UPSC reoccurrence

13»

Comments

  • Songflower
    Songflower Member Posts: 608
    gdpawel said:

    Functional Tumor Cell Profiling
    Differences Between Molecular Profiling and Functional Tumor Cell Profiling

    Just to give you some of the major differences between molecular profiling and tumor cell functional profiling. The endpoints of molecular profiling are gene expression. The endpoints of tumor cell functional profiling are expression of cell death (both tumor cell death and tumor associated endothelial [capillary] cell death).

    There hasn't been any progress in "drug selection" through the use of molecular profiling.

    http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/12/3/301

    However, the has been progress in "drug selection" through the use of cell-based functional profiling. Genomics (molecular profiling) is far too limited in scope to encompass the vagaries and complexities of human cancer biology when it comes to "drug selection." Efforts to administer targeted therapies in randomly selected patients often result in low response rates at significant toxicity and cost.

    While researchers continue to develop molecular probes to select candidates, the cell culture analysis platform serves as a functional profile capable of examining the nuances of cellular response to drugs. To exploit the full potential of targeted anticancer therapies, physicians will need laboratory tests that match patients to specific drugs.

    Cell culture assays are able to accurately predict how an individual patient's cancer cells will respond to an array of drug combinations. It is able to quantify synergistic drug combinations and individually tailor treatment.

    Molecular profiling tests cannot do this. These are the reasons.

    In chemotherapy selection, molecular profiling examines a single process within the cell or a relatively small number of processes. The aim is to tell if there is a theoretical predisposition to drug response.

    Functional profiling examines not only for the presence of the molecular profile but also for their functionality, for their interaction with other genes, proteins, and processes occurring within the cell, and for their response to anti-cancer drugs.

    The goal of molecular testing is to look for patterns of normal and abnormal gene expression which could suggest that certain proteins might or might not be produced within a cell. However, just because a gene is present, it does not mean that an associated protein has been produced.

    Protein testing goes one step further by testing to see if the relevant protein actually has been produced. However, even Protein testing cannot tell us if a protein is functional or how it will interact with other proteins in the presence of anti-cancer drugs.

    Gene and protein testing involve the use of dead, formaldehyde preserved cells that are never exposed to chemotherapy drugs. Gene and protein tests cannot tells us anything about uptake of a certain drug into the cell or if the drug will be excluded before it can act or what changes will take place within the cell if the drug successfully enters the cell.

    Gene and protein tests cannot discriminate among the activities of different drugs within the same class. Instead, gene and protein tests assume that all drugs within a class will produce precisely the same effect, even though from clinical experience, this is not the case. Nor can gene and protein tests tell us anything about drug combinations.

    Functional tumor cell profiling tests living cancer cells. It assesses the net result of all cellular processes, including interactions, occurring in real time when cancer cells actually are exposed to specific anti-cancer drugs. It can discriminate differing anti-tumor effects of different drugs within the same class. It can also identify synergies in drug combinations.

    Gene and protein tests are better suited for ruling out "inactive" drugs than for identifying "active" drugs. When considering a cancer drug which is believed to act only upon cancer cells that have a specific genetic defect, it is useful to know if a patient's cancer cells do or do not have precisely that defect.

    Although presence of a targeted defect does not necessarily mean that a drug will be effective, absence of the targeted defect may rule out use of the drug. Of course, this assumes that the mechanism of drug activity is known beyond any doubt, which is not always the case.

    Although gene and protein testing currently are limited in their reliability as clinical tools, the tests can be important in research settings such as in helping to identify rational targets for development of new anti-cancer drugs.

    As you can see, just selecting the right test to perform in the right situation is a very important step on the road to personalizing cancer therapy.

