cells are likely to respond to treatment in the clinic. There is no manipulation of isolated cancer cells to make them grow, which was an important point of distinction with earlier cell-growth assays.

I've been studying cell function analysis for the last ten years.

Greg

Greg

[gdpawel]

Joan M

After reading Moss' book, you'll get a good understanding of your statement, "testing patients upfront is not the best interest of pharmaceutical companies." Pharmaceutical companies do not want them testing patients who aren't going to be responsive to their drug product. They like testing for their product, not someone else's product.

With some of these prognostic tests, it can eliminate some patients from having to receive chemotherapy treatment. With some of the functional profiling tests, it reveals those drugs that work from those drugs that don't (and this is what's important), on the "individual" cancer cells, not from average population studies.

The problem with genetic tests (a.k.a. Tarceva) is that it never even tests the individual's cancer cells against the drug (compatibility is not tested clinically). Molecular testing methods detect the presence or absence of selected gene or protein mutations which "theoretically" correlate with single agent drug activity. Cells are never exposed to anti-cancer agents. And it cannot test sensitivity to "combinations" of targeted drugs.

Even patients who are found to have an activating EGFR mutation, Tarceva is considered acceptable but not a definite superior choice. Genetic variations alone do not determine response to targeted therapy. Those patients who test negative for EGFR are left to the same guesswork as conventional therapy.

There are lots of things which determine if the drug works, beyond the existence of a given target. Does the drug even get into the cancer cell? Does it get pumped out of the cell? Does the cell have ways of escaping drug effects? Can cells repair damage caused by the drug?

Tarceva can be given selectively to patients with EGFR negative NSCLC. It is a challenge to identify which patients targeted treatments like Tarceva will be effective. Patients across a broad range of clinical characteristics could benefit. Being EGFR negative is no reason not to be given this drug.

BTW. Tarceva is not just for lung cancer. Tarceva is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. However, it also has an anti-angiogenic effect on cancer cells. There are a number of classes of drugs that target angiogenesis (VEGF). At the protein level is Avastin. At the tyrosine kinase level is Iressa, Nexavar, Sutent and Tarveca. At the intracellular metabolic pathway mTOR level is Afinitor and Torisel.

When chemotherapy drugs work, they often cause tumors to shrink a lot, sometimes even making them disappear. But anti-angiogenesis drugs don't seem to work in the same way. In some cases they shrink tumors, but in others they just seem to stop them from growing any larger.

Newer approaches to treatment that combine anti-angiogenesis drugs with chemotherapy, other targeted drugs, or radiation may work better than using them alone. For instance, early studies that tested the drug Avastin by itself did not find that it helped people with cancer to live longer. But later studies found that when it was combined with chemotherapy to treat certain cancers, it helped people (some subsets of patients) live longer than if they got the chemotherapy alone.

Doctors aren't sure why this is the case. One theory is based on the fact that chemotherapy drugs may have a hard time getting to cells in the middle of tumors. Tumor blood vessels grow in a short amount of time and in an abnormal environment, so they are not as well-made and stable as normal blood vessels.

Because of this, they tend to be leaky. This affects how well drugs can reach the inside of the tumor. The theory is that anti-angiogenesis drugs may somehow stabilize these tumor blood vessels for a short period of time, allowing the chemotherapy to reach more tumor cells and be more effective.

Greg

[gdpawel]

Sarah

I can only add to your statement by deleting the word "may." We have ways to tell what will work and what won't. We just have to overcome the resistance to it by an entrenched cancer establishment. And I agree, the future looks so promising, but that future is already happening. It just has to be revealed.

The selection of a chemotherapy regimen for individual tumors is normally based on histology, clinical characteristics of the patient and retrospective evidence from randomized clinical trials.

However, patients with the same tumor histotype, especially in solid malignancies, often respond differently to the same chemotherapy regimen due to heterogeneity of cancer.

Systems Biology is the field of biology that examines biological processes in the context of an entire system of processes within a cell or organism.

Systems biology utilizes a combination of biochemistry, proteomics, genomics, metabolomics and bioinformatics to better understand the contribution of each element of the system to the whole.

This is what pioneers of cell function analysis (functional profiling) are doing with cancer treatment.

Despite knowledge of such heterogeneity, chemotherapy is still largely empirically planned (trial-and-error), and the acquisition of information for tailored therapy has consequently become a priority in the management of cancer patients today.

The chance that you are the median patient in a randomized clinical trial is quite small. Would you want to gamble with your health based on "odds" that you are just like the median patient in some population of patients tested in a clinical trial?

There is a large and growing volume of clinical data that establishes the predictive validity of the functional profiling platform. Both solid and hematologic tumors have been evaluated with statistically significant results.

Greg

[sarah]

Thank you Greg. I'd like to bring this up at the cancer hospital where we have our support group. Any suggestions for a few tests? Caris came and spoke to us and an oncologist sat in and said how helpful it would be to have tools that worked so it would be nice to encourage it. Obviously it would save payers money and patients time wasting on the wrong drugs.
thanks
sarah

[gdpawel]

Sarah

The choice of a lab is a technical consideration. The labs vary considerably with regard to technologies, approach to testing, what they try to achieve with the testing, and cost. Some labs have been offering these assays as a non-investigational, paid service to cancer patients, in a situation where up to 30 different drugs and combinations are tested, at two drug concentrations in three different assay systems. Absent the assays, the oncologist will perform "trial-and-error" treatment until he/she finds the right chemotherapy regimen.

However, some testing is still "trial-and-error" because the tumor analysis is based on the same clinical literature search (population study), which tries to match therapies to patient-specific biomarker information to generate a treatment approach. This is not really personalized medicine, but just a refinement of statistical data. In other words, information that may help when considering "potential" treatment options (theoretical analysis). It's never measured against your actual cancer cells. If you are okay with that, go for it!

Some testing takes the tumor with the surrounding tissue (intact and live) and then puts chemo on it to see which chemo (actually) kill the cancer cells. The ability to monitor cell "function" provides clinicians with a vital method to characterize and compare "activity" of actual live cells. Programmed cell death (apoptosis) is critical in cancer formation and is often used to determine if cells are functioning properly.

Functional profiling analysis measures biological signals rather than DNA indicators, provides clinically validated information and plays an important role in cancer drug selection. It "actually" measures the response of the tumor cells to drug exposure. Following this exposure, it measures both cell metabolism (metabolic) and cell morphology (structure), the integrated effect of the drugs on the whole cell, resulting in a cellular response to the drug, measuring the interaction of the entire genome.

In short, Caris is testing for mutations, while Rational Therapeutics and Weisenthal Cancer Group are testing for drugs. Rating the efficacy of population research vs rating the efficacy of drugs actually tested against your individual cancer cells. The choice is theoretical vs actual analysis. The choice of a lab is a technical consideration.

Greg

[Rich66]

Hmmm. Having an oncology company rep meet with a support group seems..unusual. Feels a little too close to selective marketing considering you had to come here to learn about other options.
Eh..back to your friend..

Maybe this will be helpful:

There are no guarantees the chemosensitivity test results will prove true if used to choose treatment. Same for markers like ER or Her2. Those are routinely used to guide treatment choices but have no guarantees either.
The same is true for testing antibiotics against cells from patients with infections. You could take a look at characteristics of the bacteria and the type of infection and pick some antibiotics through averages or experience. That would be similar to observing markers on a slide and using that to guide choice. But often, when a route to gather an adequate sample is available, say a urine sample for UTI, it is typical to test various antibiotics against the sample to see which one kills the bug. Results from that test suggest starting points for best chance of controlling the infection before resistance sets in. No guarantees..just a better informed starting point.That would be more like the functional profiling/chemosensitivity test.

The need for a larger than normal biopsy is the main hinderance, to my mind, of functional profiling. It seems typical that Interventional Radiologists unfamiliar with FP and/or its benefits will balk at taking multiple biopsy passes on an organ like the liver. Some have gone to California and had procedures done there by folks who are more on board with the idea. Although benefits may outweigh the negatives, I personally have some concern about extensive surgery in cancer patients considering general anesthesia can suppress the immune system and surgery can disseminate cancer cells. But again, if it leads to identifying a powerful treatment that really gets the job done, probably outweighs the negatives. If there is enough sample, FP can allow for testing of drugs and off label combinations not normally considered.

Another issue is that FP doesn't test for sensitivity to endocrine therapy (Tamoxifen, Femara etc)..probably because endocrine therapies take time (sometimes months) to work whereas FP evaluates cancer cell death within a brief time window. Sometimes they will combine Tamoxifen with chemo, but the evaluation window is still brief. But if endocrine therapies have been exhausted or the cancer is considered ER negative, less of an issue.

[gdpawel]

Rich

I found that having an oncology company rep meet with a support group seemed unusual too. It's like those stories I hear of some of these lab reps being in the operating room waiting for the specimen. I guess they need to satisfy their venture capitalist owners?

These laboratory tests are a "tool" for medical oncologists actually treating the patient. The oncologist should take advantage of all the tools available to him/her to treat a patient. However, you cannot make him/her use those tools, effectively. The labs vary considerably with regard to technologies, approach to testing, what they try to achieve with testing, and cost. It is a complex and thorough analysis. Not many medical oncologists understand them.

[Joan M]

Greg,

Thanks for your response and explanation. Drug response is definitely a complex process.

Joan

[gdpawel]

Rich

There are no guarantees that physician's choice will prove true if used to choose treatment. The widespread and inappropriate use of chemotherapy is an obstacle to controlling cancer growth and metastasis in patients. Patients would certainly have a better chance of success had their cancer been "chemo-sensitive" rather than "chemo-resistant," where it is more apparent that chemotherapy improves the survival of patients, and where identifying the most "effective" chemotherapy would be more likely to improve survival.

It would seem more prudent to invest the time in using diagnostic technologies for detecting cancer growths, as well as the properties of cells that are destined to metastasize, and match the most "effective" therapeutics to your "individual" cancer cells.

Going after a surgical/biopsy specimen has a role in eliminating ineffective agents and avoid unnecessary toxicity and in directing "correct" therapy. Data has shown that patients benefit both in terms of response and survival from drugs and drug combinations found to be "active" in assays even after treatment failure with several other drugs, many of which are in the same class, and even with combinations of drugs found to have low or no activity as single agents but which are found in the assay to produce a synergistic and not merely an additive anti-tumor effect.

There would be a huge advantage to the patient to receive a "positive/sensitive" drug, compared to a "negative/resistant" drug. As I stated before, the time and energy required to conduct an excisional biopsy pales in comparison to the time, energy and lost opportunities associated with months of ineffective, toxic therapy.

There is no consistent associations between breast cancer patients with the relevant CYP2D6 polymorphism and the outcome of tamoxifen therapy, whether as primary treatment or in as post-operative adjuvant therapy. Estimates vary, but anywhere from 10 to 40 percent of women have the gene variant of CYP2D6 that is believed to slow the metabolism of tamoxifen and make it less effective.

New analyses of data from 2 large trials have found no association between the CYP2D6 genotype and the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing breast cancer recurrence, in contrast to several previous positive studies. So CYP2D6 testing not be used routinely to decide whether or not to prescribe tamoxifen. Physicians should not routinely test for CYP2D6 status before deciding whether to prescribe tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor.

Although the functional profiling platform usually does not give strong cell-death signals for tamoxifen exposure in most tumors, sometimes agents can "chemosensitize" tumor cells. To alter susceptibility of a targeted cell or organism having become ineffective, becomes effective again. There is a chemosensitizing effect of tamoxifen.

A functional profiling assay is conducted on human tumor samples utilizing native microspheroids (fresh, live cells) replete with vascular, stromal and inflammatory cells to analyze cellular responses in the context of the tumor microenvironment. This snapshot of cellular response recapitulates patient response to cytotoxic compounds, signal transduction inhibitors, and growth factor agonists/antagonists in real time.

SERM tamoxifen acts as an antagonist in breast and conversely an agonist in uterus. Agonist (potentiating) effects at high doses. Tamoxifen at concentrations of 2.5 micromolar (concentration of one millionth of a mole per litre) or greater significantly inhibits the P-glycoprotein (gatekeeper in the blood-brain barrier) multidrug resistant membrane pump, as well as inhibiting protein kinase C (preventing the increase in vascular resistance).

Joan

Cancer is many things, but simple is not one of them.

