Personalized Medicine: Better, More Efficient and Safer
Tailored cancer therapies known as precision medicine treatments have been the buzz among oncologists for some years now. Still, skeptics of this approach, also called personalized medicine, have pointed to a lack of scientific evidence to prove that a personalized/precision cancer therapy approach improves patient health.
After reviewing 570 phase II single-agent studies that included more than 32,000 patients,
University of California, San Diego School of Medicine researchers concluded that across different cancers the use of personalized/precision medicine is in fact associated with significantly better outcomes compared to a non-personalized prescription.
“Overall, a biomarker-based strategy led to improvement in response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival in people with cancer,” said Maria Schwaederlé, PharmD, lead author and researchers at the
Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy at
Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health. “Precision medicine led to a 31 percent response rate, which is much higher than a traditional medical strategy.”
“Personalized or precision medicine builds upon multiple components that include genomics, clinical trials, immunotherapy and understanding hereditary abnormalities that may influence a person’s predisposition to cancer or a response to a specific treatment,” said
Razelle Kurzrock, MD, director of the Center for Personalized Therapy and Clinical Trials Office at Moores Cancer Center and senior author of the paper. “We should look at everything about the patient — history, age, previous therapies, pathology results and tumor genomics and the immune system to find the best therapy for that individual.”
In the paper, the researchers found that precision medicine appeared to prolong time to progression by a median of 5.9 months versus 2.7 months without it. It also had higher survival rates of 13.7 months versus 8.9 months with the standard approach. In addition, personalized medicine had a lower treatment-related death rate of 1.5 percent compared to 2.3 percent for non-personalized care.
“The other finding that surprised us was that targeted drugs in and of themselves are quite useless,” said Kurzrock. “This is contrary to general opinion which seems to believe that targeted drugs are great no matter how you apply them. What we found is that targeted drugs have a response rate of only 4 percent if not used in conjunction with precision medicine to match the treatments to patients. Even chemotherapy has a better response rate of 11 percent. In other words, the key to the success of most targeted drugs is using a genomic approach to give the drug to the right patient, and that is at the heart of personalized/precision medicine. Giving targeted drugs to patients who are not selected properly rarely works well.”
Schwaederlé said the data may lead to more clinical trials that will use a personalized approach up front for select cancers. This can be beneficial for patients and for clinical development of new therapies that will target biomarkers early on.