From Promise to Disaster - Part III

In recent posts, I discussed a NYTimes article about research techniques used and marketed before prime time. If patients can receive treatment from of team of professionals at a major university in a clinical trial that turns out to be based on wrong information, what's a survivor to do?

While my writing  usually focus on things that are going right in modern medicine, I don't shy away from problems that need fixing. My primary purpose when talking about a weakness, injustice or problem is to help us talk about what patients can do to be Healthy Survivors under the circumstances.

The case in question is a tough one. For me, anytime a company -- as opposed to a well-respected research institution -- is selling a new technology that is not used routinely, a red flag goes up.

But to be honest, I'm not sure that before reading this article I would have considered questioning researchers about a test they were using to determine if a novel treatment might be effective. I was treated in Phase I and II trials; I remember being focused on the cancer and its treatment (and not the tests used).

Does it take too long for problems to come to light? Yes. Do unsavory forces -- companies and individuals motivated by the promise of financial gain -- affect medical progress? Yes. 

As a Healthy Survivor, I take comfort in the self-correcting methods of science. I support organizations and feel grateful for all the individuals that foster transparency and quality work.

Comments

[Greg Pawelski]

The building blocks of human biology are carefully construed into the complexities that we recognize as human beings. However appealing genomic signatures may appear to those engaged in this field, it will be years, perhaps decades, before these profiles can approximate the vagaries of human cancer. Cancer cells utilize cross talk and redundancy to circumvent therapies. They back up, zig-zag and move in reverse, regardless of what the sign posts say.

The whole concept of using genomic signatures of any kind to do anything beyond the most straightforward of cases is so flawed. Cancer dynamics are not linear. Cancer biology does not conform to the dictates of molecular biologists. We are forced to confront the realization that genotype does not equal phenotype.

[Jan Hasak]

Great post on not just accepting blindly these genetic tests. Often patients don't realize that genomics can be flawed and subject to bias.
Thanks so much.