Greg

[sarah]

Hello Rich and Greg,
reading your posts is illuminating.
As for Caris, they did not approach us. One of our members whose wife with bc at age 38 was seriously ill (she died soon after sadly) and the trade off was they would come and talk and would use her tumor as an example, unfortuantely it was too late but it was the first time we had heard of this type of thing being done and of course it is an encouraging area if it works.
The distress with patients with metatasis is that they often "lose" time on drugs that don't work or don't work well enough and so as we all realize if a way to narrow done the choices to those that are more likely to work, it would be great. As you say Greg, cancer is not simple, if it was it would have been solved and certainly lots of people are working on it and there is a lot of money to be made finding drugs that work.
Obviously oncologists depend mostly on the stats that point to what has worked most of the time and follow those protocols.
Greg, I found your post on chemo-sensitive versus chemo resistant etc post particularly interesting.
I have a question for Rich and Greg: (others welcome!) when a tumor is removed, what do you consider are the ideal markers that you think should be answered?
I know in '99 they checked about 6 markers on my bc, some of which I believe today are no longer relevant but they were supposedly to show the tendancy to progression unfortunately despite the indication of possible progression, (I was DCIS but...) I was lightly treated and progression did happen so it would seem to me to be better to have the clearest picture of what could happen. I seem to ok for the moment but I'm worried about new patients and those in our group who are actively metatastic. So think about what you feel are the most important markers and please pass them on to me so that I can talk to the oncologists at the hospital where we have our meetings to find out if these are all done and if not, can they be.
thanks in advance and boy do I love that you are so informative, I only wish I could understand all of the medical terms.
Thanks guys, love you.
If you come to the south of France, you'd better look me and my husband up!
Sarah
ps these were the markers they did for me in '99:
ER, PR, Ploidy/DNA index, S-phase Fraction, MIB-1, HER2, p53

[gdpawel]

Sarah

The reference to cancer being not simple was the genotyping analysis that goes on. Looking for that simple gene and seeing how it is expressed in the individual's cancer cells. The genomic profile is so complicated, with one thing affecting another, that it isn't sufficient and not currently useful in selecting drugs. The cell is a system, an integrated, interacting network of genes, proteins and other cellular constituents that produce functions. You need to analyze the systems' response to drug treatments, not just one target or pathway, or a few targets or pathways.

Some years back, three federal agencies (NCI, FDA and CMS) announced a program to try an identify biological indicators (biomarkers) which may indicate whether a cancer patient is likely to benefit from a given anti-cancer therapy, or even whether they will suffer from certain side effects. Biomarkers were already a part of drug development (Her2 = Herception, etc.), but health officials wanted to routinely incorporate those measurements into clinical trials.

They should be able to detect cancer pathways with biomarkers and choose patients for a trial based on who responds very quickly to a drug. The ordinary trial system did not suffice if they were to encourage new drugs for restricted numbers of patients. Hence the BATTLE clinical trials. Clinical trials designed applying Bayesian adaptive randomization for targeted therapy development in lung cancer. They thought this was a step toward personalized medicine.

http://cancerfocus.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3432

But giving instructions on the genetic differences that determine how a person responds to a drug will still have cancer medicine being prescribed on a trial-and-error basis, with adverse drug reactions remaining a major cause of injury and hospitalizations. There have been technologies, developed over the last twenty years, that hold the key to solving some of the problems confronting cancer medicine: matching individual patients with the treatments most likely to benefit them. Being chemo-sensitive rather than chemo-resistant.

Greg

[sarah]

Hello Greg,
Yes I read about Steve Jobs having a complete tumor analysis done (he could afford it but didn't have the "time") but my secondary question is now, what besides knowing the 3 big ones (ER,PR and HER2) what are the next important ones to know?
thanks
Sarah
ps maybe I should post this as a new thread?
Again thanks for the testing info.

[gdpawel]

Sarah

Steve Jobs had his entire genome sequenced. It was reported this week that the $100,000 price tag of his testing can be done for $900 now. I hope he didn't spend all that money just to find out he had pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer and not pancreatic cancer. These cancers behave very differently. But gene sequencing is not ready for "drug selection."

Ironically, functional profiling had found out that a pancreatic cancer patient can be treated successfully with a combination of drugs commonly used to fight breast, colorectal, lung and pancreatic cancers. Will one be able to find that out by testing just for the genes (the big three, or even the next ones on the list)?

It has become routine to test breast cancer patients for the mutation conferring sensitivity to Herceptin, test lung cancer patients for the mutation conferring sensitivity to Tarceva, and the KRAS mutation to predict for Erbitux. What these "theoretical" candidates may be missing out on is some other drug or combination that would be more sensitive to their individual cancer cells, not from some population study.

Good luck in finding the next ones.

Greg

[Rich66]

Rich

There are no guarantees that physician's choice will prove true if used to choose treatment. You know that I know that to be the case. Just trying to avoid impressions that FP is guaranteed either. Cancer is even more complex than FP, which has no way to deal with endocrine, immune and other factors including putative stimulation of cancer stem cells by chemos that kill/shrink the majority of cancer cells. But I'm convinced it's a helluva lot better than lab tests that can't tell an activated path vs inactive and should be used when feasible..and I can't help but wonder what the impact would be if used in initial surgery, when ample sample is the easiest and cells are at their most vulnerable.

[sarah]

Hello Rich,
oh do I agree with you. We've got to help pinpoint the correct treatments quickly for all cancers and as you say, the time is when the original tumor is taken out.
I suppose until this becomes common practice, it's up to patients to demand and pay for a test which may at this time be costly, but most newbies have limited knowledge and are too worried about the diagnosis. Also until and unless you know the cancer is "invasive", how useful is it to do considering costs?
The thing is as a group, we could promote and encourage these be done???? I will ask the hospital in Mougins.
thanks
sarah

[Joan M]

Here's something in the news about the potential of biomarkers to indicate which chemos work best in which patients. It's from the European Commission.

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS_FP7&ACTION=D&DOC=1&CAT=NEWS&QUERY=01359fd24494:1e2d:268f1802&RCN=34317

At SABCS, there was a lot of chatter about how over the last few years the Europeans are really getting it together. As I understood it from a few oncs I talked with, many more patients participate in breast cancer clinical trials than in the U.S., and scientists work more collaboratively across institutions and are more willing to link their databases.

Joan

[gdpawel]

I'd just wish they would use "fresh" live cells instead of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. These proliferating populations of cells are biologically distinct in their behavior from "fresh" live cells that comprise human tumors.

When it comes to "drug selection," investigators can only measure those analytes (substance or chemical constituent) in paraffin wax that they know to measure. If you are not aware of and capable of measuring a biologically relevant event, you cannot seek to detect it.

The NCI spent years trying to find patterns which correlated using NCI's various established cell-lines. They thought they had something, but when they started to apply them to fresh tumor specimens, none of the results in the cell-lines was applicable to the fresh tumors.

[Rich66]

The main focus of the project will be on ascertaining whether certain types of treatment should be administered before or after surgery. Hmm. That seems like a whole other issue beyond genomics and markers. I mean..seems like that would concern itself with how the cells react to surgery.

[gdpawel]

When breast cancer presents as locally advanced disease, it is customarily treated with neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy, followed by definitive surgery. At the time of surgery, the specimen is assessed to determine if all visible tumor has been destroyed by chemotherapy. When this happens, it is said to be a “pathological complete response” (pCR). The pharmacogenomic predictors developed from "cell-line" studies (not fresh cells) were evaluated for their ability to predict patient pCR, using the supervised principle component regression method.

Using the CellSearch technique that quantifies circulating tumor cells, German investigators had shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel (taxol) caused a massive release of cells into the circulation, while at the same time reduced the size of the tumor. The finding helped explain the fact that complete pathologic responses do not correlate well with improvements in survival.

[Mandamoo]

I am not sure of the specifics of the testing that I have had done (I have donated tissue for research purposes) and I am awaiting the full reports but I have preliminary reports on the initial breast tumour and axillary node tissue - the key findings so far are that the cancer was/is resistant to anthracyclines and taxotere - of course two very commonly used first line and adjuvant treatments - no surprise that I metastasised. The other key finding is that I have (if that is the correct terminology) the p53 oncogene?

