|
February 24, 2009 • Volume 6 / Number 4
|
|

Dr. John E. Niederhuber
With President Barack Obama’s signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 17, 2009, came newfound hope in many circles that our economy can start down the road to recovery. As the President himself has said, it will not be easy. This recovery package is just the first step and, undoubtedly, just one of many interventions.
The economic stimulus package presents a tremendous opportunity for the biomedical research establishment. Under the new law, NIH will receive approximately $10.4 billion for use in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $8.2 billion of which is specifically tagged for research.
Of that $8.2 billion, approximately $1.26 billion will go to NCI. The total funding for cancer research could increase if NCI grantees successfully compete for “challenge grants,” comparative effectiveness research monies, and other infrastructure funds administered by the NIH Office of the Director and the National Center for Research Resources. I believe this sizable figure is a profound affirmation from President Obama and the American people of the importance of tackling the cancer burden and a sign of their confidence that we are well suited to meet that challenge. As you are well aware, I continually remind our leaders in the executive and legislative bodies of our government that an investment in cancer research, whether in basic scientific discovery or behavioral studies of populations, is an investment in a model for gaining an understanding of all diseases.
As I wrote recently, an investment in research does more than just create new scientific knowledge and advances in clinical medicine. That investment also translates into support for research projects at institutions large and small across the country, and those projects in turn create jobs and a plethora of new business opportunities by generating patents, products, and biotechnology start-up companies. In fact, on average, a single NIH research grant supports seven jobs. And according to one analysis, for every $1.00 spent on research in a given community, $2.25 in local economic activity is generated.
The White House is requiring an unprecedented, but certainly appropriate, level of transparency and accountability with regard to how ARRA funds are used. These funds will be kept separate from our general operating budget secured via the standard appropriations process.
To help achieve this transparency, new NCI reporting mechanisms are being developed for the grantees and institutions that receive funds from the stimulus package. These 2-year awards will be supported via three primary mechanisms:
NCI’s leadership is working under an accelerated timetable to create a spending plan that meets the stimulus package goals, while striking an all-important balance between increases in the number of grants for individual investigators, where there are long-term financial obligations, and a greater commitment to solicited, team-science projects—such as IT-related efforts like caBIG, BIG Health, and efforts related to the development of electronic medical records.
We will widely report—via the NCI Web site, the NCI Cancer Bulletin, teleconferences, professional meetings, and other avenues—on the research opportunities created by these funds, the specific projects they support, the scientific knowledge and advances they generate, and the number of jobs they provide. NCI is committed to ensuring that the cancer community and general public can easily trace the return on this unprecedented investment.
The bottom line is this: NIH and NCI leadership are prepared to do our part toward the economic recovery of this great country by quickly distributing stimulus funds via a science- and merit-driven process and, in so doing, supporting not just new science but crafting new approaches that alter the course of cancer while preserving and creating jobs.
It’s rewarding to witness members of Congress—particularly Senator Arlen Specter, who championed the need for these funds—and the President’s confidence in the potency of biomedical research in the recovery process. Many in the cancer community toil behind the scenes, in basic research laboratories, community clinics, and the offices of advocacy organizations. But we are all committed to reducing the cancer burden, and this influx of funds recognizes the remarkable work we have done and the important achievements the American people believe we can accomplish.
Indeed, during the signing ceremony last Tuesday, while talking about the support for scientific research in the stimulus package, President Obama said that he hoped “this investment will ignite our imagination once more, spurring new discoveries and breakthroughs.” I am confident that we as a community have the people and strategies in place to live up to that hope, to achieve important progress that will better the lives of millions in the process.
Dr. John E. Niederhuber
Director, National Cancer Institute

A recent survey of genomic changes in brain tumors found that a gene called IDH1 was mutated in more than 10 percent of the glioblastoma tumors analyzed. The mutations tended to occur in younger patients and were associated with a somewhat longer survival compared with patients who lacked the mutations.
A follow-up study by researchers at the Duke University Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center now shows that IDH1 and a related gene, IDH2, are frequently altered in three types of gliomas, the most common form of brain cancer. These include low-grade astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas, and secondary glioblastomas.
The mutations were not detected in nearly 500 other tumors from outside the central nervous system. And among gliomas, IDH mutations often occurred in lower-grade tumors, suggesting that the changes may help initiate and drive these cancers, the researchers reported in the February 19 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Until last year, IDH1, which is involved in producing energy for a cell, had not been associated with brain cancer. While it is not yet clear how the IDH mutations might affect the genes or cells, an analysis of 445 brain tumors showed that the mutations are localized to certain regions of the genes.
“These are very specific mutations,” said lead investigator Dr. Hai Yan of Duke University. The mutations may affect approximately 6,000 children and adults with brain cancer in the United States each year, the researchers estimate.
The study confirmed the earlier finding that patients whose glioblastomas carried IDH1 mutations had improved outcomes over those whose tumors did not, and it extended the finding to include IDH2 mutations. Patients with a glioblastoma carrying mutations in either gene survived on average 31 months, versus 15 months for those without the mutations.
In addition, patients with anaplastic astrocytomas that tested positive for the mutations had a median survival of 65 months, compared with 20 months for those who did not. (It was not possible to compare survival data for patients with oligodendrogliomas because there were not enough tumors that lacked the mutations.)
The researchers believe, based on these results and studies of the mutations in cultured cells, that gliomas with IDH mutations are a clinically and genetically distinct group of tumors. If this is confirmed, the mutations could be a marker for classifying patients with similar types of disease and prognoses, as well as provide leads for developing therapies targeted at the underlying changes in these tumors.
“As a next step, we need a better understanding of how the mutations might contribute to cancer,” said coauthor Dr. D. Williams Parsons, a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine.
“And from a clinical perspective,” he continued, “it will be important to follow patients with these mutations and see whether they have better or worse outcomes or responses to specific therapies.”
Because IDH genes encode metabolic enzymes, Dr. Yan noted, studying the mutations could lead to new insights into possible connections between metabolism and cancer. This is an area of growing interest among researchers and the subject of an accompanying editorial in NEJM by Dr. Craig Thompson of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
“A potential benefit of identifying metabolic-enzyme mutations that are pathogenic in specific cancers is that such cancers may be susceptible to pharmacologic manipulations that are more effective and less toxic than existing therapies,” Dr. Thompson concluded.—Edward R. Winstead

Name of the Trial
Phase III Randomized Study of Lenalidomide as Maintenance Therapy after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma (CALGB-100104). See the protocol summary.
Dr. Philip McCarthy
Principal Investigators
Dr. Philip McCarthy and Dr. Kenneth Anderson, Cancer and Leukemia Group B; Dr. Edward Stadtmauer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; Dr. Sergio Giralt, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trial Network
Why This Trial Is Important
Multiple myeloma is a type of blood cancer that develops in plasma cells. Treatment for multiple myeloma is usually effective in bringing about remission or stopping disease progression, but it rarely provides a cure. Most patients will eventually have a relapse or progression and will die from their disease.
Multiple myeloma treatment usually starts with chemotherapy to reduce the amount of disease. This initial treatment, called induction therapy, is often followed by consolidation therapy, which consists of high-dose chemotherapy, single or tandem autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), or both. Maintenance therapy is then sometimes given in an attempt to prolong the duration of remission.
The addition of the drug lenalidomide (Revlimid; CC-5013) to induction therapy for multiple myeloma has been found to increase both the rate and the duration of remission compared to earlier regimens. In this trial, researchers are exploring whether maintenance therapy with lenalidomide following autologous SCT can slow or prevent the return of cancer. Patients who have had induction therapy will undergo single autologous SCT and then be randomly assigned to receive either maintenance lenalidomide or placebo.
“An earlier clinical trial has shown that maintenance therapy with thalidomide improves survival after autologous SCT in patients with myeloma,” said Dr. McCarthy. “However, a high number of patients stopped treatment because of toxicity associated with thalidomide.
“Lenalidomide is a derivative of thalidomide that may be more potent and less toxic, so we have good reason to believe that lenalidomide maintenance therapy may help extend the length of remission in patients who respond to autologous SCT and perhaps help those with partial responses to SCT achieve complete response,” Dr. McCarthy said.
“Another exciting aspect of this study is that it demonstrates an important initiative among U.S. researchers to coordinate and collaborate on multiple myeloma clinical trials,” he added. “We believe this cooperative effort will improve the efficiency of multiple myeloma trials and ultimately benefit patients by speeding up the development and validation of new treatments.”For More Information
See the lists of entry criteria and trial contact information or call the NCI's Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237). The toll-free call is confidential.

Director: Dr. Edward J. Benz, Jr. • 44 Binney Street, Boston, MA 02115
Phone: 617-632-2100 • Web site: http://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu
Background
Founded in 1997, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC) is a cancer research consortium that integrates and builds upon the collective talent and resources of seven Harvard University-affiliated institutions. DF/HCC succeeds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute—one of the first Comprehensive Cancer Centers established in the early 1970s—as an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. The institutional members of DF/HCC are:
Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center comprises seven institutions throughout the greater Boston area (clockwise from top left): Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Children's Hospital Boston, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital.
