Disease states in patients are typically treated with treatment regimens or therapies that are selected based on clinical based criteria; that is, a treatment therapy or regimen is selected for a patient based on the determination that the patient has been diagnosed with a particular disease (which diagnosis has been made from classical diagnostic assays). Although the molecular mechanisms behind various disease states have been the subject of studies for years, the specific application of a diseased individual's molecular profile in determining treatment regimens and therapies for that individual has been disease specific and not widely pursued.
Some treatment regimens have been determined using molecular profiling in combination with clinical characterization of a patient such as observations made by a physician (such as a code from the International Classification of Diseases, for example, and the dates such codes were determined), laboratory test results, x-rays, biopsy results, statements made by the patient, and any other medical information typically relied upon by a physician to make a diagnosis in a specific disease. However, using a combination of selection material based on molecular profiling and clinical characterizations (such as the diagnosis of a particular type of cancer) to determine a treatment regimen or therapy presents a risk that an effective treatment regimen may be overlooked for a particular individual since some treatment regimens may work well for different disease states even though they are associated with treating a particular type of disease state.
Patients with metastatic cancer are of particular concern for treating physicians. The majority of patients with metastatic cancer eventually run out of treatment options for their tumors. These patients have very limited options after their tumor has progressed on standard front line and second line (and sometimes third line and beyond) therapies. Although these patients may participate in Phase I and Phase II clinical trials for new anticancer agents, they must usually meet very strict eligibility criteria to do so. Studies have shown that when patients participate in these types of trials, the new anticancer agent may give response rates of anywhere from 5% to 10% on average in Phase I settings to 12% in Phase II settings. These patients also have the option of electing to receive the best supportive care to treat their symptoms.
There has recently been an explosion of interest in developing new anticancer agents that are more targeted against a cell surface receptor or an up regulated or amplified gene product. This approach has met with some success (e.g. Herceptin against HER2/neu in breast cancer cells, rituximab against CD20 in lymphoma cells, bevacizamab against VEGF, Cetuximab against EGFR, etc.). However, patients' tumors still eventually progress on these therapies. If a larger number of targets or molecular findings such as molecular mechanisms, genes, gene expressed proteins, and/or combinations of such were measured in a patient's tumor, one may find additional targets or molecular findings that can be exploited by using specific therapeutic agents. Identifying multiple agents that can treat multiple targets or underlying mechanisms would provide a metastatic cancer patient with a viable therapeutic alternative to those treatment regimens which currently exist.
Accordingly, there is a need for a system and method for determining an individualized medical intervention for a disease state based on molecular profiling that is used to target specific genes and/or gene expressed proteins with specific drugs or agents that is independent of disease lineage diagnosis.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds