Jul 29, 10 09:45PM
|
0 comments
Researchers have discovered an enzyme crucial to a type of DNA repair that also causes resistance to a class of cancer drugs most commonly used against ovarian cancer. Scientists from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Life Sciences Institute of Zhejiang University in China report the discovery of the enzyme and [...]
Comments
To add a comment to the original post, click here.
You must be signed in to post a comment.
Sign in nowOK, so what now? the research has found a possible target in the fight against ovarian cancer. Will anyone now use this information to actually devise a therapy? Seems as though all we ever hear about are the results of someone’s research, then nothing follows.
gh
Hi Gene,
I really do like a general atmosphere of skepticism when it comes to medical research; however, I think that you may have “thrown out the baby with the bathwater,” given your broad, sweeping generalization. You, like all of us, get frustrated with the “slow” pace of ovarian cancer drug development. I will grant you that. But, we would be remiss if we did not point point out a few basic facts. First, basic science by definition must come before drug development. In my opinion, we did not really begin to solve the cancer issue until 2000, when scientists completed the Humane Genome Project. Next, they will be working on the Human Epigenome. After that, scientists must turn to the inner working of the cell down to the molecular level. That’s a yeoman’s job to say the least.
As you well know, discoveries do not result for all basic science. In fact, if scientist are truly performing cutting-edge work, you should expect many dead ends. Without risk, there is no reward. Once a discovery is made, and assuming a therapeutic drug target is identified, you need biomarkers to determine who will benefit the most from the preclinical drug or compound. Next, you need to run clinical trials to identify those biomarkers and determine the safety and efficacy of the investigated drug. On average, a U.S. FDA-approved drug can take 7 years and $1 billion to develop. And, to add insult to injury, the U.S., for example, only spends 69 cents per person, per week, on all private and public cancer research. We spend more money on soda each week than we do on cancer research!
Needless to say, there are many reasons underlying the general frustration that you note in your comment. But, there is good work being done in the area of ovarian cancer. Yesterday, I posted an article entitled, Largest Study Matching Genomes To Potential Anticancer Treatments Releases Initial Results. This is a great example of cutting-edge research directly aimed at the identification of “personalized” ovarian cancer therapies based upon specific human genomes. This is clearly a case of working smarter, not harder. If you click on the “Novel Therapies” category located on the website homepage left sidebar, you will find many examples of basic science that turned into clinical investigation drugs.
Additional open issues with drug development include: (i) getting competing pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies to combine two or more drugs for clinical study, and (ii) making the general public more aware of the benefits associated with clinical study participation. The latter issue is big considering the following: 85% of the public has an interest in clinical trials, but only 9% of those individuals discuss the issue with their doctor, and out of those, only 3% actually participate. If you want to speed drug development, we need to significantly increase the number of clinical trial participants. This obstacle can be problematic with ovarian cancer due to the fact that in the U.S., there are only 176,000 women alive at any given time who are affected by ovarian cancer (i.e., either in treatment or remission). In contrast, there are over 100 ovarian cancer drugs in clinical development. If you do the math, you will find that there simply are not enough women to fill all of the open clinical trials.
A partial answer to the problem above is to pursue a course similar to that being taken by the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. We need to identify common genetic defects present in a large population of ovarian cancer patients, and conduct clinical trials to test drugs or preclinical compounds against those defects. This process seems to be efficient given the limited number of women available to participate in clinical trials.
Gene, I applaud your frustration, because without it, progress will not be made. However, on a global basis, we need to (i) increase cancer research spending, (ii) make the public better aware of clinical trial benefits, and (iii) design more drugs/compounds to use in those trials. In the U.S., Massachusetts General Hospital and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center are performing limited genetic testing on tumor biopsies, for the purpose of directing patients to potentially beneficial clinical trials based on the uniqueness of their particular type (or subtype) of cancer.
I hope this discussion restores, in part, your faith in current drug development. Best regards, Paul