1_therapieCiblee
π Health and biotech
Tumours: “better understanding has improved treatments”

Targeted therapies: new weapons against tumours

with Agnès Vernet, Science journalist
On October 21st, 2021 |
4min reading time
Philippe cassier
Philippe Cassier
Medical Oncologist at the Léon Bérard Centre
Key takeaways
  • Even though 382,000 new cases of cancer were recorded in France during 2018, the overall survival rate has improved thanks to earlier diagnosis and advances in treatment.
  • Until the 2000s, doctors were looking for molecules that destroyed cancer cells without always knowing how they worked, but now targeted treatments are being established in a more rational and systematic manner.
  • Tumours differ from one another so targeted therapies accompanied by effective diagnostic tools are used to check that the right target is indeed present in the patient.
  • New anti-cancer drugs are the result of this change in approach and these treatments can have spectacular effects – although tolerance can still be an issue.

In France, more than 300,000 people are dia­gnosed with can­cer each year with 382,000 new cases recor­ded in 2018, accord­ing to Inca. That same year, 157,400 deaths were attrib­uted to can­cer. How­ever, the data shows that this fig­ure is fall­ing thanks to earli­er dia­gnos­is and thera­peut­ic advances, par­tic­u­larly for the most com­mon can­cers. These advances include tar­geted ther­apies based on a new drug devel­op­ment strategy. “Where­as con­ven­tion­al chemo­ther­apies were pre­vi­ously developed using a more empir­ic­al approach, tar­geted treat­ments are now being estab­lished in a more ration­al and sys­tem­at­ic man­ner,” explains Phil­ippe Cas­si­er, med­ic­al onco­lo­gist at the Leon Bérard Centre in Lyon.

Until the 2000s, we were look­ing for molecules that des­troyed can­cer cells, without always know­ing how they worked. Nowadays, how­ever, pro­gress in our under­stand­ing of the mech­an­isms involved and the con­tri­bu­tions of molecu­lar bio­logy have changed research­ers’ vis­ion. The doc­tor con­tin­ues, “it is now pos­sible to identi­fy a tar­get, a key stage in the devel­op­ment of tumours, and then to look for molecules cap­able of act­ing on it – a rad­ic­al change in the approach to drug development.”

Target tumours

New drugs tar­get bio­lo­gic­al mech­an­isms that are import­ant for tumour growth, which is harder than it may seem because tumours are very diverse. So, from patient to patient, tumours do not neces­sar­ily depend on the same bio­lo­gic­al pro­cesses mean­ing that tar­geted ther­apies needed to be accom­pan­ied by par­al­lel pro­gress in dia­gnost­ic tools. “It’s a revolu­tion at every level of onco­logy,” says Phil­ippe Cas­si­er. Thanks to dia­gnost­ic tests, doc­tors can check that the tar­get is indeed present in the patient’s tumour and thus decide wheth­er or not to pre­scribe the treat­ment. These bio­lo­gic­al ana­lyses identi­fy sig­nals that reflect the molecu­lar func­tion­ing of the tumour, known as bio­mark­ers. “Onco­lo­gists must now know how to handle bio­mark­ers to know what to pre­scribe the patient,” adds Phil­ippe Cas­si­er. It is becom­ing essen­tial to under­stand the machinery of tumour growth if doc­tors are to choose the most appro­pri­ate treatment.

New anti-can­cer drugs are the res­ult of this change in approach. Advances in stud­ies con­cern, on the one hand, the reac­tion of the immune sys­tem to a tumour and, on the oth­er, the molecu­lar mech­an­isms that pro­mote tumour pro­lif­er­a­tion. This has giv­en rise to two new classes of treat­ments: tar­geted ther­apies and immun­o­ther­apies. The lat­ter class of drugs – immun­o­ther­apies – is the res­ult of an import­ant dis­cov­ery in immun­o­logy: tumours exert an immun­osup­press­ive action in their envir­on­ment. “They can manip­u­late the immune sys­tem,” he says. The can­cer thus avoids being attacked by the immune cells that con­stantly mon­it­or the body, able to detect cells that are divid­ing abnor­mally [the defin­ing trait of tumours].

