Dean’s professor speaks on cancer treatment options

Dean’s Professor of Biological Sciences Peter Kuhn spoke before a packed audience at Joyce J. Cammilleri Hall on Monday. The presentation, titled “Convergence for Better Cures and Better Care,” presented his studies on biological transition points within the field of oncology.

Kuhn’s presentation detailed his “no cell left behind” research, which focuses on unveiling more efficient and personalized methods for cancer treatment.

The discussion featured Kuhn’s findings, which were gathered alongside colleagues from USC’s Bridge Institute. Kuhn described his research processes and his early findings, which facilitate possible cancer treatments for the future.

The USC Bridge Institute is a research facility that was established in 2010. The institute focuses on bringing engineers, scientists and physicians, together to research alternative cancer treatments.

Kuhn, the primary investigator in the project, has also established the translational science program at the Scripps Research Institute and has served on the faculties of medicine and accelerator physics at Stanford University. Along with Provost Professor of Biological Sciences Raymond C. Stevens, Kuhn brings with him a cohort of approximately 50 researchers to the university, whose oncology research will make for a strengthened partnership between the Keck School of Medicine and the Viterbi School of Engineering.

Much of Kuhn’s presentation centered on the theme of convergence in science. Kuhn discussed the aggressive nature of cancer and why cancer treatments must be just as aggressive.

By administering case studies on the progress of cancer patients receiving treatment, Kuhn and his team learned that at biological transition points in the disease, more thoughtful treatment approaches could be considered, perhaps ones that could have salvaged or prolonged a patient’s life.

Kuhn described one case study, in which a 60-year-old man with stage four prostate cancer responded to chemotherapy and a few courses of drugs before his tumors grew rapidly and gained resistance to treatment. Shortly after his cancer stopped responding to drugs, the patient died.

Kuhn followed up to this case study by remarking that doctors of the patient likely believed that they did all that was possible in an effort to save his life. They administered chemotherapy and started him on numerous courses of drugs, but ultimately none of the options worked in the man’s favor. Today, common standards in the medical community reflect the current doctoral perspectives on cancer treatment. Kuhn proposes an alternative plan to cancer treatment.

Kuhn and his colleagues observed that in the case of cancer treatment, determining the following course of action is often done in a way that’s qualitative rather than quantitative. For example, in the case of evaluating metastasis — developments of secondary tumors at locales other than the primary growth of the cancer — doctors can usually chart the areas where a certain tumor has the potential to spread. In the case of prostate cancer, a growth can travel first from the prostate on to the bones, liver or lungs.

Oncologists know the secondary locations that each type of cancer might spread to, but Kuhn suggests that this qualitative information may not be enough. Instead, he demonstrates that it is possible to quantify the likelihood of a tumor taking one trajectory versus another and that by comparing these probabilities, treatments can be further expedited and directed to each patient’s unique condition, a course of individualization that could revolutionize the way physicians approach this disease.

Throughout his lecture, Kuhn emphasized the importance of early detection in cancer treatment by measuring the early detection of the disease or discovering changes in growth or responsiveness throughout the course of treatment.

Kuhn divided the process of treating cancer into two phases.  Phase 1 focuses on “finding the right treatment, for the right patient, at the right time”, while Phase 2 capitalizes on a concept coined “human performance optimization”, or the application of combined and personalized treatment options that will best improve the patient’s outcomes.

Furthermore, Kuhn discussed why quantifiable results for backed treatments must involve a strong team of clinicians, scientists and engineers.

“The clinician identifies the problem and sets boundaries for the solution. Basic scientists achieve meaningful breakthroughs by way of new discoveries,” Kuhn said. “Engineers then provide framework for viable healthcare solutions.”