    Literature Citation:

    Functional profiling with cell culture-based assays for kinase and anti-angiogenic agents Eur J Clin Invest 37 (suppl. 1):60, 2007

    Functional Profiling of Human Tumors in Primary Culture: A Platform for Drug Discovery and Therapy Selection (AACR: Apr 2008-AB-1546)

    Here is an extensive listing for some of the reputable laboratories providing cell culture testing. These labs will provide you and your physician with in depth information and research on the testing they provide:

    The first laboratory provides a "cell growth" assay. The assay is excellent at identifying drugs most likely "not" to work (drug resistance). The assay is not as good at identifying drugs which are "more likely" to work (drug sensitivity) or to identify the disease-specific activity patterns of new targeted drugs. Used for drug de-selection and not for drug selection.

    Exiqon (formally Oncotech, Inc.)
    http://www.exiqon.com/dx

    All the below laboratories provide a "cell death" assay. At one time, the goal of cancer treatment was to inhibit unregulated cell "growth." In the last twenty years, the goal is to induce cell "death" in order to successfully conquer concer. The much older "cell-growth" assays measure a drug's ability to inhibit cell "growth" and only succeeds in eliminating drugs that would "not" work for a patient (drug resistance). The more modern "cell-death" assays measure the ability of chemotherapy drugs to induce cell "death" (apoptosis) in a tumor biopsy from a patient (drug sensitivity). The assays are excellent at identifying drugs most likely "not" to work and identify drugs which are "more likely" to work.

    Anticancer, Inc., San Diego, CA.
    http://www.anticancer.com/

    Cancer Therapeutics, Inc., Thomasville, GA.
    http://www.cancer-therapeutics.com/

    DiaTech Oncology, Brentwood, TN.
    http://diatech-oncology.com/

    Genomic Health, Inc. Redwood City, CA.
    http://www.genomichealth.com/OncotypeDX/Index.aspx

    Genoptix, Inc., San Diego, CA
    http://www.genoptix.com/

    Precision Therapeutics, Pittsburgh, PA.
    http://www.precisiontherapeutics.com/

    The two laboratories below, in addition to providing a "cell death" assay, provide a functional profiling assay which is the only testing that involves direct visualization of the cancer cells at endpoint. This allows for accurate assessment of drug activity, discriminates tumor from non-tumor cells, and provides a permanent archival record, which improves quality, serves as control, and assesses dose response in vitro (includes newly-emergent drug combinations). These two assay labs have about the most extensive information about the technology with knowledge spanning decades, utilize functional tumor cell profiling. Besides identifying drugs most likely "not" to work (drug resistance) and identify drugs which are "more likely" to work (drug sensitivity), these assays can identify the disease-specific activity patterns of new targeted drugs.

    Rational Therapeutics Institute, Long Beach, CA.
    http://www.rational-t.com/patients/extra.aspx

    Weisenthal Cancer Group, Huntington Beach, CA.
    http://weisenthalcancer.com/

    GDPAWL
    thank you for the valuable information. You have so much knowledge and I suspect you are in the field. Thank you; we struggle so to understand this and make good decisions. Thank you for helping me.

    Diane
  • Anne Shabar
    Anne Shabar Member Posts: 1
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    addl therapy
    My surgery was 8 weeks ago. I know that time is a concern to make the following decision.
    I have been told that I have stage 1A UPSC and there are different thoughts whether it warrents chemo. Internal radiation is suggested. I am also trying to find the top Doctors in this Country who specialize in this type of cancer. Any info regarding that would be appreciated.
  • nancygt
    nancygt Member Posts: 86
    uspc recurrence
    Would like to her how it is going as I am in similar situation. Diagnosed 3A Endometrial PS
    11-09, had hsyterrectomy and oopharectomy 12-09 followed by round of carboplatin and taxol, then external radiation, internal radiation and another round of carboplatin and taxol. CA 125 went down t0 9 at end of chemo, rose to 21 at 3 months but now 6 months later, it is up to 179 and I am having PET scan tomorrow (had CT scan and it showed possible enlarged lymph node near liver which is in tricky spot to biopsy so PET scan is first). Like you I am surprised by rise in CA after only 6 months and curious as to what others have experienced.
  • lindaprocopio
    lindaprocopio Member Posts: 1,980
    nancygt said:

