Abstract
Ideas about precision medicine found its way into cancer research around the turn of the twentieth century and resulted in the imaginary of precision oncology. This chapter presents the emergence of the imaginary as well as its historical background. It furthermore argues that the imaginary is not well suited to take full biological complexity into account. This gives rise to conceptual limitations as well as practical risks as ambitions of precision are translated into practice.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Worldwide, cancer is a major cause of health impairment and premature death.Footnote 1 With the rise in life expectancy across the globe, cancer incidence and mortality rates are estimated to increase substantially in the decades to come (Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration et al. 2018; GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators 2018). Efforts aimed at improving clinical management of cancer are extensive (Eckhouse et al. 2008; van de Loo et al. 2012). At the heart of this exertion translational cancer research (Cambrosio et al. 2006) and the imaginaries of precision medicine and precision oncology are taking shape and gaining traction (Hamburg and Collins 2010; National Research Council (US) 2011; Mirnezami et al. 2012; Collins and Varmus 2015; Celis and Heitor 2019).
Precision oncology adheres to the prevailing conceptual understanding of what cancer is: a clonal disease, caused by acquisition and accumulation of genetic alterations in cells, ultimately resulting in disruption of normal cell function (Nowell 1976; Vogelstein and Kinzler 1993; Hanahan and Weinberg 2000; Garraway et al. 2013). On the premise that these molecular events are patient specific and at the core of the causality of cancer precision oncology proposes a change of cancer management along two dimensions: (i) from groups to individuals and (ii) from morphological to molecular classification. Through identification of causally contributing molecular mechanisms the goal is to enable precise disease categorisation, prediction, prevention, early detection and targeted treatment; providing the right treatment to the right patient at the right time (Mirnezami et al. 2012; Tsimberidou et al. 2014; Collins and Varmus 2015; Ashley 2016) (Fig. 1).
The integration of precision oncology related approaches in standard patient care is an ongoing process, resulting in shifts in diagnostic thresholds, formation of novel disease subcategories and adaptation of new treatment strategies (Jameson and Longo 2015). Currently, however, only a limited fraction of cancer patients is estimated to benefit from this line of approaches (Marquart et al. 2018). Based on the limited progress so far some investigators and clinicians have even challenged the validity, utility and sustainability of precision oncology all together (Prasad 2016; Prasad et al. 2016; Marquart et al. 2018). The tension between the current status of precision oncology and the optimism related to future benefits of this strategy is an important motivation for this work. In what follows is a brief outline of the emergence of precision medicine and precision oncology.
Precision Medicine – Tradition, Evidence, Reason and Ambition
The advancement towards increased precision in medicine and oncology can be seen as a continuation of the direction modern medicine has had since its conception (Le Fanu 2000). A recent analysis of ancient Hippocratic texts identified that inter-individual heterogeneity was recognised already 2500 years ago. This suggests that individually tailored treatment and medical care always has been a fundamental feature of applied medicine (Konstantinidou et al. 2017). It is, however, only throughout the last two centuries molecular mechanisms underlying this inter-individual heterogeneity have begun to be revealed. Technological progress has allowed a gradual increase in resolution in the exploration of both human physiology as well as pathology. Disease classification systems as well as clinical practices have evolved in close relationship with methodological advancements. This development is characterised by gradual shifts in dimensionality from the clinical and macro-anatomical organisation and understanding of human maladies to tissue centred approaches, followed by increasing attention on cells and subcellular components as the origin of pathology (Keating and Cambrosio 2001).
The concept of “molecular” disease was first put forward in 1949 by Pauling and colleagues in the Science paper “Sickle Cell Anemia, a Molecular Disease”. The authors hypothesised the genetic basis for the condition, and experimentally explored the aberrant protein product responsible for erythrocyte “sickling” (Pauling et al. 1949). In the decades that followed and up until the present genotype-phenotype relationships have been confirmed to account for a myriad of human traits and disease phenotypes (Buniello et al. 2019). The idea of precision medicine gradually emerged from this body of knowledge. It was, however, in relation to the planning and execution of the “Human Genome Project”, formally commenced in 1990, that the vision of precision medicine was truly articulated (Collins 1999). The Human Genome Project was a milestone in the development of the implicit idea of “precision medicine” into a recognizable sociotechnical imaginary: a shared vision, ambition and commitment, co-created and co- maintained by experts and policy makers (Jasanoff and Kim 2015; Tarkkala et al. 2019). The goal of the “Human Genome Project”, providing a complete sequence of the human genome, was ambitious and required considerable financial and intellectual investment. The legitimacy of this publicly funded venture was rationalised through postulations of significant scientific, medical, and societal advancements (National Research Council (US) 1988). Francis CollinsFootnote 2 put it like this: “Scientists wanted to map the human genetic terrain, knowing it would lead them to previously unimaginable insights, and from there to the common good. That good would include a new understanding of genetic contributions to human disease and the development of rational strategies for minimising or preventing disease phenotypes altogether” (Collins 1999).Footnote 3
Since 1999 the imaginary of precision medicine has matured and expanded beyond its initial scope to propose fundamental changes not only in how diseases are to be managed but also to be categorised and understood. In 2011 the National Research Council (US) released the report “Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease”. Here the authors commend the development of a new taxonomy of human diseases, predominantly based on intrinsic biology and causal molecular disease mechanisms rather than signs and symptoms (National Research Council (US) 2011). The term “precision medicine” has since then rapidly been integrated in the biomedical and biotechnological scientific literature (Fig. 2) as well as the political, regulatory and public discourse (Blasimme and Vayena 2016). The uptake has been substantially intensified by the launch of the “Precision Medicine Initiative” by Barack Obama in 2015, aimed at accelerating the translation of biomedical science to improved clinical outcomes (Collins and Varmus 2015).
Precision Oncology – Expectations and Realisations
Considered a genetic and molecular disease cancer served as an example of the hypothesised future significance of the Human genome project as well as the transition towards a molecular based disease taxonomy (National Research Council (US) 1988, 2011). Precision medicine in relation to cancer management has been characterised by a strong emphasis on inter-individual variability of genes, and is often referred to as genomics-driven cancer medicine (Garraway et al. 2013). Medical strategies related to precision oncology are profoundly tied to postulations of genetic causality in cancer development. The idea of a monoclonal origin of cancer suggest that the cellular mass of an individual tumour share molecular characteristics involved in pathogenesis. Observations of cellular dependency of mutated or aberrantly expressed gene-products for both initiation and maintenance of malignant phenotypes support this idea and led to the postulation and experimental verification of “oncogene addiction” (Weinstein 2002). This provided a strong rational for the possibility of classifying various cancers with respect to their molecular origin, as well as molecular targeted treatment strategies. The feasibility of this approach was confirmed in the early 2000s based on several unprecedented clinical success stories, including molecular targeted therapy in chronic myeloid leukaemia (Deininger et al. 2005), gastrointestinal stromal tumours (DeMatteo 2002) and a molecular defined sub-group of breast cancer (Slamon et al. 2001).
Identification of shared molecular “drivers” in cancer cells originating from discrete cell-types and diverse tissues led to the hypothesis that this approach may be scalable, perhaps even to all cancers and all cancer patients (Tsimberidou et al. 2014). Instead of managing cancers in accordance with their macro-and microanatomical origin treatment could be guided by genomic profiling (Garraway et al. 2013). Recently, therapeutic compounds based on molecular defined indications, rather than tissue or histology, such as pembrolizumab, were subject to regulatory approvalFootnote 4 (Lemery et al. 2017; Scott 2019). This development can be seen as a sizeable stride towards making such an approach become standard of care.
While tissue agnostic indications strongly enforce the implementation of molecular profiling of all cancer patients it has been challenging to demonstrate that broad genetic testing followed by rationally selected therapeutic compounds generally lead to superior outcomes compared to current evidence-based practices (Le Tourneau et al. 2015; Stockley et al. 2016; Massard et al. 2017; Rodon et al. 2019; Rothwell et al. 2019). Experience from multiple trials as well as general estimates suggest that currently only a small percentage of cancer patients with advanced stage disease are eligible and will benefit from genome-informed therapy. Furthermore, the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be attributed to biomarker matched interventions is sobering. So far, it is a matter of additional months of life (Marquart et al. 2018; Sicklick et al. 2019), rather than years or decades, as has been achieved in chronic myeloid leukaemia, gastrointestinal stromal tumours and some patients with breast cancer (Slamon et al. 2001; DeMatteo 2002; Deininger et al. 2005).
The limited benefit of precision oncology may in part be accounted for by lack of knowledge as well as restrictions in technology, availability of therapeutic compounds and investigation in suboptimal study populations. Discovery of novel targets, development of better technological solutions, increased availability of therapeutic compounds, improved clinical infrastructure, and therapeutic repositioning to earlier disease stages may all contribute to further progress of this approach. However, more than 20 years have passed since precision oncology related approaches were first projected to result in substantial benefit (Collins 1999). It seems timely to re-explore the theoretical foundations as well as the issues at stakes and matters of concern of precision oncology, as this volume endeavours to do.
Precision Medicine and the Complexity of Biological Systems
The central dogma in molecular biology is the unidirectional flow of information from genes to proteins; the “genotype-phenotype relationship” (Crick 1958). This bottom-up model has dominated the experimental work of biomedicine as well as the interpretation of observational data. While nobody in their right mind might reject the value and validity of the fundamentals of molecular biology, it is becoming clear that a view on cancer as a simple “genotype-phenotype relationship” in linear unidirectional terms is far too simplistic (Bertolaso 2016). I have argued elsewhere that metazoan cell identity, cell state and cell fate are determined by numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Engen 2020). For any given cell the selection of potential cell identities and cell states is intrinsically defined by the cell’s genetic material, the DNA. Through quantitative or qualitative alterations of complex gene-interactions a somatic mutation can reshape the trajectories of cell fate. Through emergence of new molecular features mutations in the regulatory part of the DNA or mutated gene products can open up unconventional transcriptional states resulting in novel cellular properties. Cell identity and cell state is further strongly influenced by the line of descent of the cell, defining its epigenetic configuration and confining its potential differentiation paths. Fundamentally, metazoan cells are, however, neither self-sufficient nor self-governing. Metazoan cells are collective in nature, and every new cell develops into being profoundly embedded in context. Networks of cells co-produce and co-maintain tissue and organ integrity, and collectively perform plastic transformations in response to perturbations. Through interactions like physical contact, autocrine, paracrine and endocrine signals, the collective of cells co-operate through continuously modifying their individual epigenomes and transcriptomes, in response to their surroundings (Bertolaso and Dieli 2017). Under these premises, cancer, although frequently described as a “genetic” disease, more fundamentally is a manifestation of aberrant cell behaviour. Although mutations can change the boundary conditions for a cell’s repertoire of potential phenotypic expression the effect of a mutation on a cell is profoundly relational. As a cell or a line of descending cells phenotypically diversify by expressing non-canonical transcriptional states it is in part the conditions of the environment that defines if the change is beneficial or deleterious. The emergence of novel cellular properties can accordingly never be fully understood or accounted for at the cellular or sub-cellular level. The gene-environment provides a dynamic and relational substrate where the meaning of the gene variant is defined. As neoplastic properties emerge by force of gene-gene-environment alterations the most relevant question may not be how mutations arise and translate to change but how the gene gene-environment relationship restrict the potential translational effect of novel gene-variants. Indeed, the nature of the “phenotype – emergent genotype relation” appears as a highly promising field to explore in cancer. Genotype emergence can under these premises be predictive of disease trajectories through association rather than through causation. The question is what concept of precision medicine one may retain if it is increasingly understood that the disease is a result of stochastic and emergent properties rather than deterministic linear causation.
The Imaginary of Precision Medicine and Unintended Consequences
There is no sharp demarcation between precision and non-precision related medical approaches. Rather, precision oncology is in many regards a continuation of the reductionist biomedical traditions that emerged in the nineteenth century and came to dominate in the twentieth century. As such, precision medicine is not best understood as evolution of practices, but rather as an expansion from medical practice to a techno-scientific imaginary. Although precision medicine has been presented as a societal endeavour, it is not the destination but rather a technical solution to a political oriented objective: namely to improve public health (Fig. 3). Precision oncology is as such a means to this end and not a goal in and of itself. The question is therefore not if precision oncology is feasible, but if it is “feasible enough”, as to be both desirable, viable and sustainable within certain frames. This is a combined scientific, medical, political, economic and ethical question. As a medical, political, economic, and societal aim the intended and unintended consequences related to precision medicine far exceed the sum of measurable effects of single medical interventions. The hope, vision and objective of precision medicine shape research objectives, policy agendas (Horgan et al. 2015), legal and regulatory frameworks, health care delivery systems and public expectations across the world (Tarkkala et al. 2019).
A well cited review paper on acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), a severe cancer disease of the blood, summarised the molecular knowledge base with regards to AML pathophysiology and concluded: “Hopefully, this new biological information will contribute to less empirical approaches to treatment” (Ferrara and Schiffer 2013). This statement embodies what seems to be the prevailing mindset of the field. Precision medicine promotes a substantial change in the foundation of clinical decision making, characterised by increased reliance on bio-plausibility and de-evaluation of evidence. This is reflected in oncological practice. Stakeholders of precision oncology advocate increased pace in the translation and implementation of novel “promising” agents. This has resulted in deregulation and reduced evidence requirements for marked authorisation of novel drugs, including increased reliance on single arm studies as well as poorly validated surrogate endpoints (Chen et al. 2019; Gyawali et al. 2019; Hilal et al. 2019; Zettler et al. 2019). Based on a systematic evaluation of cancerdrugs approved by the European Medicines Agency in the period 2009–2013, Davies et al. demonstrate that the majority of novel oncological agents were approved with no clear evidence of clinical benefit and that evidence of clinically meaningful utility remained unfounded a minimum of 3 years after approval. Quantifiable benefits were marginal, and the estimated median life expansion provided when documented was only 2.7 months (Range:1–5.8 months) (Davis et al. 2017). Early marked-approval is further dis-incentivising for execution of confirmatory well powered randomised studies, resulting in absent quantification of comparative effectiveness. Lack of high-level evidence further affect the possibility and validity of cost-benefit analysis (DeLoughery and Prasad 2018). Low-grade evidence paradoxically increase uncertainty in clinical decision making (Moscow et al. 2018). Despite the failing empirical foundation (Djulbegovic and Ioannidis 2019) uptake of low-grade evidence in clinical care is substantial. There is an increase in use of off-label targeted therapy (Saiyed et al. 2017), despite evidence suggesting inefficiency (Le Tourneau et al. 2015). Some countries and health care delivery systems even have aliquoted funds for such practises, like the National Health Service (NHS, UK) Cancer Drug Funds. A recent analysis of the use of such solutions suggest no meaningful societal or patient value gain (Aggarwal et al. 2017).
These sobering results suggest that there is an increasing distance between the expectations and realisations of precision oncology. Repercussions of this friction are currently materialising across a wide range of medical as well as social domains (Fojo et al. 2014; Bowen and Casadevall 2015; MacLeod et al. 2016). The gradual implementation of low value precision oncology related strategies has contributed to a situation where the total financial burden of cancer treatment and cancer care is rapidly spiralling out of control (Aggarwal et al. 2014). This has resulted in significant financial toxicity for cancer patients (Knight et al. 2018). In settings characterised by resource constraint this has further generated restrictions in the priority setting, which ultimately result in reduced availability of novel therapeutic agents within the frames of both public healthcare systems as well as from insurance providers. With these agents being available in the free market an increasing discrepancy in access to care is materialising. Individual cancer patients no longer only fight their disease, they also battle public institutions or insurers for access to treatment (Aggarwal et al. 2014). Desperation, fear and increasing inequity may negatively influence phenomenological aspects of living and dying from cancer. Such experiences may further contribute in shaping public discourse, conceivably resulting in justified erosion of trust in scientific knowledge, medicine and policy makers. Cancer was always a medical phenomenon as well as an existential and cultural one. It is increasingly becoming political, financial and social, involving a myriad of actors, issues and concerns that literally are matters of life and death.
Notes
- 1.
Preliminary versions of parts of this chapter were included in the introduction chapter of the author’s PhD dissertation (Engen 2020).
- 2.
Francis Collins was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute from 1993 to 2008 and was the director of the National Institutes of Health, US, from 2009 until 2021.
- 3.
Quote from the 1999 Shattuck lecture, titled: “Medical and societal consequences of the human genome project”.
- 4.
In 2017 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided approval of a programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor (pembrolizumab) for patients with microsatellite-instability–high or mis-match-repair–deficient solid tumours. This was followed by the authorisation of a tropomyosin kinase receptor inhibitor (larotrectinib) for cancer patients with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) gene fusions regardless of anatomical origin.
References
Aggarwal, A., T. Fojo, C. Chamberlain, C. Davis, and R. Sullivan. 2017. Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society? Lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund. Annals of Oncology 28 (8): 1738–1750.
Aggarwal, A., O. Ginsburg, and T. Fojo. 2014. Cancer economics, policy and politics: What informs the debate? Perspectives from the EU, Canada and US. Journal of Cancer Policy 2 (1): 1–11.
Ashley, E.A. 2016. Towards precision medicine. Nature Reviews. Genetics 17 (9): 507–522.
Bertolaso, M. 2016. Philosophy of Cancer: A Dynamic and Relational View. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bertolaso, M., and A.M. Dieli. 2017. Cancer and intercellular cooperation. Royal Society Open Science 4 (10): 170470.
Blasimme, A., and E. Vayena. 2016. “Tailored-to-You”: Public engagement and the political legitimation of precision medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 59 (2): 172–188.
Bowen, A., and A. Casadevall. 2015. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (36): 11335–11340.
Buniello, A., J.A.L. MacArthur, M. Cerezo, L.W. Harris, J. Hayhurst, C. Malangone, A. McMahon, et al. 2019. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019. Nucleic Acids Research 47 (D1): D1005–D1012.
Cambrosio, A., P. Keating, S. Mercier, G. Lewison, and A. Mogoutov. 2006. Mapping the emergence and development of translational cancer research. European Journal of Cancer 42 (18): 3140–3148.
Celis, J.E., and M. Heitor. 2019. Towards a mission-oriented approach to cancer in Europe: An unmet need in cancer research policy. Molecular Oncology 13 (3): 502–510.
Chen, E.Y., V. Raghunathan, and V. Prasad. 2019. An overview of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the surrogate end point of response rate. JAMA Internal Medicine 179 (7): 915–921.
Collins, F.S. 1999. Shattuck lecture – Medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project. The New England Journal of Medicine 341 (1): 28–37.
Collins, F.S., and H. Varmus. 2015. A new initiative on precision medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 372 (9): 793–795.
Crick, F.H. 1958. On protein synthesis. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 12: 138–163.
Davis, C., H. Naci, E. Gurpinar, E. Poplavska, A. Pinto, and A. Aggarwal. 2017. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: Retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009–13. BMJ 359: j4530.
Deininger, M., E. Buchdunger, and B.J. Druker. 2005. The development of imatinib as a therapeutic agent for chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood 105 (7): 2640–2653.
DeLoughery, E.P., and V. Prasad. 2018. The US Food and Drug Administration’s use of regular approval for cancer drugs based on single-arm studies: Implications for subsequent evidence generation. Annals of Oncology 29 (3): 527–529.
DeMatteo, R.P. 2002. The GIST of targeted cancer therapy: A tumor (gastrointestinal stromal tumor), a mutated gene (c-kit), and a molecular inhibitor (STI571). Annals of Surgical Oncology 9 (9): 831–839.
Djulbegovic, B., and J.P.A. Ioannidis. 2019. Precision medicine for individual patients should use population group averages and larger, not smaller, groups. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 49 (1): e13031.
Eckhouse, S., G. Lewison, and R. Sullivan. 2008. Trends in the global funding and activity of cancer research. Molecular Oncology 2 (1): 20–32.
Engen, C.B. 2020. Exploring the Boundaries of Precision Haemato-Oncology – The Case of FLT3 Length Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukaemia. PhD dissertation. University of Bergen.
Ferrara, F., and C.A. Schiffer. 2013. Acute myeloid leukaemia in adults. Lancet 381 (9865): 484–495.
Fojo, T., S. Mailankody, and A. Lo. 2014. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics-the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: The John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngology. Head & Neck Surgery 140 (12): 1225–1236.
Garraway, L.A., J. Verweij, and K.V. Ballman. 2013. Precision oncology: An overview. Journal of Clinical Oncology 31 (15): 1803–1805.
Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, C. Fitzmaurice, T.F. Akinyemiju, F.H. Al Lami, T. Alam, R. Alizadeh-Navaei, C. Allen, et al. 2018. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2016: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncology 4 (11): 1553–1568.
GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators. 2018. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392 (10159): 1736–1788.
Gyawali, B., S.P. Hey, and A.S. Kesselheim. 2019. Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer drugs receiving accelerated approval. JAMA Internal Medicine 179 (7): 906–913.
Hamburg, M.A., and F.S. Collins. 2010. The path to personalized medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 363 (4): 301–304.
Hanahan, D., and R.A. Weinberg. 2000. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100 (1): 57–70.
Hilal, T., M.B. Sonbol, and V. Prasad. 2019. Analysis of control arm quality in randomized clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. JAMA Oncology 5 (6): 887–892.
Horgan, D., M. Lawler, and A. Brand. 2015. Getting personal: Accelerating personalised and precision medicine integration into clinical cancer research and care in clinical trials. Public Health Genomics 18 (6): 325–328.
Jameson, J.L., and D.L. Longo. 2015. Precision medicine – Personalized, problematic, and promising. The New England Journal of Medicine 372 (23): 2229–2234.
Jasanoff, S., and S.-H. Kim. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Keating, P., and A. Cambrosio. 2001. The new genetics and cancer: The contributions of clinical medicine in the era of biomedicine. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 56 (4): 321–352.
Knight, T.G., A.M. Deal, S.B. Dusetzina, H.B. Muss, S.K. Choi, J.T. Bensen, and G.R. Williams. 2018. Financial toxicity in adults with cancer: Adverse outcomes and noncompliance. Journal of Oncology Practice 14 (11): e665–e673. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00120.
Konstantinidou, M.K., M. Karaglani, M. Panagopoulou, A. Fiska, and E. Chatzaki. 2017. Are the origins of precision medicine found in the corpus hippocraticum? Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy 21 (6): 601–606.
Le Fanu, J. 2000. The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers.
Le Tourneau, C., J.P. Delord, A. Goncalves, C. Gavoille, C. Dubot, N. Isambert, M. Campone, et al. 2015. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): A multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. The Lancet Oncology 16 (13): 1324–1334.
Lemery, S., P. Keegan, and R. Pazdur. 2017. First FDA approval agnostic of cancer site – When a biomarker defines the indication. The New England Journal of Medicine 377 (15): 1409–1412.
MacLeod, T.E., A.H. Harris, and A. Mahal. 2016. Stated and revealed preferences for funding new high-cost cancer drugs: A critical review of the evidence from patients, the public and payers. Patient 9 (3): 201–222.
Marquart, J., E.Y. Chen, and V. Prasad. 2018. Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome-driven oncology. JAMA Oncology 4 (8): 1093–1098.
Massard, C., S. Michiels, C. Ferte, M.C. Le Deley, L. Lacroix, A. Hollebecque, L. Verlingue, et al. 2017. High-throughput genomics and clinical outcome in hard-to-treat advanced cancers: Results of the MOSCATO 01 trial. Cancer Discovery 7 (6): 586–595.
Mirnezami, R., J. Nicholson, and A. Darzi. 2012. Preparing for precision medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 366 (6): 489–491.
Moscow, J.A., T. Fojo, and R.L. Schilsky. 2018. The evidence framework for precision cancer medicine. Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 15 (3): 183–192.
National Research Council (US). 1988. Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome. Washington, DC.
National Research Council (US), Committee on A Framework for Developing a New Taxonomy of Disease. 2011. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nowell, P.C. 1976. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 194 (4260): 23–28.
Pauling, L., H.A. Itano, S.J. Singer, and Ibert C. Wells. 1949. Sickle cell anemia, a molecular disease. Science 110 (2865): 443–448.
Prasad, V. 2016. Perspective: The precision-oncology illusion. Nature 537 (7619): S63.
Prasad, V., T. Fojo, and M. Brada. 2016. Precision oncology: Origins, optimism, and potential. The Lancet Oncology 17 (2): e81–e86.
Rodon, J., J.C. Soria, R. Berger, W.H. Miller, E. Rubin, A. Kugel, A. Tsimberidou, et al. 2019. Genomic and transcriptomic profiling expands precision cancer medicine: The WINTHER trial. Nature Medicine 25 (5): 751–758.
Rothwell, D.G., M. Ayub, N. Cook, F. Thistlethwaite, L. Carter, E. Dean, N. Smith, et al. 2019. Utility of ctDNA to support patient selection for early phase clinical trials: The TARGET study. Nature Medicine 25 (5): 738–743.
Saiyed, M.M., P.S. Ong, and L. Chew. 2017. Off-label drug use in oncology: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 42 (3): 251–258.
Scott, L.J. 2019. Larotrectinib: First global approval. Drugs 79 (2): 201–206.
Sicklick, J.K., S. Kato, R. Okamura, M. Schwaederle, M.E. Hahn, C.B. Williams, P. De, et al. 2019. Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: The I-PREDICT study. Nature Medicine 25 (5): 744–750.
Slamon, D.J., B. Leyland-Jones, S. Shak, H. Fuchs, V. Paton, A. Bajamonde, T. Fleming, et al. 2001. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. The New England Journal of Medicine 344 (11): 783–792.
Stockley, T.L., A.M. Oza, H.K. Berman, N.B. Leighl, J.J. Knox, F.A. Shepherd, E.X. Chen, et al. 2016. Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: The Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial. Genome Medicine 8 (1): 109.
Tarkkala, H., I. Helén, and K. Snell. 2019. From health to wealth: The future of personalized medicine in the making. Futures 109: 142–152.
Tsimberidou, A.M., A.M. Eggermont, and R.L. Schilsky. 2014. Precision cancer medicine: The future is now, only better. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book 34: 61–69.
Van de Loo, J.W., D. Trzaska, K. Berkouk, M. Vidal, and R. Draghia-Akli. 2012. Emphasising the European Union’s Commitment to Cancer Research: A helicopter view of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. The Oncologist 17 (10): e26–e32.
Vogelstein, B., and K.W. Kinzler. 1993. The multistep nature of cancer. Trends in Genetics 9 (4): 138–141.
Weinstein, I.B. 2002. Cancer. Addiction to oncogenes – The Achilles heal of cancer. Science 297 (5578): 63–64.
Zettler, M., E. Basch, and C. Nabhan. 2019. Surrogate end points and patient-reported outcomes for novel oncology drugs approved between 2011 and 2017. JAMA Oncology. Published ahead of print, July 3, 2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Engen, C. (2022). Introduction to the Imaginary of Precision Oncology. In: Bremer, A., Strand, R. (eds) Precision Oncology and Cancer Biomarkers. Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92612-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92612-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92611-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92612-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)