HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > Breast Cancer Newsfeed
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-18-2011, 06:07 AM   #1
News
Senior Member
 
News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18,946
Precision Therapeutics Announces New Study On Multi-Gene Predictors At 2010 San Anton

In a new study in which Precision Therapeutics' Multi-Gene Predictors (MGPs) were independently validated by investigators at US Oncology and MD Anderson, Precision highlights the potential role of the ChemoFx® in vitro chemosensitivity test and multi-gene predictors in determining a patient's likelihood of response to multi-drug chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer...

More...
News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 10:04 PM   #2
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS)

As Dr. Robert Nagourney, medical and laboratory director at Rational Therapeutics, and instructor of Pharmacology at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine describes it, recent press coverage from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) touched upon the development of multi-gene predictors for clinical response in breast cancer.

One report from that meeting described correlations between a laboratory assay model in use at the University of Pittsburgh and microarray analyses. However, the suggestion that this laboratory technique - described by its proponents as a chemosensitivity assay - could accurately identify gene profiles that would predict response seems at odds with the current literature.

Although the press coverage concluded that this technique showed “promising performance” it was largely exploratory and defined by the authors as a “validation study.”

What is interesting is that a team of highly reputable investigators from M.D. Anderson recently reported a very negative study using a similar approach of identifying target genes in cell lines and then correlating them with patient outcomes.

In the paper, published in the June 2010 issue of Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (Liedtke, C. et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jun; 121(2):301-9) the authors reported “cell line derived predictors of response to four commonly used chemotherapy drugs did not predict response accurately in patients.”

Indeed, differential gene expression seemed only to correlate with paclitaxel. The authors found that false discovery rates were high for all other drugs tested. Thus, the report from the SABCS will need to be carefully examined to determine whether truly relevant clinically predictive information can be provided by this particular laboratory platform.

Modern cancer research can be divided into three principal disciplines based upon methodology:

1. Genomic - the analysis of DNA sequences, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), amplifications and mutations to develop prognostic and, to a limited degree, predictive information on cancer patient outcome.

2. Proteomic - the study of proteins, largely at the level of phosphoprotein expressions.

3. Functional - the study of human tumor explants isolated from patients to examine the effects of growth factor withdrawal, signal transduction inhibition and cytotoxic insult on cancer cell viability.

Contrary to analyte-based genomic and proteomic methodologies that yield static measures of gene or protein expression, functional profiling provides a window on the complexity of cellular biology in real-time, gauging tumor cell response to chemotherapies in a laboratory platform.

By examining drug induced cell death, functional analyses measure the cumulative result of all of a cell's mechanisms of resistance and response acting in concert. Thus, functional profiling most closely approximates the cancer phenotype.

Insights gained can determine which drugs, signal transduction inhibitors, or growth factor inhibitors induce programmed cell death in individual patients' tumors. Functional profiling is the most clinically validated technique available today to predict patient response to drugs and targeted agents.

Epigentics may have important implications for the treatment of cancer. The cell-based functional profiling platform has the capacity to measure genetic and epigenetic events as a functional, real-time adjunct to static genomic and proteomic platforms.

By examining small clusters of cancer cells (microspheroids or microclusters) in their native state, it can provide a snapshot of the response of tumor cells to drugs, combinations and targeted therapies.

The proteomic platform does not clarify how the response to targeted drugs compares with that to chemotherapy, combinations, or other targeted therapies. There is a challenge to identify which patients the targeted treatment will be effective.

The analysis is unique in that each microspheroid examined contains all the complex elements of tumor biosystems found in the human body and have a major impact on clinical response. Cell function analysis is a conduit that connects novel drugs to clinicians and patients in need.

There are any number of variables that affect drugs, including the rate of excretion of the drugs by the kidneys and liver, protein binding and a myriad of other biological factors. In the body, these cells interact with and are supported by other living cells, both malignant and non-malignant cells. That is why cell-death functional profiling assays study cancer cells in microspheroids or microclusters.

Three-dimensional (3D) tissue culture methods have an invaluable role in tumor biology and provides very important insights into cancer biology. As well as increasing our understanding of homeostasis, cellular differentiation and tissue organization, they provide a well defined environment for cancer research in contrast to the complex host environment of an in vivo model.

Due to their enormous potential, 3D tumor cultures are currently being exploited by many branches of biomedical science with therapeutically orientated studies becoming the major focus of research. Recent advances in 3D culture and tissue engineering techniques have enabled the development of more complex heterologous 3D tumor models.

Clinical application of functional profiling in advanced NSCLC and colorectal cancers ASCO Meeting Abstracts 26: 13547 R. A. Nagourney, J. Blitzer, D. McConnell, R. Shuman, S. Grant, K. Azaren, I. Shbeeb, T. Ascuito, B. Sommers, and M. Paulsen

Functional profiling in stage IV colorectal cancer: A phase II trial of individualized therapy ASCO Meeting Abstracts 27: e15124. J. B. Blitzer, I. Shbeeb, A. Neoman, K. Azaren, M. Paulsen, S. Evans, and R. Nagourney

Functional profiling in stage IV NSCLC: A phase II trial of individualized therapy ASCO Meeting Abstracts 27: e19079. R. A. Nagourney, J. Blitzer, E. Deo, R. Nandan, R. Schuman, T. Asciuto, D. Mc Connell, M. Paulsen, and S. Evans
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 04:03 PM   #3
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Is Precision Therapeutics abandoning ChemoFx?

Precision had announced a new product line called BioSpeciFx to idenify molecular targets within a patient's cell. They use the information generated by BioSpeciFx in combination with ChemoFx to look at both molecular targets as well as the synergistic activity of drug combinations on the entire cell.

BioSpeciFx provides proteomic and genomic information, while ChemoFx takes into account all of the functional characteristics of a tumor. BioSpeciFx cannot work without ChemoFx working. ChemoFx is the backbone.

ChemoFx is a very old technology "cell-growth" assay, not used in cell-based, cell-death private labs in over twenty years. This is the kind of technology ASCO referred to in their infamous 2004 & 2011 tech assessment on CSRAs.

Precision Therapeutics is in no way abandoning ChemoFx, but looking at BioSpeciFx as a complement to the assay.

They run ChemoFx on a population of tumors, say in breast cancer. They identify the responsive, intermediately responsive, and nonresponsive patients. Then take the molecular markers and find out what these patients have in common with respect to 150 different genes.

Then they work on eliminating the genes that are irrelevant. What they get is a multi-gene predictor. It can't work without ChemoFx working. The BioSpeciFx for breast cancer is accurate 85% of the time according to MD Anderson and US Oncology. Each drug will have it's own signature, but it couldn't happen if ChemoFx wasn't accurate. ChemoFx is the backbone of BioSpeciFx.

The thing that is unique about BioSpeciFx, is that the oncologist can pick and choose which markers he wants to see. An ala carte selection if you will. According to Precision Therapeutics, Caris' Target Now does not do this. In fact, they are running 100-120 different markers, and charging for each one, with relatively no clinical relevancy to justify this.
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter