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