The Cancer Drug Dark Ages Are Coming to an End

10/31/11Follow @xconomy

(Page 2 of 2)

well-defined patient populations, not the broad-brush, organ-based classifications of the past like “breast cancer,” which made everybody’s disease sound the same. As any biologist will tell you, cancer is nefarious in its complexity. But by homing in on biologically distinct malignancies, these drugs were able to offer excellent benefits to people who otherwise had been given a death sentence. And while all these drugs are expensive, I would argue these prices are more defensible than many cancer drugs for a couple reasons. One, these treatment offer major benefits to people without other options. And two, there are diagnostics that can help weed out most of the waste by ensuring the drugs go exclusively to people most likely to benefit.

The results are starting to change the way people in biotech and pharma think.

This week at the BIO Investor Forum in San Francisco, Alan Wahl of Abbott Laboratories said his company won’t advance a biotech drug in development anymore unless it has a diagnostic to push in parallel. “Companies that get personalized medicine will win” because they will have the data that can truly justify high prices when insurance companies start pushing back, said Rollie Carlson, the CEO of Austin, TX-based Asuragen, on the same panel. And later in the conference, Bryan Roberts of Venrock related a story about how one senior Genentech executive is so pumped about cancer drug development that he said it is getting to the point where scientists can basically move down a checklist, knocking out aberrant cancer pathways one-by-one.

There will be losers in the push toward more personalized cancer medicine. Cancer drugmakers (think Dendreon, and in some instances Genentech) are going to continue to have a hard time justifying high-priced medicines that have no real way of predicting who will respond, and who won’t. The diagnostic companies are going to have to fight tooth and nail for every dollar they get on reimbursement, because society still puts most of the value on drugs. Some patients are going to struggle with denial when they get the bad news that there’s a lifesaving new drug out there for their form of cancer, but they can’t have it because there’s something in their genes that says it won’t do them any good.

But there’s no other way to put it, the rules of the cancer drug development game are changing for the better. Companies who base their work on great science will have a shot at running leaner, meaner, shorter, and cheaper clinical trials that have a good chance at satisfying the FDA. It’s great news for insurers, who can now show their shareholders that when they pay six-figure sums for cancer drugs, they are no longer flushing two-thirds of the money down the toilet on patients who see no benefit.

This switch toward personalized cancer drugs won’t happen overnight, and FDA official Janet Woodcock recently said it will be a “long slog.” Personally, I loved hearing her say that. I love climbing mountains in my spare time, so I can appreciate that some of the very best things in life come at the end of a long slog. Personalized cancer medicines like the ones being approved today are worth every ounce of effort and every penny of investment, even if it takes a long time for us to see the summit.

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • http://www.diaceutics.com Mollie Roth

    I read with interest your piece today on the potential turning point that the approvals of Zelboraf and Xalkori represent to the future of PM. Certainly the first step that the FDA took in sorting out the means to regulate companion diagnostics by this very elegant turn of a phrase, that the biomarker in question was to be detected using an FDA approved test, is historic. It has made little sense to tell drug manufacturers that the tests were so integral and necessary to the safe and effective use of their targeted therapies that they had to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate their clinical utility and validity – but then allow other companies and labs to make LDTs unregulated and ready for use. This new language in the drug labels for these two drugs perhaps brings an end to this significant disincentive to the drug and test manufacturers.

    However, I write to take issue with a passing comment that you made early in your article because it is one that is made many times over, by many commentators, and in its repetition it does a disservice to the nascent industry. You said that “industry has for paid lip service to this idea for years” in no way acknowledging or alluding to a fact with which you must be intimately familiar – that it takes upwards of 10-15 years to fully research, design and gain approval for a drug. That Xalkori and Zelboraf both followed significantly shorter timelines is simply yet another testament to the power of PM. The human genome was only sequenced in 2000 with this concept of PM coming to light really only in the few years preceding and following – which means that we should see a wave of new targeted therapies seeking approval in the next few years. Certainly our work with these companies indicates that is the future.

    But I must vehemently disagree with you that the industry has given mere lip service to this new development paradigm. In contrast, they have been working diligently to understand how this change in R&D affects their entire process and how to shift a development timeline that has been in place and standardized for the last several decades. They are making great inroads to understand how to integrate this concept across their organizations where the greater majority of people have no experience with or understanding of how this area works. They have even now begun to better understand how the commercial concepts for PM are far broader than for stand alone therapies and how to truly use the test to unlock the value of the drug. I am sure of this because we have worked with, assisted and watched the top 10 major pharma and now many of the smaller pharma working diligently to integrate and bring this new paradigm to life and they are not helped by the repetition of such incorrect phrases as “they are paying lip service” to the also overused phrase that targeted therapies cannot be blockbuster drugs (Herceptin and Gleevec have both put that idea to rest).

    Hopefully the next few years will see a surge in approvals for targeted therapies across a range of therapeutic areas which will put these comments to rest permanently.

  • Sarah Condit

    People always wonder why we can’t cure cancer with all the millions of dollars people are donating. This gives a good explanation on why cancer can’t be cured right now.

    http://explainlikeakid.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-cancer-not-curable.html

  • Saumitra

    Thanks Luke. I believe there would be lot of research in the ‘Pharma graveyard’ looking for molecules which had low favorable response in treating patients who were enrolled in clinical trials. If they can still analyze the genome of patients who survived more than 2 years or so and tag it to the molecule under clinical trial, they still can have a brand new molecule ready for FDA submission. (Not sure if FDA has any regulations on Retrospective studies) I do understand it is much easier said than done, just wanted to share my two cents.

  • http://stocknewsnow.com Webmaster at SNNWire

    The money is a big issue as well as attending money conferences too. Here’s a site that has some collections with small cap biotech information with interviews with the CEOs. We attend as many of the major biotech conferences in the US and abroad. You might find some information not seen or heard elsewhere.

    http://stocknewsnow.com/?page_id=1339

  • Pingback: Are We at the End of a Long, Murky Slog in Cancer Treatment? « Popper and Co.

  • larry glen

    I’m on Medicare-do you think they will approve these outlandish prices? As usual, the treatment and research of cancer is “Clear as mud”!

  • Pingback: Biotech Is Raising More Cash, But Don’t Be Fooled: Startups are Hurting « EmpreenderSaúde

  • Pingback: Stanford’s Mike Snyder Starts Living the Personalized Medicine Story | Xconomy

  • Pingback: The Way With Personalized Medicine: Reporters’ Voice at the 8th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference,11/28-29, 2012, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA « Pharmaceutical Intelligence

  • Pingback: 2012: The Year When Genomic Medicine Started Paying Off | Xconomy

  • Pingback: Big Data Is BS in Healthcare. When Will It Become Real? | Xconomy

  • Pingback: Biotech Is Raising More Cash, But Don’t Be Fooled: Startups are Hurting - Empreender Saúde

  • Pingback: Tracking the Hype Cycle: What was Up, and Down, in Biotech This Year | Xconomy