Member institutions combine their scientific strengths to accelerate research findings from the laboratory, clinical research trials, and studies of populations, enhancing patient care and our understanding of the underlying causes of cancer. DF/HCC members receive a total of $533 million for cancer research funding annually, of which $218 million is from NCI, making DF/HCC the leading recipient of NCI funding in the country.
Research
DF/HCC brings together more than 1,000 faculty members through multidisciplinary, inter-institutional programs that stimulate collaboration and discovery. The Center currently supports 17 established disease- and discipline-based research programs, as well as 10 developing programs. DF/HCC has also been awarded eight Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPOREs) in the areas of breast, lung, kidney, ovarian, prostate, renal, gastrointestinal cancers, and myeloma.
Eighteen shared resources or core facilities provide specialized services that enable investigators to conduct innovative cancer research. Of note is the new Pathology Specimen Locator Core, which houses a groundbreaking Web-based network of searchable databases containing de-identified, coded, pathologic information on post-diagnostic, excess human samples that researchers may use in their studies.
DF/HCC also has one of the largest clinical research programs in the country, taking a unified approach to approving, activating, monitoring, and supporting the cancer-related clinical trials conducted at member institutions. Annually, the Center conducts 500 active therapeutic clinical trials, many at multiple DF/HCC sites. Half of these trials are initiated by their principal investigators.
Other Programs
A cornerstone of DF/HCC’s mission is the Initiative to Eliminate Cancer Disparities (IECD), a strategic initiative to address inequalities in cancer across population groups. The IECD focuses on five areas: increasing research on cancer disparities, engaging diverse communities in improving cancer prevention and treatment, increasing the number of minorities in the biomedical workforce through training outreach programs, enhancing faculty diversity, and amplifying culturally sensitive care within DF/HCC member institutions.

Under a proposed decision memorandum issued on February 11 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), virtual colonoscopy—also known as CT colonography—for colorectal cancer screening would not be covered by Medicare. In the memo, CMS said the “evidence is inadequate to conclude that CT colonography is an appropriate colorectal cancer screening test” to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries.
The decision by CMS, which is open for public comment until March 11, is in line with recommendations published last October by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. It conflicts, however, with the conclusions of the American Cancer Society, from which updated guidelines on colorectal cancer screening were issued that include virtual colonoscopy as an acceptable screening test alongside options like a standard optical colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.
The study results published to date, including those from the NCI-funded ACRIN 6664, indicate that for detecting polyps sized 10 mm or larger, virtual colonoscopy and standard optical colonoscopy are equally effective. For polyps 6 mm or less, there is some controversy about the cancer risk they pose, and the agency noted that the data indicate virtual colonoscopy is less reliable than standard colonoscopy for detecting these smaller polyps. There is also some debate about whether virtual colonoscopy misses depressed or “flat” polyps.
Virtual colonoscopy may be considered cost effective at specific reimbursement rates, CMS noted in the decision memo. However, it also states: “A pivotal, overarching concern is the generalizability of these main study results to the Medicare population. The mean age of participants in these studies…was considerably younger than the Medicare aged population.”
To assist the FDA with its efforts to inform the public about the recall of peanut products produced by Peanut Corporation of America, NCI has posted a special fact sheet on the Cancer.gov Web site, outlining the particular risks of salmonella-contaminated foods for cancer patients who may have impaired immune systems due to chemotherapy or blood cell transplantation.
This fact sheet also provides suggestions for alternative foods that can provide the higher calories and protein that cancer patients often need during treatment and recovery—various cheeses, beans, yogurt, hummus, and pudding, for example. The fact sheet notes that almond butter and other spreads that are made from nuts are often made with the same equipment that processes peanut butter and, therefore, should be avoided if the source of the product is unclear.
A complete list of products included in the peanut recall is posted on the FDA’s Web site, which includes a search function by which people can enter products according to brand name, UPC code, description, or any combination thereof.
Dr. Stephen Williams
Dr. Stephen Williams, founding director of Indiana University’s (IU) Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, died of melanoma on February 15. Under his leadership, the Simon Cancer Center experienced tremendous growth, including the opening last year of a $150 million facility at IU’s medical complex in downtown Indianapolis. Dr. Williams authored more than 150 medical articles. His research interests included ovarian and prostate cancer and identifying new treatments for epithelial cancer.
Dr. Williams spoke about his fight against cancer as he received the IU President’s Medal of Excellence in August, when the Simon Cancer Center celebrated its expansion.
“In the last couple of years, I myself have become a cancer survivor and recently completed a very difficult treatment,” he said. “As I reflect on the last few months and how difficult it has been for me, it is absolutely clear that treatment, while important, is not good enough. I can say definitely that it is easier to prevent and detect cancer than it is to treat it.”
Dr. Eugenia Calle
Dr. Eugenia Calle, former vice president of epidemiology at the American Cancer Society (ACS), died suddenly February 17. An Atlanta, GA, man has been charged with her death.
Dr. Calle contributed groundbreaking research on the causes and prevention of cancer. Among her major accomplishments were two landmark studies on the relationship between obesity and cancer, contributions to understanding the risk factors for breast and other cancers in women, and research on hormone-replacement therapy in relation to female cancers. She served as an adjunct professor of epidemiology at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, a member of NCI’s Board of Scientific Counselors, several NCI subcommittees, and on the editorial boards of several cancer journals.
“Jeanne was one of the world’s most respected epidemiologists, researching the causes of cancer, especially obesity and diet,” said ACS President Dr. Otis Brawley in a statement. “Jeanne brought a formidable intellect and passion for finding answers to cancer through her research. We are shocked and deeply saddened by the senseless loss of this tremendously talented friend and colleague.”
Dr. Mitchell Gail
Dr. Mitchell Gail, senior investigator with the Biostatistics Branch of NCI’s Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, has been selected to receive the 2009 Distinguished Achievement Award from the American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO). The award will be presented at the Society’s annual meeting, which will be held in Tampa, FL, from March 8–10. ASPO established this award in 1983 to recognize individuals whose research has greatly advanced its mission of cancer prevention and control.
Dr. Susan Gottesman
Dr. Susan Gottesman, a scientist from NCI’s Center for Cancer Research (CCR), was one of six new governors elected to the Board of the American Academy of Microbiology (AAM) earlier this month. Dr. Gottesman, co-chief of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and head of the Biochemical Genetics Section, studies small regulatory RNAs. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1998 and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1999 in recognition of her work on energy-dependent proteolysis.
Governors on the Board serve a 3-year term and set strategic direction for the Academy, ratify election to Fellowship, develop new topics for colloquia, and establish new programs and initiatives consistent with its overall mission.
Dr. Giorgio Trinchieri
Three scientists from CCR were among the 72 microbiologists elected AAM Fellows earlier this month.
Dr. Giorgio Trinchieri, director of CCR’s Cancer and Inflammation Program and chief of the Laboratory of Experimental Immunology, focuses on the role of inflammation, innate resistance, and immunity in carcinogenesis, cancer progression, and prevention or destruction. Dr. Trinchieri is credited with discovery of the molecule interleukin-12.
Dr. Jeffrey Strathern
Dr. Jeffrey Strathern is chief of the Gene Regulation and Chromosome Biology Laboratory. As head of the Genome Recombination and Regulation Section, Dr. Strathern’s research focuses on mechanisms of genetic recombination, particularly double-strand-break repair, and mechanisms of gene regulation, including gene silencing.
Dr. Amar J.S. Klar
Dr. Amar J.S. Klar is a senior investigator in the Gene Regulation and Chromosome Biology Laboratory and head of the Developmental Genetics Section. Dr. Klar’s main research focus is the genetics and molecular biology of gene silencing and mating-type switching in yeast. In other research, his lab has explained the mechanism of asymmetric cell division, which is used to explain brain hemispheric differentiation in humans and visceral organ laterality in vertebrate development.
Fellows of the Academy are elected annually through a selective peer-review process based on their records of scientific achievement and original contributions that have advanced microbiology. Fellows represent all subspecialties of microbiology, including basic and applied research, teaching, public health, industry, and government service.
Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, Hispanic populations are significantly less likely to look for information about cancer and less likely to feel confident in their ability to find such information, according to a new analysis of data from NCI’s Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). HINTS is a cross-sectional health communication survey of U.S. adults that tracks trends in health information usage over time and cancer-related communication, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in the population. This recently released HINTS Brief, available in both English and Spanish, indicates that Hispanics, particularly Spanish-speaking Hispanics, experience greater challenges to seeking and interpreting cancer information. Differences in cancer information seeking and information access may contribute to disparities in health outcomes among disadvantaged populations.
NCI Home |
Text-Only Version |
Contact Us |
Policies |
Accessibility |
RSS |
Viewing Files |
FOIA |
Site Help |
Site Map
|
A Service of the National Cancer Institute |