I asked my oncologist if the information is helpful and she said definitely and she wishes she had it earlier and we wouldn't have wasted time on treatment that was useless. The frustration will be regulations too. I am awaiting Tykerb approval (In Australia the government funds it but you need to qualify and to qualify I have to have had 3 taxotere treatments) - it has been approved after much lobbying from my oncologist who simply refused to give me a third dose just to tick a box and now with evidence that the cancer was indeed resistant to it.

I didn't get any lung tissue from the biopsy - well - lung tissue but not neoplastic tissue - i.e. they missed. I may try again after my next scans.
This is a very interesting area.
Amanda

[Rich66]

Greg,
Any idea what Amanda's (above) actual tests were? From earlier:
I live in Australia and currently have tumor tissue from my initial surgery being tested. It is being tested by a government laboratory and the testing is in R&D phase - I understand that initial testing is chemosentivity of which we have preliminary results after a few months. The additional testing is various types of assays?


Also "massive release of cells into the circulation" thought to happen during surgery..kindofa drawback of going after samples sometimes. Just sayin'.

[gdpawel]

Rich

Based on the little amount of information given, it doesn't seem like chemosensitivity testing. In order to do drug sensitivity testing, you need to actually measure drugs against any tumor specimen. Genetic testing never measures drugs against your actual cancer cells. It is "theoretical" analysis. Receiving results of that theoretical analysis a few months later tells me it is genetic testing. Drug sensitivity tests are usually given within a week.

If Amanda's understanding of "cores" is correct, an core biopsy (tru-cut) takes a sample of tissue with preservation of the histological architecture of the tissue cells. It takes an entire lump or suspicious area and removes it. They do use this "minimum" amount of biopsy to do drug sensitivity testing. If it is kept "fresh" live for analysis, it could be used for drug sensitivity testing. But after a few days, they are "dead" cells, which is what genetic testing does.

Donating tissue for research purposes is cell-lines (what I described previously). They immortalize the tumor cells. But this is not chemosensitivity testing.

If the key findings so far are that the cancer was/is "resistant" to anthracyclines and taxotere, it seems like a "cell-growth" assay. The old "cell-growth" assay is excellent at identifying drugs most likely "not" to work. They assay is not as good at identifying drugs which are "more likely" to work or to identify the disease-specific activity patterns of targeted drugs (like Tykerb). The results of this type of testing are to be used only for the purpose of drug "de-selection" and not for drug "selection."

"In Australia, the government funds it but you need to qualify and to qualify, I have to have had 3 taxotere treatments." Sounds more like a clinical trial. Simon says you can't do this or that unless Simon Says. So no. I still have no idea what Amanda's actual tests were.

As for "massive release of cells into the circulation" thought to happen during surgery, if the chemotherapy given was effective (sensitive to the cancer cells), it would have taken care of these cells. Don't forget, the Pachmann, et al research, quantifying circulating tumor cells, found that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel (Taxol) causes a massive release of cells into the circulation, while at the same time reducing the size of the tumor, explaining the fact that complete pathologic responses (tumor shrinkage) do not correlate well with improvements in survival.

Greg

[Emelie B]

Greg,
I sent the information that you have been so kindly providing Sarah and asked if we could consider chemo sensitivity testing and this is his response, "ASCO, the group that supervises breast cancer care in the US and world has looked at these chemosensitivity studies. Their recommendation is that they don’t work and per their April 2011 Guideline Update, they specifically recommend not running them. We can talk and still try to run it on a fresh biopsy if you want, and if your insurance co agrees to pay for the test. "
I read the 2011 Guidelines and it stated there have not been enough studies conducted to consider these viable tests.
I hope things change soon so we don't have to continue with the shotgun method of choosing a treatment.
Thank you for all you do to provide us with valuable information.
Emelie

[gdpawel]

Emelie

Thanks for bringing this up. It needs to be pointed out why ASCO had done this. Some have told me, "I never heard that ASCO had been knighted a regulatory agency."

What is it that ASCO was saying? Chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays (CSRAs) should not be used outside the confines of a clinical trial setting. The same people who maintain that assay-directed therapy should not be used until proven in prospective randomized clinical trials, are the same people whose entire careers are dependent upon mega-trials 100% funded by pharmaceutical companies (that, plus fees from speeches they give for these coompanies), are the same people who control the clinical trials system, the grant review study sections, and the journal editorial boards. Why else would they want this technology tested under the clinical trial setting?

