Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Outlook
  • Published:

Cancer drug discovery through collaboration

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 4, pages 375–380 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

It has been two decades since cancer was first described as a genetic disease and researchers offered the promise of early diagnosis and targeted therapies. Today, most cancer patients still await life-saving treatments. Genomics and other '-omics' technologies have revealed a complexity among cancers that makes almost any tumour genetically unique; as a consequence, effective targeted therapies might be suitable only for small subgroups of patients. We suggest that by merging and organizing their core competencies, academia, biotechnology companies and the pharmaceutical industry can address existing bottlenecks in anticancer drug discovery and development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: From general to personalized cancer therapy.
Figure 2: The pipeline problem.
Figure 3: Potential increase in importance of targeted anticancer drugs.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bardelli, A. et al. Mutational analysis of the tyrosine kinome in colorectal cancers. Science 300, 949 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lynch, T. J. et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. New Engl. J. Med. 350, 2129–2132 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Paez, J. G. et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 304, 1497–1500 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel, J. D., Pasche, B. & Argiris, A. Targeting non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: where do we stand, where do we go. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 50, 175–186 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711–715 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Booth, B. & Zemmel, R. Prospects for productivity. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 451–456 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tolchin, E. Pharmaceutical giants fund start-ups. Drug Discov. Devel. 2, 22 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Association of University Technology Managers, Inc. (Lori Pressman, ed.) AUTM Licensing Survey. A Survey Summary of Technology Licensing (and Related) Performance for U. S. and Canadian Academic and Nonprofit Institutions, and Patent Management Firms. Northbrook, IL, USA, 2003.

  9. Edwards, M., Murray, F. & Yu, R. Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nature Biotechnol. 21, 618–624 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH response to the conference report request for a plan to ensure taxpayers' interests are protected [online], <http://www.nih.gov/news/070101wyden.htm> (2001).

  11. Shreefal, M. The emerging role of academia in commercializing innovation. Nature Biotechnol. 22, 21–24 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. The NIH Almanac [online], <http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/index.html> (2003).

  13. Leaf, C. Why we're losing the war on cancer — and how to win it. Fortune 76f (22 March 2004).

  14. Booth, B. & Zemmel, R. Quest for the best. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 838–841 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Garber, K. US NHGRI launches chemical attack on drug development gap. Nature Biotechnol. 21, 1253–1254 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Austin, C. P., Brady, L. S., Insel, T. R. & Collins, F. S. NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative. Science 306, 1138–1139 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W. & Grabowski, H. G. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22, 151–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pollack, A. UCSD getting more involved in drug trials. SignOnSanDiego.com [online], <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20030731-9999_1b31biotech.html> (31 July 2003).

  19. MIT Press Release. Novartis opens drug research center in MIT's Tech Square [online], <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/novartis.html> (6 May 2002).

  20. Smaglik, P. Boston: a magnetic hub. Naturejobs 417, 4–5 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schwarz, K. & lquin, J. T. Building the translational highway: toward new partnerships between academia and the private sector. Nature Med. 9, 493–495 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mallik, A., Zbar, B. & Zemmel, R. Making pharma alliances work. The McKinsey Quarterly 1 (2004).

  23. Zavoico, G. B. A new culture of drug discovery. NIBR Science (Fall 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Arnst, C. Cancer superdrugs, costly side effects. BusinessWeek 44–46 (21 June 2004).

  25. Sawyers, C. L. Research on resistance to cancer drug Gleevec. Science 294, 1834 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Booth, B., Glassman, R. & Ma, P. Oncology's trials. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 609–610 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Beyond the blockbuster drug. Strategies for nichebuster drugs, targeted therapies and personalized medicine. Business Insights (February 2005).

  28. Kamb, A. What's wrong with our cancer models? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 161–165 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. CMR International 2003 R&D Compendium, Epsom, UK, 32 (March 2003).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McKinsey & Company, 55 E. 52nd Street, New York, 10022, New York, USA

    Saurabh Saha

  2. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, 21231, Maryland, USA

    Christoph Lengauer & Luis A. Diaz Jr

Authors
  1. Christoph Lengauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis A. Diaz Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saurabh Saha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Lengauer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

The Biodesign Institute

NIH Almanac

NIH Roadmap Overview

Pharmastart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lengauer, C., Diaz, L. & Saha, S. Cancer drug discovery through collaboration. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4, 375–380 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1722

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1722

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing