Pascale Bourret

Cancer clinical trials in the era of genomic signatures: biomedical innovation, clinical utility, and regulatory-scientific hybrids.

The paper examines two large-scale, North American and European clinical trials designed to validate two commercially available genomic tumor signatures that predict a patient’s risk of breast cancer recurrence and response to chemotherapy. The paper builds on empirical evidence from the two trials to explore the emergence of diverse regulatory-scientific hybrids; that is, the paper discusses configurations of genomic practice and bioclinical work that depend on linkages between technical, commercial, patient, clinical, and legal interests and institutions. The development of the genomic signatures for each trial — Onco type DX and MammaPrint — has followed quite different routes. Onco type began as a commercial platform: the company that produced it did not discover a signature but rather constructed it by asking users at every step what clinical question they wanted the signature to answer and what data would be credible in that regard. The test has been designed to minimally disrupt existing clinical workflows. MammaPrint, on the other hand, began as a breast cancer signature: the researchers who discovered it, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), established a company to commercialize it as a test after the fact. MammaPrint requires a change in pathologists’ routines. Thus, while these two trials signify a new departure for clinical cancer trials on a number of levels — they both incorporate new models of interaction between biotech companies and public research, and they both aim to establish the clinical relevance of genomic markers — they also embody different socio-technical scripts: one attempts to accommodate established routines, while the other openly challenges prevailing evidential hierarchies and existing biomedical configurations.

A New Clinical Collective for French Cancer Genetics: A Heterogeneous Mapping Analysis

Collaborative forms of work such as extended networks, expert groups, and consortia increasingly structure biomedical activities. They are particularly prominent in the cancer field, where procedures such as multicenter clinical trials have been instrumental in establishing the specialty of oncology, and subfields such as cancer genetics, where bioclinical activities—for example, testing for breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA) genes and follow-up interventions—are predicated on the articulation of a number of tasks performed by new clinical collectives. In this article, we examine the founding and development of a French bioclinical collective—the Groupe Génétique et Cancer (GGC)—that coordinates and structures the activities of most French actors in cancer genetics and operates simultaneously in the clinical, research, and regulatory domains. To examine the group’s structure and dynamics, the article combines information gathered through traditional fieldwork methods with information elicited from a coauthorship and semantic-network analysis of the publications of GGC members from 1969 to 2001.

Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?

In recent years, genomic technologies have entered oncology. In particular, so-called tumor signatures are now commercially available for diagnosing breast cancer. These new diagnostic tools have expanded the content and meaning of diagnosis, by adding a distinctive prognostic (will the disease recur?) and predictive (how will the disease react to treatment?) dimension to this activity, and modifying the relations between diagnosis and therapy. In particular, they raise the issue of the locus of clinical judgment and clinical decision-making insofar as they involve a re-alignment of the biological and clinical components of medical activities. Using as a case study a debate over the regulation of tests for genomic signatures by the US FDA, this paper examines how the actors problematize the issues related to the introduction of molecular diagnostics into clinical settings.

Extending experimentation: oncology’s fading boundary between research and care

Historians and social scientists view the distinction between research and care as diachronically and synchronically contingent, rather than transcendental, as is often the case in bioethics. Comparing how the notion of total care was used in the 1950s with present-day use of that same term by genomically informed oncology programs, the paper argues that the distinction between research and care needs: to be historicized, by examining its repeated emergence and re-definition, and the shifting relations between these two “ideal-typical” components; and to be problematized, by paying attention to the entities, practices, and institutions that are constitutive of the successive regimens that have punctuated oncology’s development. Shifting to contemporary activities, the paper examines how the recent massive injection of molecular biology and high-throughput genomic technologies in the field of oncology has been accompanied by a reshuffling of the research/care distinction, a process that is leading to new forms of “experimental care”.