The Role of Cell Sterilization in Population Based Studies of Radiogenic Second Cancers Following Radiation Therapy

Advances in radiotherapy have generated increased interest in comparative studies of treatment techniques and their effectiveness. In this respect, pediatric patients are of specific interest because of their sensitivity to radiation induced second cancers. However, due to the rarity of childhood cancers and the long latency of second cancers, large sample sizes are unavailable for the epidemiological study of contemporary radiotherapy treatments. Additionally, when specific treatments are considered, such as proton therapy, sample sizes are further reduced due to the rareness of such treatments. We propose a method to improve statistical power in micro clinical trials. Specifically, we use a more biologically relevant quantity, cancer equivalent dose (DCE), to estimate risk instead of mean absorbed dose (DMA). Our objective was to demonstrate that when DCE is used fewer subjects are needed for clinical trials. Thus, we compared the impact of DCE vs. DMA on sample size in a virtual clinical trial that estimated risk for second cancer (SC) in the thyroid following craniospinal irradiation (CSI) of pediatric patients using protons vs. photons. Dose reconstruction, risk models, and statistical analysis were used to evaluate SC risk from therapeutic and stray radiation from CSI for 18 patients. Absorbed dose was calculated in two ways: with (1) traditional DMA and (2) with DCE. DCE and DMA values were used to estimate relative risk of SC incidence (RRCE and RRMA, respectively) after proton vs. photon CSI. Ratios of RR for proton vs. photon CSI (RRRCE and RRRMA) were then used in comparative estimations of sample size to determine the minimal number of patients needed to maintain 80% statistical power when using DCE vs. DMA. For all patients, we found that protons substantially reduced the risk of developing a second thyroid cancer when compared to photon therapy. Mean RRR values were 0.052±0.014 and 0.087±0.021 for RRRMA and RRRCE, respectively. However, we did not find that use of DCE reduced the number of patents needed for acceptable statistical power (i.e, 80%). In fact, when considerations were made for RRR values that met equipoise requirements and the need for descriptive statistics, the minimum number of patients needed for a micro-clinical trial increased from 17 using DMA to 37 using DCE. Subsequent analyses revealed that for our sample, the most influential factor in determining variations in sample size was the experimental standard deviation of estimates for RRR across the patient sample. Additionally, because the relative uncertainty in dose from proton CSI was so much larger (on the order of 2000 times larger) than the other uncertainty terms, it dominated the uncertainty in RRR. Thus, we found that use of corrections for cell sterilization, in the form of DCE, may be an important and underappreciated consideration in the design of clinical trials and radio-epidemiological studies. In addition, the accurate application of cell sterilization to thyroid dose was sensitive to variations in absorbed dose, especially for proton CSI, which may stem from errors in patient positioning, range calculation, and other aspects of treatment planning and delivery.

Patenting genes and gene sequences: Analysis of public health implications and the law

At issue is whether or not isolated DNA is patent eligible under the U.S. Patent Law and the implications of that determination on public health. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued patents on DNA since the 1980s, and scientists and researchers have proceeded under that milieu since that time. Today, genetic research and testing related to the human breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is conducted within the framework of seven patents that were issued to Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation between 1997 and 2000. In 2009, suit was filed on behalf of multiple researchers, professional associations and others to invalidate fifteen of the claims underlying those patents. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent cases, has invalidated claims for analyzing and comparing isolated DNA but has upheld claims to isolated DNA. The specific issue of whether isolated DNA is patent eligible is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide the case by year's end. In this work, a systematic review was performed to determine the effects of DNA patents on various stakeholders and, ultimately, on public health; and to provide a legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. ^ A literature review was conducted to: first, identify principle stakeholders with an interest in patent eligibility of the isolated DNA sequences BRCA1 and BRCA2; and second, determine the effect of the case on those stakeholders. Published reports that addressed gene patents, the Myriad litigation, and implications of gene patents on stakeholders were included. Next, an in-depth legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and methods for analyzing it was performed pursuant to accepted methods of legal research and analysis based on legal briefs, federal law and jurisprudence, scholarly works and standard practice legal analysis. ^ Biotechnology, biomedical and clinical research, access to health care, and personalized medicine were identified as the principle stakeholders and interests herein. Many experts believe that the patent eligibility of isolated DNA will not greatly affect the biotechnology industry insofar as genetic testing is concerned; unlike for therapeutics, genetic testing does not require tremendous resources or lead time. The actual impact on biomedical researchers is uncertain, with greater impact expected for researchers whose work is intended for commercial purposes (versus basic science). The impact on access to health care has been surprisingly difficult to assess; while invalidating gene patents might be expected to decrease the cost of genetic testing and improve access to more laboratories and physicians' offices that provide the test, a 2010 study on the actual impact was inconclusive. As for personalized medicine, many experts believe that the availability of personalized medicine is ultimately a public policy issue for Congress, not the courts. ^ Based on the legal analysis performed in this work, this writer believes the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate patents on isolated DNA whose sequences are found in nature, because these gene sequences are a basic tool of scientific and technologic work and patents on isolated DNA would unduly inhibit their future use. Patents on complementary DNA (cDNA) are expected to stand, however, based on the human intervention required to craft cDNA and the product's distinction from the DNA found in nature. ^ In the end, the solution as to how to address gene patents may lie not in jurisprudence but in a fundamental change in business practices to provide expanded licenses to better address the interests of the several stakeholders. ^