Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Editorial

From bench to bedside and back again?

CMAJ June 08, 2004 170 (12) 1765; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040806
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the results of a clinical study involving 9 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who responded to the drug gefitinib.1 Nine patients? How important can such a study be? The research arose from a lively area of investigation into the regulatory mechanisms of cell proliferation and growth. Gefitinib is one of a new generation of chemotherapeutic agents aimed at specific molecular targets — in this case, the epidermal growth factor receptor, a genetically modulated receptor that, when stimulated, promotes cell proliferation.2

Initial clinical trials of gefitinib in combination with chemotherapy showed no additional benefit of gefitinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the results did show considerable variability: patients in Japan had higher response rates than Europeans, and, among American patients, women, nonsmokers and those with adenocarcinoma were more likely to respond than men. Postulating that these differences could have a genetic basis, a group of scientists compared tumour lines from Japanese and American patients. They found somatic mutations in the tumours that caused differences in the epidermal growth factor receptor — differences that occurred more frequently in Japanese patients, women and those with adenocarcinoma.3

Similarly, the authors who reported in the New England Journal of Medicine took another look at the results in 9 patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory non-small-cell lung cancer who responded to gefitinib. Finding that 8 possessed the epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, they concluded that “screening for such mutations in lung cancers may identify patients who will have a response to gefitinib.”

The concept of studying a small subset of patients is intriguing in this age of large, population-based, multicentre randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Such trials are the touchstone of evidence-based medicine. But here is an observational, nonrandomized study of 9 highly selected patients in which bench research makes a spectacular showing at the bedside. Findings such as these lead us to wonder if the ardent gaze of academic medicine should be so firmly fixed on large population-based clinical trials. Megatrials are suited to revealing small differences in outcomes in a large number of patients. Yet, in the great wash of generalizable results, rarer but dramatic findings in small subsets of patients may be swept, wastefully, into the oblivion of negative findings.

For researchers and for industry, the search for magic bullets will always hold the allure of altruistic satisfaction, prestige and financial reward. But, as our knowledge of genetic variability in disease processes advances, so too will the potential to develop genetically targeted therapies. As new molecular controls for cell growth, inhibition, apoptosis and other functions are discovered, new compounds to impede or assist these functions will be developed. At the same time, clinical research strategies will change. Each new discovery will require that previous clinical trials be repeated using the new information to select and stratify study subjects. A logical (but not necessarily feasible) consequence of this will be a proliferation of clinical trials. Not only new agents will require evaluation, but previously proven treatments may need to be re-analyzed after patients in the newly identified subgroups are excluded. It will also be important to examine, as did the gefitinib authors, subgroups of patients who showed markedly positive or negative responses to therapy. Biological samples taken during previous RCTs may need to be studied, patients reclassified and analyses repeated.

The new mode of research raises ethical issues. Drugs that are suitable for only small subgroups of patients — such as those with specific single somatic mutations — may be of little interest to manufacturers.4 Abandonment by industry, if it occurs, will result in more and more “orphan” diseases in need of research funding from public agencies and private foundations.

Molecular medicine will also raise ethical questions for clinicians. In light of the results in 9 patients with previously intractable non-small-cell lung cancer, should all patients with newly diagnosed and advanced non-small-cell lung cancer be offered genetic testing and, potentially, a trial of gefitinib? Patients with the financial resources (the tests and drug are expensive) will likely seek out this new therapy. Should provincial governments fund it? Should physicians recommend it? Such questions, once esoteric, are now becoming urgent. — CMAJ

References

  1. 1.↵
    Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, Gurubhagavatula S, Okimoto RA, Brannigan BW, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 2004;350(21). [Accessed online at www.nejm.org on May 14, 2004]
  2. 2.↵
    Choi S. Gefitinib. CMAJ 2004;170(12):1787.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Paez JG, Jänne PA, Lee JC, Tracy S, Greulich H, Gabriel S et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science Express Reports 29 April 2004.
  4. 4.↵
    Marx J. Why a new cancer drug works well, in some patients. Science 2004;304(5671):658-9.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 170 (12)
CMAJ
Vol. 170, Issue 12
8 Jun 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
From bench to bedside and back again?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
From bench to bedside and back again?
CMAJ Jun 2004, 170 (12) 1765; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040806

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
From bench to bedside and back again?
CMAJ Jun 2004, 170 (12) 1765; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040806
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • “Less is better” is the best message when talking to patients about alcohol
  • Nouvelle politique sur l’utilisation des outils d’intelligence artificielle dans les manuscrits soumis au JAMC
  • Without more acute care beds, hospitals are on their own to grapple with emergency department crises
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Cancer: respiratory system
    • Drugs: respiratory system

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire