The research team has now identified crucial genes in a range of common cancers that have been reported to predict a patient's response to treatment. This follows the team's earlier success in studying a tumor suppressor gene associated with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in children.
By using a simple test developed at the Institute, they can rapidly detect the presence or absence of these tumor suppressor genes in the patient's cancer cells. Tumor suppressor genes are linked to a variety of cancers including lung, breast, renal, colorectal, pancreatic, gastric, lymphoma and malignant melanoma.
Professor Ursula Kees, who heads the Children's Leukaemia and Cancer Research Division at TICHR, said progress over the past 18 months has been excellent.
"The absence of specific tumor suppressor genes in tumor specimens provides a valuable genetic marker to help us determine who is at greater risk of relapse," she said.
"We've now used this new rapid test in a cancer that occurs in adults and found it to be effective in providing important information about the genetic makeup of the tumor - information that doctors could use at an early stage to decide on the most effective treatment regimen for that individual patient."
Dr Leonard Firestone, CEO and managing director of Avantogen, said his company is currently considering the most appropriate commercial model to bring the test to the market. The new test is based on fast and simple procedures that can be run out of most diagnostic laboratories.
Director of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Professor Fiona Stanley, said the Institute was delighted to partner with Avantogen on this development because of their strong credentials in the oncology field.
researchaustralia.au/
At one hearing a research scientist asserted that there was a "public health cover-up on the existence of clusters" and a public health specialist interviewed similarly claimed that "when it comes to making a public statement, as with BSE, everyone gets behind the barricades and the line is agreed".
Participants in the project were at variance regarding how available evidence might be translated into policy. Should governments act on the basis of a precautionary approach? Some scientists claimed there was adequate evidence but that policymakers and journal editors were frightened to act on what was known. Many professionals were concerned that involvement in controversial debate could compromise their professional and career prospects in terms of funding, promotion and professional acceptance.
One epidemiologist interviewed pointed out that governments had long failed to act on smoking, where the evidence was "grotesquely strong". However the cancer professionals felt more powerful evidence was needed before any policy could be proposed, a view echoed in Westminster adjournment debate speeches.
Meanwhile, can the deliberate staging of dialogues like these improve mutual trust and establish greater consensus? "Yes," Ms Potts says, "Provided it is realised that the key contention, from our research, is not who participates, but their positions in relation to the evidence they cite. If protecting the public health is the key concern, then it is imperative that we find common ground on which to build preventative policies."
esrcsocietytoday.ac