Monitor effects

“Even if our under­stand­ing of the bio­lo­gic­al role of the tar­get is incom­plete, clin­ic­al stud­ies in humans will allow us to refine our ana­lys­is; it is a prin­ciple of trans­la­tion­al research,” explains the onco­lo­gist. These devel­op­ments are fuelled by a genu­ine dia­logue between clin­ic­al and basic research. “Observing the effect of the drug on the patient helps to refine our under­stand­ing of its mode of action. Phase I tri­als no longer just allow us to study the tox­icity of the treat­ment, they also estab­lishes the clin­ic­al-bio­lo­gic­al cor­rel­a­tion that under­pins its effectiveness.”

These treat­ments some­times have spec­tac­u­lar effects, which has con­trib­uted to their repu­ta­tion as a ‘mir­acle’ treat­ment. “This is also true for chemo­ther­apies. Some tumours are par­tic­u­larly sens­it­ive to one type of treat­ment, and it is as if they have been giv­en a magic wand,” says Phil­ippe Cas­si­er. As for tol­er­ance, the res­ults are more com­plic­ated than they seem. “With anti-PDL1 immun­o­ther­apies, the tol­er­ance pro­files are very favour­able. But oth­er types of immun­o­ther­apies, such as CAR‑T cells or neut­ral­ising anti­bod­ies, can have ser­i­ous side effects, jus­ti­fy­ing hos­pit­al­isa­tion in intens­ive care.”

These new ther­apies have nev­er­the­less offered new treat­ment options and there­fore increase the chances of find­ing an effect­ive response for each patient. But they have not solved the prob­lem. “Can­cer is a fact of life: we can’t erad­ic­ate them entirely. It is a dis­ease linked to longev­ity,” acknow­ledges Phil­ippe Cassier.

Expect resistance

One of the main dif­fi­culties with can­cers is the abil­ity of tumours to devel­op res­ist­ance to treat­ments over time. “This prob­lem is deeply rooted in the his­tory of onco­logy,” explains Phil­ippe Cas­si­er. Clin­ic­al research has taken this into account and from which sev­er­al types of response have emerged. Firstly, a solu­tion pro­posed resides in devel­op­ing drugs that are increas­ingly spe­cif­ic to tar­gets. “These incre­ment­al advances extend life expect­ancy without tumour pro­gres­sion under a giv­en treat­ment. This has par­tic­u­larly been meas­ured in the case of lung can­cers char­ac­ter­ised by a trans­lo­ca­tion of the ALK gene,” explains the Lyon-based onco­lo­gist. Dia­gnost­ic pro­gress and sys­tem­at­ic screen­ing pro­ced­ures have also helped to ensure that treat­ment begins increas­ingly soon­er. “The earli­er the treat­ment is star­ted, the more we min­im­ise the risk of res­ist­ance emer­ging,” explains Phil­ippe Cassier. 

Also, the use of liquid biopsies and blood samples to screen for cir­cu­lat­ing tumour DNA makes it pos­sible to identi­fy res­ist­ance mech­an­isms more eas­ily and earli­er than before. Com­bined, these tools con­trib­ute to improv­ing the man­age­ment of patients suf­fer­ing from can­cer. “These prac­tices are often imple­men­ted in expert centres. But they are more dif­fi­cult to imple­ment in oth­er care centres, such as private clin­ics or smal­ler hos­pit­als, par­tic­u­larly because of prob­lems related to cost of these tests,” con­cludes Phil­ippe Cas­si­er. This is mainly due the way they are reim­bursed, still con­sidered in budgets for ‘innov­a­tion’ rather than being billed as routine med­ic­al treat­ments. Resolv­ing the conun­drum of cost and thera­peut­ic effect­ive­ness is per­haps the next big chal­lenge for can­cer research.

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate