For Mantle Zone Lymphoma: What Goes Around Comes Around

For Mantle Zone Lymphoma: What Goes Around Comes Around

Mantle zone lymphoma represents approximately 6% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas diagnosed in the US each year.

It is named for the region in the lymph node where the malignant cell population arises. The cells characteristically express a cell surface protein known as CD5 and over-express cyclin D1 associated with a commonly identified t(11;14) chromosomal translocation.

It usually occurs in patients 60 or older and can be aggressive, with lymphadenopathy (enlarged lymph nodes), splenomegaly (enlarged spleen) and in some patients with high circulating lymphoma cells.

Case Study: Recurring Mantle Zone Lymphoma
In 2004, I consulted upon a 74-year-old gentleman with mantle zone.

The biopsy revealed activity for the drug combination R-EPOCH and he achieved a complete remission that lasted 10 years.

He then presented with lymphadenopathy and a biopsy of his axillary lymph node confirmed recurrence, but now the pattern of sensitivity favored the drug Bendamustine.

He received 6 cycles of R-Bendamustine and again achieved complete remission. He did well except for some respiratory infections that were managed with intravenous immunoglobulin.

It Comes Back Again – His Third Encounter
At year 3 he returned with a markedly elevated white blood cell count.

One concern was that he might have drug-induced acute leukemia, an uncommon but serious side effect from chemotherapy and I submitted his cells for flow cytometry. While we awaited the results he required hospitalization to manage his underlying congestive heart failure.
I then had the opportunity to review his peripheral blood smear and recognized that the white cells were indeed mantle zone cells and not leukemic blasts as I had feared. A small quantity of residual blood from his ER admission CBC was submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

His Functional Profiling Results Are Again Very Revealing
The results were extremely interesting.

Having received the EPOCH combination, the patient was now resistant to the principal agents in that combination i.e. Cytoxan, Doxorubicin, etc. He was also resistant to Bendamustine, the drug he had received most recently.

I was more intrigued by the other results.

Despite the use and appeal of the class of drugs known as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he was completely resistant to Ibrutinib, the oral drug of this class.

Without my lab results, Ibrutinib, would probably have been my first choice as it is widely used as a salvage regimen in this setting. More unexpected was his resistance to Gemcitabine plus Oxaliplatin, 2 drugs that he had never received and that I have used to great success in other patients in the past.

Recalling My Past Work with the Assay-Directed Drug Choice
What struck me was the patient’s exquisite sensitivity to Bortezomib (Velcade), a proteasome inhibitor that disrupts nominal protein metabolism in cancer cells and has proven profoundly important for the management of another B-cell malignancy known as Multiple Myeloma.

The results for Bortezomib truly resonated.

Over fifteen years earlier, in collaboration with investigators at Millennium Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Massachusetts I had used our laboratory platform to identify Mantle Zone lymphoma as a target for their new small molecule Bortezomib.

I remember meeting with their principal investigator, Mark Rolfe, PhD at the ASH (American Society of Hematology) meeting in San Diego to forge a relationship for the study of Bortezomib. At that time, the drug had not received FDA approval for any indication.

Bortezomib is one of the most interesting therapeutic small molecules as its activity is based upon the atom Boron.

By disrupting the cell’s ability to clear itself of damaged proteins it unleashes one of the most potent cell death cascades, the mis-folded protein response.

While it was not surprising that our laboratory identified activity for myeloma, a disease characterized by excessive protein production in the form of antibodies, the findings for mantle zone were unexpected and ultimately led to an FDA approval of Bortezomib for this form of lymphoma some years later. Nagourney RA, Su, YZ, Horlick D, Chow C, Kollin C, Evans SS. Bortezomib (PS-341) alone and in combination with cytotoxic drugs: Ex vivo analysis in human tumor primary cultures. (3690) Amer Assoc of Canc Res 45, 2004 (abst)

Here, 15 years later, was an opportunity to take that discovery and apply it to one of my own patients.

Complications Arise
The patient was suffering from congestive heart failure, requiring aggressive diuresis.

Confident that I could help him, once he stabilized, I transferred him to the oncology unit to begin treatment but he continued to feel poorly enough to warrant observation in the ICU overnight after only a small dose of therapy.

Let’s Not Give Up Yet!
During his stay in the ICU he was seen by the intensivist, the pulmonologist, the cardiologist, respiratory therapists and a host of other staff.

With his advanced age, the cardiologist felt it was his duty to engage in end-of-life discussions, something that I had absolutely NO intention of doing.

With only a portion of one dose completed, the patient’s white count dropped by 50% in a matter of hours.

I immediately transferred him back to the oncology ward to continue therapy and a day later his white count fell to normal as he visited comfortably with family members.

I feel a sense of particular gratification that this earlier discovery made in collaboration with investigators at Millennium (now Takeda) Pharmaceuticals may be the very thing that saves the life of my long-term patient.

How fortunate that we had access to that sample of blood the day of his admission, a sample that forged his successful therapy.

Life Starts Again
At 89 years of age, it is difficult to know whether he can be cured, but I fully expect that he will return home where he lives independently in a lovely retirement apartment.

When I spoke with him on the day of his return from the ICU, I marveled at his vigor and well-being, the cardiologist’s gloomy predictions notwithstanding. “Not bad for an alter cocker” (Yiddish term of endearment for grouchy old men) he replied.

Not bad for an alter cocker, not bad at all.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Dr. Robert Nagourney, has been internationally recognized as a pioneer in cancer research and personalized cancer treatment for over 20 years. He is a TEDx speaker, author of the book Outliving Cancer, a practicing oncologist and triple board certified in Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology and Hematology helping cancer patients from around the world at his Nagourney Cancer Institute in Long Beach, California. For more info go to

The Right Treatment at the Right Time: Double-Hit Lymphoma


On February 5th, 2018 I was asked to consult on a 53-year-old patient who was admitted to the hospital with a one month’s history of low back pain. An MRI of the lumbar spine a few days earlier revealed a mass impinging on the spinal canal extending down to the pelvis.

I arrived to find a strapping, healthy, vigorous gentleman complaining of pain.

Diagnosis:  B-Cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL)

He had no evidence of neurological deficit and was able to stand and walk without difficulty. The differential diagnosis of a mass in the lower spine includes metastatic disease from a distant site i.e. lung, etc. versus a primary tumor such as CHORDOMAversus LYMPHOMA.

A needle biopsy confirmed B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).

As NHL is generally responsive to therapy we opted against surgery in favor of radiation. Although I would gladly have used the EVA-PCD PLATFORM to treat him, I suggested he move forward with radiation as I awaited completion of staging, flow cytometry and special studies.

Late Friday evening, 2 days after admission, the patient lost the ability to move his lower extremities and emergency surgery was undertaken that night. My colleagues in neurosurgery kindly provided a sterile portion of tissue to my laboratory for analysis.

While I awaited final pathology, we set up a broad array of cytotoxic drug combinations, targeted agents and synergy studies. The patient slowly recovered but with impingement on the lower spinal cord it was uncertain whether he would regain the full use of his legs.

Functional Profiling Results

A few days later the results of the EVA-PCD analysis returned.

Though B-Cell NHL is considered highly drug sensitive, this patient’s cells could not have been more drug resistant.

I was surprised by the degree of resistance to almost every drug and combination tested in the lab. Adriamycin, Vincristine, Corticosteroids, and Fludarabine were all inactive.

I was puzzled. Isn’t B-cell lymphoma one of the success stories of modern oncology? Isn’t this tumor supposed to melt away with treatment?  Was there a mistake?

I reviewed his findings with our hematopathologist.  What gives, I wondered?

Not Your Typical Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

A week later, the answer to my question became clear.

This was not a run-of-the-mill B-cell NHL.

This was not one of those cancers you treat with conventional combinations.

Quite to the contrary – this was a double-hit lymphoma, with over-expression of both the c-MYC oncogene and the Bcl-2 oncogene and a proliferation rate of more than 80%.

This was a B-cell lymphoma that was not going to play by the rules.

As I examined my laboratory findings one result stood out, the clear and unequivocal activity and synergy for Gemcitabine and Cisplatin, used clinically as R-GemOx.

We had studied these combinations in my laboratory for two decades and previously published our findings (DEOXYNUCLEOSIDE ANALOGS IN CANCER THERAPY, HUMANA PRESS, 2006). We had pioneered their use in ovarian cancer, triple negative breast, bladder, and other cancers.

Today these doublets are used around the world.

However, R-GemOx the one we found for this gentleman is never, ever used in the first line (newly diagnosed) setting. Never!

I returned to meet with the patient, now bedridden, as a physical therapist worked to recapture the use of his lower extremities. We sat and had a long heart-to-heart discussion.

Contrary to the guidelines, the literature and the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network), I was recommending that this patient take a “so called” salvage regimen as his first-line therapy.

It was more than uncomfortable, as I could easily be criticized for failing to provide the patient potentially “curative therapy” with R-CHOP, R-EPOCH, CODOX, hyper-CVAD or others.  What would possess me to use my EVA/PCD laboratory studies to make changes in a patient’s management when everyone knew that R-CHOP or modified R-EPOCH were the standards of care?

Thinking Out of the Box

The answer was not all that hard to find.  One need only read the literature more closely to see that double-hit lymphomarequires out of the box thinking.

It is now well-recognized that conventional treatments like R-CHOP are inadequate.

One investigator from the Wilmot Cancer Institute at Rochester University said “…it is clear that R-CHOP is not sufficient induction therapy for this group of patients, since the majority of patients will have disease progression after standard therapy “ (Jonathan Friedberg, MD BLOOD 2016).

None-the-less, in 2018 and in the absence of controlled clinical trials, physicians continue to give these patients R-CHOP, R-EPOCH and related regimens. If I were to diverge from these standards of care, say to provide first-line R-GemOx, would I be viewed as compromising his well-being?

My Dilemma

This was a crisis, a dilemma.

I knew that the patient needed R-GemOx. My instincts told me that he should receive it, but I was clearly veering off the standard guidelines and about to commit the most heinous of all crimes, diverging from “community standard.”

The patient’s wife had brought her husband to me in the first place because she was the close friend of one of my longest surviving lung cancer patients, a delightful young woman who lived nearly a decade with highly aggressive non-small-cell.

Based on that experience, she was determined that her husband be treated under my care, no matter what. As a nurse and someone who knew my work, the treatment that I recommended was going to be the treatment her husband would receive, regardless of guidelines or protocols.

We agreed to move forward with the laboratory-identified R-GemOx.

The patient required radiation and we arranged one course of chemotherapy before it began. As this chemotherapy combination is too toxic to combine with radiation, I had to bide my time until the 10 days of radiation were complete. The next day, I again instituted R-GemOx.

How the Patient Responded

Slowly, the patient’s lower extremity strength improved. He began to use a walker.

Every two weeks, I treated the patient, shepherding him from the rehabilitation hospital to the acute care hospital and back each time. Two cycles later, he was able to be discharged

Once discharged, the patient continued physical therapy as I treated him every two weeks.  At first, he came with a walker, then with a cane and then recently, walking without assistance.

I had known from the start that a “double-hit lymphoma” would require bone marrow transplantation. I wrote a letter of referral to a colleague at a large transplant center but anticipated that the response might be one of dismay at my choice of therapy.

After all, we had diverged from protocol; we had used a non-standard salvage regimen, as his first-line therapy. We had not applied the standard of care and had instead veered off the path, using the laboratory to guide our drug selection. I was concerned that he might be disqualified.

Despite my concerns, it was obvious that with each cycle, the patient’s condition improved.

I was buoyed by his physical well-being and improving parameters of his disease. The PET/CT revealed near complete resolution of all measurable disease after only 3 doses.

Time had come. He was ready for his consultation at the transplant center.

Just before he departed, I repeated all of his laboratory measures of his disease and had them forwarded to my colleague. All were completely normal. I waited with some trepidation, anticipating a critical review of my unconventional therapy recommendation.

This week, the patient and his wife returned.

They had met with the trans-planters. The conversation had proven quite jovial.

This accomplished consultant smiled when she looked at the patient’s PET/CT and lab results.

She pointed out that this was not the standard of care.

But then went on to say that she knew my work, and that although I had veered off the path, she very impressed with the good result. She would indeed accept the patient into the transplant program. He will undergo, what I hope will prove to be, a curative bone marrow transplant in July.

Final Thoughts

This story is emblematic of my philosophy in medicine, that patients should receive the right treatment the first time, every time. But it represents a broader collection of issues.

First, in medicine today, we do not reward physicians for success but we punish them severely for failure.

Had this patient had less than a perfect response, I would have been pilloried for not administering standard treatment; despite their well-recognized lack of benefit. In this environment, physicians are increasingly afraid to do the right thing. I must admit my own concern when I followed what I knew to be the right course of therapy for this patient, fearing the consequences of failure.

Second, there are no right treatments, even for the most treatable malignancies.

Each patient is a unique story unfolding in real time. I am gratified by this patient’s good outcome and feel a particular sense of accomplishment in that the patient’s referral was predicated on the good outcome of one of my longest surviving lung cancer patients who received laboratory directed therapy as well.

Finally, the key to each patient’s diseases lies within their own tissue. Failing to use each patient’s tumor to select treatments relegates them to protocol therapies that may be very wrong for them.

I will await the patient’s final PET/CT scan with anticipation but look forward to the very real likelihood of curing this patient with, what many oncologists might consider, an incurable lymphoma.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Cancer Patients and the “Right To Try”


On May 30, 2018 the president signed HR 878, granting terminally ill patients the right to try experimental drugs. While there has been significant controversy surrounding this bill it represents an interesting milestone in the public debate surrounding drug development.

For those unfamiliar with the process, drug development follows a well-established path from discovery to FDA approval.

Once a new compound is identified and has cleared preclinical and animal models, it moves to human Phase I trials.

The intent of these trials is to determine whether the drug is safe. There is no therapeutic intent. If found safe, the drug then moves to Phase II trials that determine whether it is effective. Finally, in phase III the drug is compared with existing treatments to determine relative equivalence or superiority.

However well intended, the process has become slow and costly requiring up to a decade for completion and over a billion dollars for every drug that is FDA approved. A recent study from MIT reported that the success rate for cancer drugs is only 3.4% (Wong, C. H., et al., Biostatistics 2018).

While it is laudable that the FDA seeks to protect the public against ineffective or, worse yet, dangerous drugs patients with life-threatening illnesses do not have the luxury of waiting a decade for a new drug or combination. This is the subject of the Right To Try law.

The impetus for the law came from a family’s desire to provide a treatment to their young son with muscular dystrophy. While his story ended well, with the boy ultimately qualifying for a clinical trial that provided the drug, most cancer patients are not so lucky.

Cancer drug discovery is moving forward at a dizzying pace.

Literally thousands of clinical trials are underway.

While the lure of gene-based (genomic) drug selection seems tantalizing, the reality for studies like the MATCH trial, recently reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in Chicago, confirmed that only a tiny fraction of patients actually benefit from these DNA-directed therapies. It will be a very long time before genomic biomarkers (DNA) help select drugs for patients, if ever.

Our group has promoted the use of functional platforms like the EX VIVO ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMMED CELL DEATH that examine cellular biology to identify drugs for patients. Results reveal a 2-fold higher response in patients receiving drugs found active in our laboratory platform and an improved one-year survival.

One of the most frustrating aspects of our work is that which occurs when we identify a novel drug or combination only to find that in the absence of a formal FDA-approval for that specific disease and indication, we cannot obtain the drug. How can we reconcile the patient’s desire to obtain a new drug with the need for regulatory oversight and safety?

The recent Right To Try law is designed to address this question.

First, it only applies to drugs that have passed Phase I and have been found safe for patients. As you recall Phase I establishes drug safety. No drug found unsafe goes on for further evaluation. Thus, any patient requesting a drug knows that appropriate oversight has established that it can be administered without undue hazard.

Today, drugs that move from Phase I to Phase II are parceled out to the toniest of institutions. These ivory tower medical centers, generally found in larger cities, hold these sought-after-agents close to the vest, offering them only to those who meet the most stringent criteria for protocol accrual.

If you live in an area removed from a major city, or your performance status, liver or lung functions are just a tick off the inclusionary or exclusionary criteria you are SOL (Simply Out of Luck ;). No matter how much you might want or need the new therapy, it is simply not available to you.

In these instances, the Right To Try law could provide a meaningful advantage to those facing very grim prospects once available standard therapies have failed.

One such patient comes to mind.

A Case of Aggressive Multiple Myeloma

In October of 2016, I consulted with a patient with very aggressive multiple myeloma.

He had received intensive therapy, including a bone marrow transplantation, first in San Diego and later from a tertiary care center near Los Angeles. Brief responses were followed by rapid relapses.

Among the features of his illness was a cytogenetic (DNA chromosome breakage) abnormality associated with poor prognosis known as the t (11, 14) translocation. At the time of our meeting he had not yet received the new monoclonal antibodies recently developed for this disease and I encouraged him to try these agents.

One year later he returned with rapid progression of his disease and I conducted a bone marrow aspirate to submit the myeloma cells for EVA-PCD (Ex Vivo Analysis of Programmed Cell Death) analysis.

The results revealed activity for chemotherapies, but his bone marrow was compromised by disease and prior therapy and I knew that the toxicities could be significant. What struck me most was his myeloma cell’s exquisite sensitivity to a new class of drugs that block the cell survival protein Bcl-2. His cells were the most sensitive we had seen for this class of compounds.

Drugs that target Bcl-2 had already passed Phase I and Phase II and were available for a very select group of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients, but not for multiple myeloma. Clinical trials were underway but the pharmaceutical company was under close scrutiny for any signals, favorable or unfavorable, that might influence an FDA approval.

Attempts with chemotherapy proved briefly effective but toxic. It was obvious that the patient could not tolerate cytotoxic drugs. I then began a diligent effort to obtain this new Bcl-2 drug. I felt confident that he would respond if I could just get the drug.

Today’s pharmaceutical companies are “under the gun” when they allow the use of a drugs before approval.

Good outcomes are of little interest to the oversight bodies, dismissed as anecdotal, but any toxicity, expected or otherwise, can cost the drug company that make a drug available under “compassionate use” a favorable review. Complications, toxicities or unexpected adverse event can derail an otherwise successful campaign to gain FDA approval.

It is no wonder that pharmaceutical companies are hesitant to make drugs available.

For critics of the current law who feel that it has let the pharmaceutical companies off the hook, they may wish to consider the quandary that these companies find themselves in when they act compassionately.

Despite repeated requests, I could not obtain the drug and the patient succumbed to his disease, never having been given the chance to receive the drug that I had carefully chosen for him.

Latest Meeting at ASCO (June 2018)

I have just returned from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in Chicago where I attended many sessions including those on hematologic malignancies.

One presentation was particularly poignant.

They found that patients with multiple myeloma who carry the t (11;14) translocation (precisely the same as this patient) and as predicted in our laboratory model, were uniquely sensitive to Bcl-2 inhibitors, the very drug we had chosen. Indeed, myeloma patients who carried t(11;14) and received the combination of Venetoclax (Bcl-2)  plus Carfilzomib, had an a response rate of 100%.!!!!

Here, 18-months later, I sat in the audience at ASCO meeting and all I could think of was this nice gentleman, sitting on the edge of the bed, suffering through drug toxicities, while all he needed was access to a simple oral therapy that almost certainly would have provided the benefit he so desperately needed.

It pains me still to think of him.

The Right to Try Law is not perfect. After all, it leaves much of the responsibility for complications to the physician over the pharmaceutical company. But I, and many of my colleagues, would probably accept that mantle if it meant that we could gain access to a new and more effective therapies.

As one who explores new drugs and combinations every day in my laboratory, I would relish the opportunity to put interesting combinations to the test in service of my patients. Working closely with patients, it is my opinion, that these grateful recipients of our above-and-beyond the call of duty efforts would be unlikely to sue their physician as he or she toiled to improve their outcome.

Most patients appreciate that doctors are on their side.

Under current regulations, pharmaceutical companies gain nothing when they make drugs available on compassionate use; No pat-on-the-back, no attaboys, only the risk of losing FDA approval should an unexpected side effect or complication pop up. Is it surprising that the pharmaceutical companies do not want to make their drugs available?

My Final Thoughts

We need to make our laws work for each individual.

We need to make drugs more available, faster and cheaper. We need to apply every tool at our disposal to make important and lifesaving decisions.

While not perfect, the current Right to Try Law may offer significant benefit, particularly for patients identified in laboratory models who are found likely to benefit from a new PI3-K inhibitor, a BET bromodomain down-regulator, or a drug approved for one indication (disease-type) but not approved for another.

Cancer medicine is a patient-by-patient undertaking.

Our medical institutions, governmental agencies, and reimbursement entities must take into consideration the desperation that advanced stage cancer patients feel and they should work to accommodate these patient’s needs.

The Right to Try laws can open new avenues for patients to pursue personalized care. Though not ideal, I applaud its intent, and look forward to applying it in the many patients for whom we identify unexpected, but potentially effective novel treatments.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.


Dr. Robert Nagourney has been internationally recognized as a pioneer in cancer research and personalized cancer treatment for over 20 years.  He is a practicing oncologist and triple board certified in Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology and Hematology helping cancer patients from around the world at his Nagourney Cancer Institute in Long Beach, California.  For more information go to our homepage at NAGOURNEYCANCERINSTITUTE.COM

Cancer Patients Want to Win, but is the Playing Field Level?


Anyone diagnosed with cancer knows the drill.

After the initial shock, many go to the internet in pursuit of honest and reliable information. But how are they to know what constitutes honest and reliable information?

Most people seek “peer-reviewed” literature.

The term applies to studies that have been vetted by experts and are then published with their stamp of approval. However lofty the goals of this process may have been at its origins in the 17th century, the intervening 350 years haven’t been kind.

This was the topic of an editorial by Christopher Tancock (WHEN REVIEWING GOES WRONG: THE UGLY SIDE OF PEER REVIEW, MARCH 23, 2018, ELSEVIER) who examined the pitfalls of the contemporary peer-review in an era of “publish or perish”, urgent funding needs and shrinking research dollars.

One problem he finds is fake reviewers. Here the author surreptitiously has the paper submitted to himself by using sham e-mails, ultimately reviewing his own paper.

A second pitfall is conflict of interest where the reviewer is a competitor.

The next is bias, where the editor holds a personal dislike for the author or their work and proceeds to eviscerate an otherwise sound paper.

Among the most egregious is the stealing of papers where the reviewer turns down the paper and then immediately submits their own version of the manuscript based on similar findings.

I was reminded of this by one of my own papers submitted with my colleagues in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

We had identified a novel treatment for a rare tumor and collaborated with the Children’s Hospital of Oakland Research Institute to analyze mechanisms.

The paper was submitted but initially rejected. It has since been accepted and published by a different journal. While I do not demand that every paper of mine or anyone else’s gets published, the first journal’s editorial comments were disturbing.

For background, we had discovered an effective drug for a patient with an advanced malignancy who had failed intensive, multi-agent chemotherapy. It was solely by the application of OUR LABORATORY TECHNIQUE (EVA-PCD) to the patient’s own tumor tissue that we were able to identify the treatment which provided a durable remission now approaching 3 years.

Curiously the reviewer who turned down the paper cited one of my references to conclude that we had not applied the described technique. I quote “The listed reference looks at an in vitro cytometric profiling technique, which is not what this case is presenting”.

I realized that he was quoting “cytometric profiling technique” from one of my own papers and had come to the conclusion that I was not doing “what I do”.

Presumably the reviewer had hastily examined the references and only looked at the first authors.

Had he done his job, he would have seen that the senior author, responsible for the work was me. It was odd to have my own work used as the rationale for not publishing my work.

Peer reviewers often turn down papers but we hope that they do so for legitimate reasons. In this case, the reviewer had decided he did not want to publish our paper and used a transparently false argument to deny its publication.

As I have published many peer-reviewed papers, this was not the first time I have had this type of experience.

Some years ago, one of my papers was literally excoriated by a reviewer.

Undaunted, I submitted the exact same manuscript, unchanged, to a second extremely famous journal. The second reviewer stated, “I enjoyed the paper, publish it as is” and it was immediately published.

How could two highly regarded editorial boards have such distinctly different opinions of the exact same paper?

Among the problems is the fact that there is no opportunity to challenge a review. That is no one reviews the reviewers.

Second, the review process is blinded so authors cannot confront their accusers. Finally, editorial board decisions are final. A paper that has been turned down is turned down without recourse.

How often does good work go unreported?  How fair is the peer review process?

More importantly, how dangerous is the peer review process as it is practiced today to the advancement of science?

When cancer patients seek truth, they depend upon the reviewing process to provide it.

If the reviewers do not give an honest opinion of the merit of the work but instead base their decisions upon their own personal opinion of the investigator or whether findings fit into their own particular area of interest; we have a problem.

One need only attend a cancer symposium or examine the “conflict of interest” statement attached to the CVs of most academics to note the laundry list of corporate sponsors, pharmaceutical grants and speakers bureaus that these unbiased professionals bring to the table.

Cancer patients need to consider this when they accept the opinion of reviewers.

While usually well intended, members of the academic community are prone to the same biases and shortcomings that plague all other humans. When these arbiters of truth do not accept something unfamiliar to them, it does not mean that it won’t ultimately be proven true.

One option is for patients to seek the assistance and input of one of a growing number of medical advocates like Mark Renneker, Gwen Stritter, John Laird, Dave Schlosser, Ralph Moss, Marcia Horn, Mark Roby or many others, or to consult with practitioners like Brian Lawenda and Keith Block who serve as patient champions when offering their opinions and advice.

Another is to use objective measures of tumor biology like those that we apply to remove the subjectivity (and bias) from treatment selection.

From Vitamin D supplementation to acupuncture, from immunotherapy and VIROTHERAPY to integrative care, the so-called experts have been wrong enough times to warrant careful consideration of their opinions when matters of life and death loom.

For most cancer patients time is not on their side.

Opinion leaders should take that into consideration when they offer advice on new and potentially important discoveries.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.


Dr. Robert Nagourney has been internationally recognized as a pioneer in cancer research and personalized cancer treatment for over 20 years.  He is a practicing oncologist and triple board certified in Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology and Hematology helping cancer patients from around the world at his Nagourney Cancer Institute in Long Beach, California.  For more information go to our homepage at NAGOURNEYCANCERINSTITUTE.COM

Cancer Patients Need More Than “Me Too” Drugs


Cancer drug developments follow a rather predictable course.

A new breakthrough is followed by a flurry of interest as the large pharmaceutical companies develop drugs to target the finding. More often than not, however, the drug companies all develop the same drug or something so close that they can’t be distinguished in activity or toxicity.

With signal transduction inhibitors, the targeted agents that focused on specific mutations, not one or two but three, four or more drugs all targeted the same mutation.

The result – cancer patients were presented with a panoply of “me too” drugs.

The use of immunotherapy in cancer, nothing short of a breakthrough, has again boiled down to redundancies as biotech companies scramble to develop their very own checkpoint inhibitors. There are now hundreds of clinical trials comparing one checkpoint inhibitor combination to another.

Cancer Research Scientist Weighs In

This was the subject of a recent commentary by Dr. Jay Bradner, President of the Novartis Institute for BioMedical Research whose prior seminal work provided the first ever agent to inhibit the MYC oncogene.

His work led to an entirely new class of drugs for cancer therapy, a class of drugs that we have found active in many human tumors as we reported last year. (Nagourney RA et al Proc. AACR, 2017)

The reason Dr. Bradner’s comments regarding “me too” drugs are so important is that he had the guts to take on the tough problem of drugging an “un-druggable” cancer gene and won. Now as a leader of one of the largest biotech companies, he is to be commended for standing up against the current trend.

Bradner states the biotech industry is not over-invested in cancer medicine, just wrongly invested.

One need only examine the current field of cancer drugs to realize they all boil down to just a few classes of agents.

Like waves emanating from a splash in the water, one advance leads to innumerable “copy cats” emanating from the same discovery. We don’t need more “me too” drugs; we need more novel, active agents with efficacy against the difficult targets.

Our laboratory has the luxury of comparing one drug to the next in the same patient’s tumor.

The Big Question

In our experience a large number of the drugs that target specific oncogenes so closely mimic one another that they are virtually indistinguishable.

The question one must ask is – why are we spending billions of dollars for these duplicative efforts?

Cancer drug discovery is so sophisticated that few people can understand its complexity.

The biotech companies have tended to chase the low-hanging fruit, first with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and now with immune checkpoint inhibitors, but in reality they are often competing for the same niche.

What We Need

If we are to see meaningful advances in cancer, we will need to dedicate more time and effort to the development of drugs with novel mechanisms of action directed against the processes that actually drive cancer.

We don’t need more “me too” drugs.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

For Lung Cancer, We’ve Got the Answer, Now We’re Waiting For the Question

From the Blog of Robert A Nagourney, MD of the Nagourney Cancer Institute 

As I finished a recent Thursday afternoon clinic, I received a call. The voice was familiar and I recognized it to belong to the husband of one of my former patients. The news, unfortunately, was not good.

Back pain following a skiing accident in December led to an MRI that showed an abnormality in the thoracic spine. He was being admitted to the hospital for evaluation.

Diagnosis: Stage 4 Lung Cancer

Moments later I received a call from his orthopedic surgeon who explained that there was a large mass at the level of the thoracic vertebra # 6 causing progressive neurological symptoms.

We agreed that high-dose dexamethasone was indicated and I offered to see the patient later that day. Upon review, the disease appeared to arise in the upper right lung, but had spread to many bony sites, the most concerning being the 6th thoracic vertebra.

Fortunately, the patient remained stable until the next day when surgery was undertaken, and tissue for our EVA-PCD ANALYSIS was provided. We set up a study that included classic cytotoxic (chemotherapy) drugs and combinations as well as targeted agents.

His Functional Profiling Results

The EVA-PCD laboratory findings revealed striking activity for Gefitinib (Iressa), Erlotinib (Tarceva), Afatinib (Gilotrif), and Osimertinib (Tagrisso).

These drugs represent the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of agents that target one of the most common driver mutations in lung cancer, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

On the other hand, Alectinib and Crizotinib drugs that target the unrelated ALK and ROS-1 mutations were completely ineffective.

At the level of cellular function these EVA/PCD results defined a tumor driven by an EGFR mutation.

Based upon the findings I submitted a prescription for an oral EGFR inhibitor to begin immediately.

The problem being is that it takes 2-4 weeks for gene profile results to be completed and, today, only genomic results can be used to support the use of these drugs.

While we await the genomic profile, still unavailable at time of this writing, we have the opportunity to compare genomic and functional platforms for lung cancer patients:

Genomic (DNA) Testing EVA-PCD (Functional)
Turnaround 2-4 Weeks 5-7 Days
Cytotoxic Drugs NO YES
Combinations NO YES
Synergy Analysis NO YES
Identifies Possibility of Response Probability of Response


Before genomic analyses for EGFR even existed, and before we understood why or how drugs like Iressa and Tarceva worked, our laboratory had developed the EVA-PCD TarχGet platform to identify clinical responders for targeted agents at the functional level.

We’ve Used Iressa for Years

Indeed, several years before the EGFR gene mutations were discovered in 2004/2005, we regularly treated patients found sensitive to Iressa.

As it was difficult to obtain the drug in the US, we would dispatch our patients’ family members to Tokyo where they could purchase Iressa and then return to successfully treat their family members, predicated upon our EVA-PCD findings.

In 2007, we reported the use of first-line Iressa and later Tarceva in patients identified by EVA-PCD and provided a response rate of 100% (Nagourney, RA, et al Clinical Responses to EGFr-TKI’s identified by drug-induced cell death in human NSCLC primary cultures. Proc. ASCO, #18184, 2007).

Why is Functional Profiling More Effective?

One important aspect of functional analyses is their biological rigor.

That is, patients with favorable EVA-PCD results not only respond but tend to respond durably.

This reflects the predictive validity of biological measures over gene profiles.

One of my patients who showed synergy for the combination of Tarceva plus Avastin is now rounding her 10th year on EGFR TKI therapy. One would need to look long and hard at clinical programs using gene-driven therapy selection to find 10-year survivors.

We’re Waiting For the Question

While I await the results of this patient’s genomic profile, I am confident that he will be found EGFR mutation (+) and negative for ALK, ROS1, RAS, B-RAF and c-MET.

Our experience with this patient is one that we encounter increasingly frequently and reflects our ability to interrogate human biology at the level of cellular function, faster, better and more accurately than genomic platforms.

While genomic analysis provides the “possibility of response” the EVA-PCD analysis provides the “probability of response”. Once again we find that: We have the answer, now we are waiting for the question.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.