    uspc recurrence
    Would like to her how it is going as I am in similar situation. Diagnosed 3A Endometrial PS
    11-09, had hsyterrectomy and oopharectomy 12-09 followed by round of carboplatin and taxol, then external radiation, internal radiation and another round of carboplatin and taxol. CA 125 went down t0 9 at end of chemo, rose to 21 at 3 months but now 6 months later, it is up to 179 and I am having PET scan tomorrow (had CT scan and it showed possible enlarged lymph node near liver which is in tricky spot to biopsy so PET scan is first). Like you I am surprised by rise in CA after only 6 months and curious as to what others have experienced.

    Hi, NancyCT. I had UPSC recurrance after 5 months.
    I was Stage III-c UPSC, so I always knew it was about 50/50 that my cancer would come back, but it was still devastating to have my CA-125 jump from 11 to 155 when I went for my monitoring checkup. I had a CT-scan next that showed an enlarged lymph node in my pelvis, near an aorta that would make it dangerous to do a needle or surgical biopsy (just like you!) so I had a PET scan next. 3 lymph nodes 'lit up' on the PET, (the pelvic one; a tiny one behind my stomach, and a very bright one in my arm pit). I didn't have any biopsies since the only node that could be safely biopsied in any way was the one in my armpit, and the reasoning was, even if it came back benign, we still wouldn't know about the other 2. So I'd be in chemo either way, based on the spike in CA-125 and the lit-up PET scan. I am getting a weak dose of taxol every week (7 weeks / 7 rounds so far), small enough that I have no side affects accept for being bald again and fatigue as the day wears on. I take Neupogen shots the 3 days following each chemo, so a lot of running over to the clinic. But I still work and go out to eat and have as much fun as I can!
  • Ro10
    Ro10 Member Posts: 1,561 Member
    nancygt said:

    uspc recurrence
    Would like to her how it is going as I am in similar situation. Diagnosed 3A Endometrial PS
    11-09, had hsyterrectomy and oopharectomy 12-09 followed by round of carboplatin and taxol, then external radiation, internal radiation and another round of carboplatin and taxol. CA 125 went down t0 9 at end of chemo, rose to 21 at 3 months but now 6 months later, it is up to 179 and I am having PET scan tomorrow (had CT scan and it showed possible enlarged lymph node near liver which is in tricky spot to biopsy so PET scan is first). Like you I am surprised by rise in CA after only 6 months and curious as to what others have experienced.

    Nancygt, I too had a rise in the CA-125
    I finished my chemo in August 09. I had my surgery 1/09. I started treatment in 1/09 also. I had the sandwich treatment like you did, with 3 chemo then radiation (external and internal), and then 3 more chemo. My CA 125 was 18 before my last chemo in August. My October check-up showed it was up to 39.9. In November it was 55 and in December it was 77.7. My CAT scans have been negative. My onocologist says he does not treat the number, but if the CAT scan shows something. I have been having lab test every 6 weeks, so I will have another one February 9th. The onocologist says that some people level off at 100 - 200. So I am hoping I am leveling off. My stage was III-C UPSC.

    I wish you luck with your PET scan results. Keep us posted. In peace and caring.
  • daisy366
    daisy366 Member Posts: 1,458 Member
    Ro10 said:

    Nancygt, I too had a rise in the CA-125
    I finished my chemo in August 09. I had my surgery 1/09. I started treatment in 1/09 also. I had the sandwich treatment like you did, with 3 chemo then radiation (external and internal), and then 3 more chemo. My CA 125 was 18 before my last chemo in August. My October check-up showed it was up to 39.9. In November it was 55 and in December it was 77.7. My CAT scans have been negative. My onocologist says he does not treat the number, but if the CAT scan shows something. I have been having lab test every 6 weeks, so I will have another one February 9th. The onocologist says that some people level off at 100 - 200. So I am hoping I am leveling off. My stage was III-C UPSC.

    I wish you luck with your PET scan results. Keep us posted. In peace and caring.

    nancygt
    I'm confused. If You had surgery in Dec. 2009, What do you mean by 3 months and 6 months?

    Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly. Do you mean 2008?
  • nancygt
    nancygt Member Posts: 86
    daisy366 said:

    nancygt
    I'm confused. If You had surgery in Dec. 2009, What do you mean by 3 months and 6 months?

    Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly. Do you mean 2008?

    nancygt
    Sorry I meant 2008- must be the chemo brain kicking in. So 3 months and 6 months were form the the end of my last treatment (Second chemo). So i am very anxious to see results of PET scan but the information here has been so helpful and I am so glad to find this discussion site - it has also given me several questios to pose to my oncologist about whether there is often a level off of CA 125 between 100-200 and other areas. I plan to keep posting and visiting as it is inspiring how many of yoou are figting through tough situatuions and recurrences and trying to maintain as much of a normal and joyful life as possible. One of my best friends has Stage 4 Lung and has survived neary 4 years, which is well past odds given he. like we say we may have a pretty good idea what disease is going to take us out eventually but we don't know when and hope to have an impact on that part. many of our other friends find that dark but we tend to find ut reassuring (especially if you look at some of the statistics).
  • nancygt
    nancygt Member Posts: 86

    Hi, NancyCT. I had UPSC recurrance after 5 months.
    I was Stage III-c UPSC, so I always knew it was about 50/50 that my cancer would come back, but it was still devastating to have my CA-125 jump from 11 to 155 when I went for my monitoring checkup. I had a CT-scan next that showed an enlarged lymph node in my pelvis, near an aorta that would make it dangerous to do a needle or surgical biopsy (just like you!) so I had a PET scan next. 3 lymph nodes 'lit up' on the PET, (the pelvic one; a tiny one behind my stomach, and a very bright one in my arm pit). I didn't have any biopsies since the only node that could be safely biopsied in any way was the one in my armpit, and the reasoning was, even if it came back benign, we still wouldn't know about the other 2. So I'd be in chemo either way, based on the spike in CA-125 and the lit-up PET scan. I am getting a weak dose of taxol every week (7 weeks / 7 rounds so far), small enough that I have no side affects accept for being bald again and fatigue as the day wears on. I take Neupogen shots the 3 days following each chemo, so a lot of running over to the clinic. But I still work and go out to eat and have as much fun as I can!

    Thanks for sharing-i am on
    Thanks for sharing-i am on pins and needles over PET scan results and perhaps expect recurrence and know that lymph node near the liver may be too tricky to biopsy. I can face chemo again although I was enjoying having hair again. And my doctor has been great trying to schedule tratments so I can do trips etc with my friends- we have 4 day Mexico cruise scheduled for March for 4 of us to celebrate the end of 6 rounds of chemo for my best friend who has stage 4 lung. While she and I compare notes and are both detemined to take this trip, it is very helpful to find other women who are in similar scenarios to comapre notes, learn more and booster spirits.
  • Mimi25
    Mimi25 Member Posts: 13
    nancygt said:

    uspc recurrence
    Would like to her how it is going as I am in similar situation. Diagnosed 3A Endometrial PS
    11-09, had hsyterrectomy and oopharectomy 12-09 followed by round of carboplatin and taxol, then external radiation, internal radiation and another round of carboplatin and taxol. CA 125 went down t0 9 at end of chemo, rose to 21 at 3 months but now 6 months later, it is up to 179 and I am having PET scan tomorrow (had CT scan and it showed possible enlarged lymph node near liver which is in tricky spot to biopsy so PET scan is first). Like you I am surprised by rise in CA after only 6 months and curious as to what others have experienced.

    New results after PET/CT scan
    I promised an update after being on my new protocol and the latest PET/CT results:
    If you read my previous comments, you'll be updated on my background. In September 09 I started on Gemzar/Carbo (in 08 had the standard Taxol/Carbo and was ok for 9 months).
    My Gemzar/Carbo are given every other week. In Oct was finally able to get approval for Avastin to be added (please see article in PubMed on the effectiveness of this combo!)
    I didn't have a lot of hope because my tumor assays had come back as being resistant to all chemos and only a slight VEGF marker (2%). My only 50/50 hope was the Gemzar/Carbo combination. My original PET showing recurrance in June of 09 was VERY "lit up". When the doc went in to obtain tissue for testing, he said that my abdomen was full of hundreds of tumors and there was no way to do a debulking. After being on this combo now for five months, I had a new PET scan last week. Have not been able to see the doc yet, but his nurse said the PET was MAGNIFICENT. After obtaining a copy of the written report, it seems that I only have a 1/4" "something" (which may be a calcification or staple). I'm afraid to say at this point there is no evidence of disease left, but it seems to be pointing in that direction! I know there will still be CA cells floating around and, although I'm at the end of the normal 6 treatments (12 infusions), I'm hoping to continue on this same treatment for at least 4 more months. As we know it is working and I have no side effects (other than tiredness) and I have been able to continue to tolerate carbo, I want to give it the best chance of mopping up as much of the CA as I can before it decides to mutate. I just want everyone to know about this protocol and to read the article on PubMed and maybe copy it to show their docs. It has truly been a miracle for me! Good luck and keep fighting! Miracles happen!!!!!
    Mimi25
    PS to MA in CC...wanted to update you, too!
  • Northwoodsgirl
    Northwoodsgirl Member Posts: 571
    Mimi25 said:

    New results after PET/CT scan
    I promised an update after being on my new protocol and the latest PET/CT results:
    If you read my previous comments, you'll be updated on my background. In September 09 I started on Gemzar/Carbo (in 08 had the standard Taxol/Carbo and was ok for 9 months).
    My Gemzar/Carbo are given every other week. In Oct was finally able to get approval for Avastin to be added (please see article in PubMed on the effectiveness of this combo!)
    I didn't have a lot of hope because my tumor assays had come back as being resistant to all chemos and only a slight VEGF marker (2%). My only 50/50 hope was the Gemzar/Carbo combination. My original PET showing recurrance in June of 09 was VERY "lit up". When the doc went in to obtain tissue for testing, he said that my abdomen was full of hundreds of tumors and there was no way to do a debulking. After being on this combo now for five months, I had a new PET scan last week. Have not been able to see the doc yet, but his nurse said the PET was MAGNIFICENT. After obtaining a copy of the written report, it seems that I only have a 1/4" "something" (which may be a calcification or staple). I'm afraid to say at this point there is no evidence of disease left, but it seems to be pointing in that direction! I know there will still be CA cells floating around and, although I'm at the end of the normal 6 treatments (12 infusions), I'm hoping to continue on this same treatment for at least 4 more months. As we know it is working and I have no side effects (other than tiredness) and I have been able to continue to tolerate carbo, I want to give it the best chance of mopping up as much of the CA as I can before it decides to mutate. I just want everyone to know about this protocol and to read the article on PubMed and maybe copy it to show their docs. It has truly been a miracle for me! Good luck and keep fighting! Miracles happen!!!!!
    Mimi25
    PS to MA in CC...wanted to update you, too!

    New Results
    Mimi-such wonderful news! I am thrilled for you! I will find the article and see if my oncologist has read it.
    Peace and Grace,
    Lori
  • deanna14
    deanna14 Member Posts: 732

    New Results
    Mimi-such wonderful news! I am thrilled for you! I will find the article and see if my oncologist has read it.
    Peace and Grace,
    Lori

    Yippee!
    Congratulations Mimi!!
  • Ro10
    Ro10 Member Posts: 1,561 Member
    Mimi25 said:

    New results after PET/CT scan
    I promised an update after being on my new protocol and the latest PET/CT results:
    If you read my previous comments, you'll be updated on my background. In September 09 I started on Gemzar/Carbo (in 08 had the standard Taxol/Carbo and was ok for 9 months).
    My Gemzar/Carbo are given every other week. In Oct was finally able to get approval for Avastin to be added (please see article in PubMed on the effectiveness of this combo!)
    I didn't have a lot of hope because my tumor assays had come back as being resistant to all chemos and only a slight VEGF marker (2%). My only 50/50 hope was the Gemzar/Carbo combination. My original PET showing recurrance in June of 09 was VERY "lit up". When the doc went in to obtain tissue for testing, he said that my abdomen was full of hundreds of tumors and there was no way to do a debulking. After being on this combo now for five months, I had a new PET scan last week. Have not been able to see the doc yet, but his nurse said the PET was MAGNIFICENT. After obtaining a copy of the written report, it seems that I only have a 1/4" "something" (which may be a calcification or staple). I'm afraid to say at this point there is no evidence of disease left, but it seems to be pointing in that direction! I know there will still be CA cells floating around and, although I'm at the end of the normal 6 treatments (12 infusions), I'm hoping to continue on this same treatment for at least 4 more months. As we know it is working and I have no side effects (other than tiredness) and I have been able to continue to tolerate carbo, I want to give it the best chance of mopping up as much of the CA as I can before it decides to mutate. I just want everyone to know about this protocol and to read the article on PubMed and maybe copy it to show their docs. It has truly been a miracle for me! Good luck and keep fighting! Miracles happen!!!!!
    Mimi25
    PS to MA in CC...wanted to update you, too!

    Mimi what great news
    I am so happy that you have had such good results with your new drugs. I hope you are able to continue with the same treatments with minimal side effects. Wishing continued good results. In peace and caring.
  • daisy366
    daisy366 Member Posts: 1,458 Member
    Ro10 said:

    Mimi what great news
    I am so happy that you have had such good results with your new drugs. I hope you are able to continue with the same treatments with minimal side effects. Wishing continued good results. In peace and caring.

    Thanks Mimi
    I'm so happy that this is working for you!!! Thanks for the update.

    Many blessings, Mary Ann
  • woofgang
    woofgang Member Posts: 12
    gdpawel said:

    Functional Tumor Cell Profiling
    Differences Between Molecular Profiling and Functional Tumor Cell Profiling

    Just to give you some of the major differences between molecular profiling and tumor cell functional profiling. The endpoints of molecular profiling are gene expression. The endpoints of tumor cell functional profiling are expression of cell death (both tumor cell death and tumor associated endothelial [capillary] cell death).

    There hasn't been any progress in "drug selection" through the use of molecular profiling.

    http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/12/3/301

    However, the has been progress in "drug selection" through the use of cell-based functional profiling. Genomics (molecular profiling) is far too limited in scope to encompass the vagaries and complexities of human cancer biology when it comes to "drug selection." Efforts to administer targeted therapies in randomly selected patients often result in low response rates at significant toxicity and cost.

    While researchers continue to develop molecular probes to select candidates, the cell culture analysis platform serves as a functional profile capable of examining the nuances of cellular response to drugs. To exploit the full potential of targeted anticancer therapies, physicians will need laboratory tests that match patients to specific drugs.

    Cell culture assays are able to accurately predict how an individual patient's cancer cells will respond to an array of drug combinations. It is able to quantify synergistic drug combinations and individually tailor treatment.

    Molecular profiling tests cannot do this. These are the reasons.

    In chemotherapy selection, molecular profiling examines a single process within the cell or a relatively small number of processes. The aim is to tell if there is a theoretical predisposition to drug response.

    Functional profiling examines not only for the presence of the molecular profile but also for their functionality, for their interaction with other genes, proteins, and processes occurring within the cell, and for their response to anti-cancer drugs.

    The goal of molecular testing is to look for patterns of normal and abnormal gene expression which could suggest that certain proteins might or might not be produced within a cell. However, just because a gene is present, it does not mean that an associated protein has been produced.

    Protein testing goes one step further by testing to see if the relevant protein actually has been produced. However, even Protein testing cannot tell us if a protein is functional or how it will interact with other proteins in the presence of anti-cancer drugs.

    Gene and protein testing involve the use of dead, formaldehyde preserved cells that are never exposed to chemotherapy drugs. Gene and protein tests cannot tells us anything about uptake of a certain drug into the cell or if the drug will be excluded before it can act or what changes will take place within the cell if the drug successfully enters the cell.

    Gene and protein tests cannot discriminate among the activities of different drugs within the same class. Instead, gene and protein tests assume that all drugs within a class will produce precisely the same effect, even though from clinical experience, this is not the case. Nor can gene and protein tests tell us anything about drug combinations.

    Functional tumor cell profiling tests living cancer cells. It assesses the net result of all cellular processes, including interactions, occurring in real time when cancer cells actually are exposed to specific anti-cancer drugs. It can discriminate differing anti-tumor effects of different drugs within the same class. It can also identify synergies in drug combinations.

    Gene and protein tests are better suited for ruling out "inactive" drugs than for identifying "active" drugs. When considering a cancer drug which is believed to act only upon cancer cells that have a specific genetic defect, it is useful to know if a patient's cancer cells do or do not have precisely that defect.

    Although presence of a targeted defect does not necessarily mean that a drug will be effective, absence of the targeted defect may rule out use of the drug. Of course, this assumes that the mechanism of drug activity is known beyond any doubt, which is not always the case.

    Although gene and protein testing currently are limited in their reliability as clinical tools, the tests can be important in research settings such as in helping to identify rational targets for development of new anti-cancer drugs.

    As you can see, just selecting the right test to perform in the right situation is a very important step on the road to personalizing cancer therapy.

    Literature Citation:

    Functional profiling with cell culture-based assays for kinase and anti-angiogenic agents Eur J Clin Invest 37 (suppl. 1):60, 2007

    Functional Profiling of Human Tumors in Primary Culture: A Platform for Drug Discovery and Therapy Selection (AACR: Apr 2008-AB-1546)

    Here is an extensive listing for some of the reputable laboratories providing cell culture testing. These labs will provide you and your physician with in depth information and research on the testing they provide:

    The first laboratory provides a "cell growth" assay. The assay is excellent at identifying drugs most likely "not" to work (drug resistance). The assay is not as good at identifying drugs which are "more likely" to work (drug sensitivity) or to identify the disease-specific activity patterns of new targeted drugs. Used for drug de-selection and not for drug selection.

    Exiqon (formally Oncotech, Inc.)
    http://www.exiqon.com/dx

    All the below laboratories provide a "cell death" assay. At one time, the goal of cancer treatment was to inhibit unregulated cell "growth." In the last twenty years, the goal is to induce cell "death" in order to successfully conquer concer. The much older "cell-growth" assays measure a drug's ability to inhibit cell "growth" and only succeeds in eliminating drugs that would "not" work for a patient (drug resistance). The more modern "cell-death" assays measure the ability of chemotherapy drugs to induce cell "death" (apoptosis) in a tumor biopsy from a patient (drug sensitivity). The assays are excellent at identifying drugs most likely "not" to work and identify drugs which are "more likely" to work.

    Anticancer, Inc., San Diego, CA.
    http://www.anticancer.com/

    Cancer Therapeutics, Inc., Thomasville, GA.
    http://www.cancer-therapeutics.com/

    DiaTech Oncology, Brentwood, TN.
    http://diatech-oncology.com/

    Genomic Health, Inc. Redwood City, CA.
    http://www.genomichealth.com/OncotypeDX/Index.aspx

    Genoptix, Inc., San Diego, CA
    http://www.genoptix.com/

    Precision Therapeutics, Pittsburgh, PA.
    http://www.precisiontherapeutics.com/

    The two laboratories below, in addition to providing a "cell death" assay, provide a functional profiling assay which is the only testing that involves direct visualization of the cancer cells at endpoint. This allows for accurate assessment of drug activity, discriminates tumor from non-tumor cells, and provides a permanent archival record, which improves quality, serves as control, and assesses dose response in vitro (includes newly-emergent drug combinations). These two assay labs have about the most extensive information about the technology with knowledge spanning decades, utilize functional tumor cell profiling. Besides identifying drugs most likely "not" to work (drug resistance) and identify drugs which are "more likely" to work (drug sensitivity), these assays can identify the disease-specific activity patterns of new targeted drugs.

    Rational Therapeutics Institute, Long Beach, CA.
    http://www.rational-t.com/patients/extra.aspx

    Weisenthal Cancer Group, Huntington Beach, CA.
    http://weisenthalcancer.com/

    Question about Precision Therapeutics Report
    Thank you for such a detailed explanation. With my original surgery for UCPS, the doctor sent a sample to Precision Therapeutics. The results showed that the 9 single chemo drugs and 3 combinations of drugs tested were all non responsive to my tumors. I was treated with 6 rounds of taxol/carboplatin anyway, since this is the gold standard. But in less than 9 months, I have a recurrence in both my left and right lungs. I just had the 2 tumors in the left lung removed and expect to have the one in the right lung removed as soon as I'm healed from the first surgery. But the oncologist also wants to try a different chemo. Given the results from Precision Therapeutics, why would we expect any of these previously tested chemo drugs to work? Is it possible my tumors are simply chemo resistant?
  • daisy366
    daisy366 Member Posts: 1,458 Member
    woofgang said:

    Question about Precision Therapeutics Report
    Thank you for such a detailed explanation. With my original surgery for UCPS, the doctor sent a sample to Precision Therapeutics. The results showed that the 9 single chemo drugs and 3 combinations of drugs tested were all non responsive to my tumors. I was treated with 6 rounds of taxol/carboplatin anyway, since this is the gold standard. But in less than 9 months, I have a recurrence in both my left and right lungs. I just had the 2 tumors in the left lung removed and expect to have the one in the right lung removed as soon as I'm healed from the first surgery. But the oncologist also wants to try a different chemo. Given the results from Precision Therapeutics, why would we expect any of these previously tested chemo drugs to work? Is it possible my tumors are simply chemo resistant?

    woofgang
    Good questions for your docs. They also used Precision Therapeutics for my assay. I'm also dealing with recurrence of UPSC. Did they do assay on your lung tumors - was this recurrence of uterine or a new cancer? Keep us posted. I advise you get your brain scanned too.

    Best wishes. Mary Ann
  • woofgang
    woofgang Member Posts: 12
    daisy366 said:

    woofgang
    Good questions for your docs. They also used Precision Therapeutics for my assay. I'm also dealing with recurrence of UPSC. Did they do assay on your lung tumors - was this recurrence of uterine or a new cancer? Keep us posted. I advise you get your brain scanned too.

    Best wishes. Mary Ann

    daisy366
    Hi, Mary Ann,

    The pathology report showed the lung tumors are a recurrence of the clear cell/pap. serous. We asked for the assay to be done if there was enought tissue to send off in addition to doing the path. report - I'll find out the 16th when I see the surgeon. The 2 tumors were really tiny - the largest was only 6 mm. They also did a brain MRI the day of my lung surgery, and thankfully, found nothing. I see my gyn onc the 18th and will get a second opinion from MD Anderson (date tbd). Will definitely report on what we find. How are you doing with your recurrence?

    All the best,
    Sharon