Test Cancer Drugs against Its Spread

A cancer expert argues that our current system for testing drugs fails to fully examine those that might stop metastasis. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The biggest risk for breast cancer patients is usually not original tumor, which is removed by surgery. The cancer becomes particularly deadly if it metastasizes and forms tumors elsewhere in the body.

But drugs to target the metastatic process would fail the current clinical-trial system for breast cancer treatments.

Patricia Steeg is the chief of the Women’s Cancers Section at the National Cancer Institute. She argues in the journal Nature that a new approach is needed in testing and approving breast cancer drugs. [Patricia S. Steeg, "Perspective: The right trials"]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


New breast cancer drugs today must demonstrate that they shrink established tumors. But a beneficial drug might not reduce the size of a tumor. Instead, it might fight metastasis in a number of ways—it could kill keep cells from escaping the tumor, or kill them in the bloodstream.

Steeg argues that the FDA needs to change the model, and that anti-metastasis drugs should be tested in combination with current therapies. The success should not be related only to shrinking tumors, but rather to preventing new tumors from forming. She says this approach will help not only breast cancer patients, but millions of survivors in remission who worry that a new tumor will appear.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.] 

[Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe