Thatmeansthat a treatmentthatworkswellforonepersonwithbreastcancerdoesn't necessarilyworkwellforanotherpersonwithbreastcancer. Thisisexcitingwhen, a fewdecadesago, genetictestingadvancedenoughthatscientistscouldsample a patient's cancer, findthemutationthatcausedit, andthen, oncetheyfiguredout a treatmentthatworkedforthatonepatient, theycouldessentiallycopyandpastethattreatmentforeveryoneelsewiththesamecancer-causingmutation.
Whichsoundsgreat, andtheinitialresultsweresuperpromising. Forexample, researcherscopy-pasted a treatmentthatworkedforonebreastcancerpatientwith a particularmutation, andfoundthat 80% of -- theypinpointedmoremutationsanddevelopedmoredrugs, we'd soongettothepointwhere, wheneveranyonegotcancer, wecoulddestroyitbycopyingandpasting a mutation-specifictreatment.
Butthatobviouslyhasn't happened. First, thereare a lotofdifferentcancerdrugsand a lotofdifferentcancer-causingmutationsoutthere, andscientistshaveonlystumbledon a fewspecificcombinationsthatactuallywork.
Second, evenwhenscientistsdofind a combinationthatworksinonepatient, andtheydothewholecopy-pastething, otherthanin a fewselectcases, thetreatmentdoesn't workallthatwellinotherpeoplewiththesamemutation. Itturnsoutthathowmostcancersrespondtotreatmentisn't just a matterofthemutationthatcausedthem, butalsoallsortsofothercomplicatedstuffthatcanvaryfrompersontoperson.
As a result, copyandpastedtreatments, whichscientistsoncethoughtmightbasicallycurecancer, barelyworkbetterthantraditionaltreatmentslikeradiationandold-schoolchemo. Butinsteadofgivinguponthecopy-pasteidea, todayscientistsaretweakingit.
Scientistshaveonlydone a fewclinicaltrialsofthisnewcopyingandpastingcancerapproach, butitseemstobewaymoreeffectivethancopyingandpastingtreatments. Almost 40% ofpatientshavegottenbetterresultsthantheywouldhavewithradiationandold-schoolchemoalone.