Based on early evidence of fossilized bone tumors that were found in ancient Egyptian mummies, cancer is an ancient disease.1 The term “carcinoma” to refer to cancer was first used around 400 BC by Hippocrates.2 The understanding of cancer mechanisms began when John Bennett and Rudolf Virchow observed the abnormal accumulation of white blood cells in patients in 1845, which was one of the first cancers detected by microscopy.3 In contrast to the long history of the disease, diagnosis and treatment of cancer at a cellular or molecular level is a relatively new strategy. Although the field of oncology has developed and expanded dramatically, a single drug has not yet been discovered that can cure all patients, even those with similar cancer types. We now know that cancer is an extremely heterogeneous disease, which explains differences not only between cancer cells from different patients, but also between cancer cells within a single patient.4 Clearly, more effective strategies are critically needed to defeat the long-standing enemy known as cancer.
The concept and practice of precision medicine is a methodical and systematic movement aimed at defeating diseases such as cancer.5 Cancer is a major focus of the precision medicine initiative and developments in precise and effective treatments could benefit many other chronic diseases. Precision oncology or precision medicine of cancer focuses on matching the most accurate and effective treatment to each individual cancer patient based on the genetic profile of the cancer and the individual. Because every single cancer patient exhibits a different genetic profile and the profile can change over time, more patients will benefit if therapeutic options can be tailored to that individual, thus avoiding the idea that “one-size-fits-all” in terms of cancer treatment.
Results of one randomized clinical trial and a small number of feasibility and/or tumor response studies6–10 focusing on the concept of precision medicine have had limited success.11, 12 Naturally, opponents of precision medicine have criticized the strategy based on the results of the small number of clinical studies.12, 13 However, concluding that precision medicine will not work is premature because the precision medicine approach has not yet been fully tested in a sufficient number of trials. In addition, the suggestion has been made that having inadequate access to specific therapeutic agents and an insufficient number of tumor samples may have contributed to the limited success.13 Because cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease both between patients and within the same patient, the ability to cope with changes in the clinical trial setting is extremely challenging. Many creative and bold ideas of precision medicine have not yet made the transition from the lab bench to the clinic and need to be more fully evaluated in small clinical studies. For example, the microbiota is now recognized as a key player in health.14 The microbiota influences endocrinology and disease status and alters drug response and resistance, and this could hold true for cancer and the efficiency of cancer treatments. Sequencing the human microbiome and modulating the host-microbiota interactions in individual patients may be one approach to improve therapeutic outcomes.14, 15
Questions that must be addressed include whether precision oncology is just a theory or whether it realistically assures a better future, and if truly promising how can the application of precision oncology be improved and effectively implemented into the clinic? Several lines of evidence strongly support the idea that precision oncology could likely benefit more patients compared with traditional chemotherapies. First, some patients’ lives have already been substantially improved by target-based therapies compared with conventional cytotoxic therapies. One of the most notable examples is the discovery of the Bcr-Abl gene fusion in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Uncovering this genetic driver of CML lead to the development of a selective inhibitor of BCR-ABL, imatinib, which exhibited broader treatment coverage because, unlike other gene mutations, the Bcr-Abl gene fusion occurs in almost all CML patients. This compound improved the overall survival rates of CML patients to 90% over 5 years and 88% over 8 years.16 Another example includes the effectiveness of drugs like trastuzumab, lapatinib, pertuzumab, or ado-trastuzumab emtansine against human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy significantly slowed the disease progression (i.e., median, 4.6 vs. 7.4 months), increased the objective response rate (i.e., 32 vs. 50%), prolonged survival time (i.e., median, 20.3 vs. 25.1 months), and reduced the risk of death by 20%.17 Lapatinib plus chemotherapy (i.e., capecitabine) achieved a longer median time to disease progression compared with chemotherapy alone (i.e., 8.4 vs. 4.4 months).18 A combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy (i.e., docetaxel) further improved the median overall survival time to 56.5 months compared with a combination of only trastuzumab and chemotherapy (i.e., 40.8 months).19 Treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, a conjugate of a HER2 monoclonal antibody and a cytotoxic drug, significantly improved the length of progression-free survival and overall survival with lower adverse effects when compared with lapatinib and chemotherapy (i.e., capecitabine).20 These two examples demonstrate how the identification of key mutations like the Bcr-Abl fusion or HER2 can clearly benefit a larger number of selected cancer patients.
Second, many strategies are now available to identify important molecular targets for therapeutic intervention. Synthetic lethality is one unique strategy directed toward identifying cancer vulnerabilities.21 This strategy is based on the discovery that cell death is caused by a combination of deficiencies in the expression of two or more genes, whereas deficiency in only one of these genes can increase viability.21, 22 In 2005, the BRCA and poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) genes were found to have a synthetic lethal relationship.23, 24 In 2014, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) authorized accelerated approval of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, to treat BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer patients.25–28 Progression-free survival of BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer patients was significantly prolonged by olaparib compared with the placebo treatment (i.e., median, 11.2 vs. 4.3 months).28 Likewise, several candidate proteins were identified to treat cancers that over-express Myc, a transcription factor for which small-molecule inhibitors are currently unavailable.29–33 Within just a 5-year timespan, researchers found that Myc-amplified tumors were sensitive to CDK1, aurora kinase B, and BRD4 inhibition.29, 30 Although many of these inhibitors have yet to translate into clinical successes, Phase I trials of three BRD4 inhibitors are ongoing (CPI-0610 and TEN-010) or have just finished (OTX015).34, 35 These findings suggest that changes in gene A in cancer does not necessarily mean that gene A is the best target, but instead targeting its synthetic lethal partner might be a more effective strategy.
Third, clinical trial design is constantly evolving to overtake tumor heterogeneity from patient to patient. The Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) is a clinical trial selecting treatments based on genetic features of patients, not traditional tumor histology.36 The cancer patients will be assigned to 1 of 25 different treatment arms based on their genetic mutation profile. The overall response rate will be the endpoint to measure success. However, no control arms will be included, which could dramatically affect the interpretation of the final results. Even though a number of questions have been raised, the investigators are very optimistic that the results will further the efforts to implement precision oncology treatments. The Molecular Profiling-based Assignment of Cancer Therapy (NCI-MPACT) is another innovative clinical trial to test the hypothesis that targeting an oncogenic driver mutation is more efficacious than not targeting it. NCI-MPACT will recruit advanced cancer patients who have been unresponsive to standard therapeutic options and possess mutations in one of three genetic pathways that include DNA repair, PI3-K/mTOR (phosphoinositide-3 kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin), and Ras/Raf/MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase). Patients without a driver mutation will not be eligible for further treatment.37 Although this trial is similar to the NCI-MATCH in that patients will undergo tumor biopsies when enrolled, patients in the NCI-MPACT study will be assigned to one of two arms: treatment with drug(s) designed to target the mutation or treatment with drug(s) not prospectively identified to target the mutation. By evaluating gene targets across the histologic subtypes with NCI-MATCH and addressing the importance of driver mutations with NCI-MPACT trials, the efficacy of diagnosis and therapies could be significantly enhanced.
Finally, the influence of new technologies such as the CRISPR/Cas system and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) will broaden and sharpen our ability to identify novel therapeutic targets for precision oncology. CRISPR/Cas technology enables controlled exchange, insertion and deletion of DNA sequences unlike spontaneous mutation, and can easily generate animal models that mimic mutations status of patients.38 Recently, a gene therapy trial to treat myeloma, melanoma, and sarcoma with CRISPR/Cas has been approved by the National Institute of Health and is awaiting approval from the FDA.39 In addition to CRISPR/Cas, cryo-EM is a promising tool for precision oncology. Cryo-EM is a type of transmission EM in which samples are examined at cryogenic temperatures.40 Because the samples (e.g., proteins and viruses) are frozen in their native states, researchers can study biological events accurately at the subatomic or atomic level. For an instance, a 2.3 Å resolution cryo-EM structure of p97 showed a large corkscrew-like hexameric form, revealed its interactions with an allosteric inhibitor, and displayed conformational changes induced by adenosine tri-phosphate.41 Visualization of intact proteins and anti-cancer drugs at subatomic or atomic levels will assist researchers in understanding the consequences of genetic alterations on drug response and resistance.
In spite of some early setbacks, precision oncology still has a great deal of promise and should not be abandoned hastily. The challenge of tumor heterogeneity should not discourage or intimidate efforts to overcome cancer but should push the field forward. As practice makes perfect, precision mends patients.
Wells, C. Ancient Egyptian pathology. J. Laryngo. Otol. 77, 261–265 (1963).
David, A. R. & Zimmerman, M. R. Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between? Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 728–733 (2010).
Kampen, K. R. The discovery and early understanding of leukemia. Leuk. Res. 36, 6–13 (2012).
Alizadeh, A. A. et al. Toward understanding and exploiting tumor heterogeneity. Nat. Med. 21, 846–853 (2015).
Collins, F. S. & Varmus, H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 793–795 (2015).
Aisner, D. et al. Effect of expanded genomic testing in lung adenocarcinoma (LUCA) on survival benefit: The Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium II (LCMC II) experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, Abstr 11510 (2016).
Andre, F. et al. Comparative genomic hybridisation array and DNA sequencing to direct treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a multicentre, prospective trial (SAFIR01/UNICANCER). Lancet Oncol. 15, 267–274 (2014).
Stockley T.L. et al. Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial. Genome Med. 8, 109-120 (2016).
Lawler, M., Kaplan, R., Wilson, R. H., Maughan, T. & Consortium, S. C. Changing the paradigm-multistage multiarm randomized trials and stratified cancer medicine. Oncologist 20, 849–851 (2015).
Meric-Bernstam, F. et al. Feasibility of large-scale genomic testing to facilitate enrollment onto genomically matched clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 2753–2762 (2015).
Le Tourneau, C. et al. 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. Lancet Oncol. 16, 1324–1334 (2015).
Prasad, V. Perspective: the precision-oncology illusion. Nature 537, S63 (2016).
Tannock, I. F. & Hickman, J. A. Limits to personalized cancer medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1289–1294 (2016).
Kuntz, T. M. & Gilbert, J. A. Introducing the microbiome into precision medicine. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 38, 81–91 (2017).
Human Microbiome Project Consortium, A framework for human microbiome research. Nature 486, 215–221 (2012).
Saussele, S. et al. Impact of comorbidities on overall survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: results of the randomized CML study IV. Blood 126, 42–49 (2015).
Slamon, D. J. et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 783–792 (2001).
Geyer, C. E. et al. Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 2733–2743 (2006).
Swain, S. M. et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 724–734 (2015).
Verma, S. et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1783–1791 (2012).
Kaelin, W. G. Jr. The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 689–698 (2005).
Chan, D. A. & Giaccia, A. J. Harnessing synthetic lethal interactions in anticancer drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 351–364 (2011).
Bryant, H. E. et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 434, 913–917 (2005).
Farmer, H. et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434, 917–921 (2005).
Fong, P. C. et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 123–134 (2009).
Audeh, M. W. et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 376, 245–251 (2010).
Kaye, S. B. et al. Phase II, open-label, randomized, multicenter study comparing the efficacy and safety of olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 372–379 (2012).
Ledermann, J. et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 15, 852–861 (2014).
Goga, A., Yang, D., Tward, A. D., Morgan, D. O. & Bishop, J. M. Inhibition of CDK1 as a potential therapy for tumors over-expressing MYC. Nat. Med. 13, 820–827 (2007).
Yang, D. et al. Therapeutic potential of a synthetic lethal interaction between the MYC proto-oncogene and inhibition of aurora-B kinase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 13836–13841 (2010).
Zuber, J. et al. RNAi screen identifies Brd4 as a therapeutic target in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature 478, 524–528 (2011).
Mertz, J. A. et al. Targeting MYC dependence in cancer by inhibiting BET bromodomains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 16669–16674 (2011).
Delmore, J. E. et al. BET bromodomain inhibition as a therapeutic strategy to target c-Myc. Cell 146, 904–917 (2011).
Fece de la Cruz, F., Gapp, B. V. & Nijman, S. M. Synthetic lethal vulnerabilities of cancer. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 55, 513–531 (2015).
Berthon, C. et al. Bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 in patients with acute leukaemia: a dose-escalation, phase 1 study. Lancet Haematol. 3, e186–e195 (2016).
Mullard, A. NCI-MATCH trial pushes cancer umbrella trial paradigm. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 513–515 (2015).
Do, K., O’Sullivan Coyne, G. & Chen, A. P. An overview of the NCI precision medicine trials-NCI MATCH and MPACT. Chin. Clin. Oncol. 4, 31 (2015).
Wang, H. et al. One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell 153, 910–918 (2013).
Cyranoski, D. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time. Nature 539, 479 (2016).
Kuhlbrandt, W. Cryo-EM enters a new era. Elife 3, e03678 (2014).
Banerjee, S. et al. 2.3 Å resolution cryo-EM structure of human p97 and mechanism of allosteric inhibition. Science 351, 871–875 (2016).
The authors declare no competing interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Shin, S.H., Bode, A.M. & Dong, Z. Precision medicine: the foundation of future cancer therapeutics. npj Precision Onc 1, 12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-017-0016-z
OncoOmics approaches to reveal essential genes in breast cancer: a panoramic view from pathogenesis to precision medicine
Scientific Reports (2020)
Human Genomics (2018)
npj Precision Oncology (2018)
Current Pharmacology Reports (2018)
Current Pharmacology Reports (2018)