I go into detail here: http://cancerfocus.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3442

Again, thanks for bringing this up. They whole story needs to be told. I agree with you about hoping things change soon so that patients don't have to continue with the shotgun method of choosing a treatment.

Greg

[Mandamoo]

Ok - I have more information on the type of testing that has been done on my tissue for your information. It is not chemosensitivity testing as far as I understand it.

I don't understand what this means so I will type directly from the report:
Ion Toerren AmpliSeq Analysis of DNA on Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded Tissue.
Methodology:
Ion Torrent AmpliSeq (then there a whole lot of other jargin) and Ion Torren TargetSeq (more stuff I don't understand :-) )

The results were:
Somatic Mutations detected:
Gene - TP53
Accession Number X16416
Cosmic ID 10662[1]
cds Mutation Syntax c.743G>A
aa Mutation Syntax p.R248Q
Hg19 Coordinates 17:7577538-7577538
Effect Missense, non-functional
Therapeutics - this mutation confers resistance to doxorubicin and taxanes, in vitro testing shows sensitivity to PRIM-1 but there is no in vivo sensitivity and no induced reactivation with PRIMA-1. pCR was not demonstrated with neoadjucant anthracycline + cyclophosphamide followed by taxane in IDE.

Comments:
a TP53 somatic mutation was identified by both methodologies with a frequency of approximately 28% in the primary tumour and 54% in the lumpy node metastasis. This mutation introduced both contact and structural changes in the L2 and L3 loop and enhances in vitro invasiveness of human lung cancer cells. This mutation has been reported in 874 tumours and 19 families with LiFraumeni syndrome. TP53 mutations have been reported in 23% of breast cancers with this mutation reported 0.69%. An extensive literature search shows low level evidence for resistance to antrhracycline/cyclophospahmide and paclitaxel with increased activity of multiple drug resistance gene product, P=glycoprotein. Preclinical evidence shows the R248Q mutation is not responsive to an experimental drug PRIMA-1 in vivo. Preclinical evidence indicates the possibility of cyclotherapy, combining p53 activators and mitotic inhibitor but these are not available for patient treatment.

The lower limit of detection is estimated to be -5% and this is dependent on the proportion of tumour present in the sample.

Exome sequencing is being performed and additional report will be issued.
This testing methodology is for research use only and is not NATA accredited.

My take on this - correct me please is that this is not chemosensitivity testing but DNA analysis which has determined that the cancer in me has a particular genetic mutation which has previously been shown to be resistant to anthracylcines and taxanes and that currently there are no other suggested effective alternatives (though there are many other cytotoxics to try that are not mentioned).
We hope to redo the lung biopsy and get live tissue for further testing of the metastasis.
Interested in your comments on this type of testing.
Amanda

[gdpawel]

Amanda

It's what I most suspected, "theoretical" analysis. All DNA or RNA-type tests are based on "population" research (not individuals). They base their predictions on the fact that a higher percentage of people with similar genetic profiles or specific mutations may "tend" to respond better to certain drugs. This is not really "personalized" medicine, but a refinement of statistical data. If you are okay with that, go for it!

Best wishes!

Greg

[Mandamoo]

I guess I see it as anOther piece of the puzzle. Maybe if can get some live tissue we could do some chemosensitivity testing.

[sarah]

Greg, you state: "
The only problem I see is that these assays are labor intensive, non-proprietary (public domain) and there is absolutely no support from either private sector investors or clinical trialists (who receive generous support from pharmaceutical sponsors but who can be given absolutely no support from the particular laboratory). This has always been the problem. It's an orphan technology."
Well that's the crux of the problem, can't make money off it, why do it. If all the fundraisers for different cancers (such as Komen, etc) could be persuaded to fund such a trial, that would be great.
How could we go about it? Still it does have benefit to the insurance companies so they should be for it also.
Sarah

[gdpawel]

Amanda

The measurement of molecular profiling (called genotyping analysis) is gene expression, examining a single process (pathway) within the cell or a relatively small number of processes (pathways) to test for "theoretical" candidates for targeted therapy.

The measurement of functional profiling (called phenotyping analysis) is expression of cell-death, both tumor cell death and tumor associated endothelial (capillary) cell-death (tumor and vascular death), and examines not only for the presence of the molecular profile but also for their functionality, for their interaction with other genes, proteins and other processes occuring within the cell, and for their "actual" response to anti-cancer drugs (not theoretical susceptibility).

Phenotype (functional profiling) analyses, which measure biological signals rather than DNA indicators, provides clinically validated information and plays an important role in cancer drug selection. A more highly productive direction would be to investigate the targeting agents in each individual patient's tissue culture, alone and in combination with other drugs, to guage the likelihood that the targeting will favorably influence each patient's outcome.

Sarah

I sincerely believe you're correct in saying this. Since the late 1980's, the NCI, aided by study sections, effectively closed down research into fresh human tumor cell culture methods for testing and optimizing chemotherapy. The proof of this is the complete lack of NIH-funded studies relating to this topic appearing in PubMed for the last twenty years. Thanks for private researchers in keeping it alive.

As one clinician has put it, we have put all of our clinical trials resources into trying to identify the best treatment for the "average" patient, in a disease notorious for heterogeneity. Drug screening (including therapy screening) belongs in the laboratory, not in the clinic.

In the last few years, there is a belated recognition that "personalized" therapy is a worthy goal, yet 100% of the effort is going into static profiling of molecular markers, as opposed to dynamic, functional profiling of tumor response ex vivo. Clinicians are now being forced into looking at "combined" targeted therapy ("FDA to alter rules for cancer drug cocktails").

How in the world are they going to accomplish this with "static" profiling? Examining a patient's DNA can give physician's a lot of information, but as the NCI has concluded (J Natl Cancer Inst. March 16, 2010), it cannot determine treatment plans for patients. It cannot test sensitivity to any of the targeted therapies. They just test for theoretical candidates for targeted therapy.

[sarah]

So Greg, any way to get them to restart the program? and does it really cost about $6000 per patient to do a test?
It would seem that it would still be worth it to health insurers and countries with universal health systems to offer this.
well sometime it will happen
sarah

[gdpawel]

Sarah

Every test does not cost about $6,000 per patient. The cost varies anywhere from $2,500 to even $6,000, depending on the amount of drugs being tested. It is the cost of the drugs that are the real expense in doing this testing. But the cost pales in comparison to ineffective trial-and-error treatment.

The "standard" of care is to give the drug(s) with the least resistance and/or the drug(s) with the most sensitivity. By having additional support of drug patient-specific activity, as determined by extensive laboratory pre-tests to improve patient outcomes, could very well bolster a doctor's argument for using some these drugs (even if it would show some less expensive drugs).

It does amaze me not only that some private insurance carriers do not like to pay for these tests but that they don't emphatically mandate it as a requirement for obtaining chemotherapy reimbursement against ill-directed treatments. Even the "profit" motive of private insurers is entirely consistent with the goal of the tests, which is to identify efficacious therapies.

It really annoys me that the validation standard that private insurance companies are accepting from molecular (genetic) profiling tests is accuracy and not efficacy. No longer is it essential to prove that the use of a diagnostic test improves clinical outcomes, all they have to do for these molecular profiling tests is prove that the test has a useful degree of accuracy. Accuracy is the exact same standard functional profiling is judged on (no different). They have the same entitlement to be judged by the same validation standard. It must be noted that all types of diagnostic tests in cancer medicine are just that, "tests" and not treatment.

In the first head-to-head clinical trial comparing molecular profiling with functional profiling, functional profiling was found to be substantially more accurate (Arienti et al. Journal of Translational Medicine 2011, 9:94 doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-94). It is hoped that some form of clinical trial like this would happen here in the US this year. Perhaps a good three-armed clinical trial: physician's choice vs molecular profiling vs functional profiling?

Greg

[sarah]

Greg, I think it would be great.
Could you succinctly write the importance of doing this? Then I could translate that into French and give it to the doctors at the Hospital here and a friend of mine who writes articles for the French equivalent of ASCO so maybe we could get more interest.
Think about.
I go to a meeting at the hospital the first Wednesday of every month. Next Wednesday is a meeting but it could be another month.
Sarah

[gdpawel]

An email is on its way to you.

Thanks Sarah!

Greg

[sarah]

Many thanks Greg.
Sarah