Histology agnosticism: Infra-molecularizing disease?

The term "molecularization" has been used by historians and sociologists of science to describe the transition from an anatomic view of the body to a submicroscopic one, where health and illness, indeed life itself, are increasingly defined in terms of an individual's "genetic landscape." Here we introduce the notion of the infra-molecular as a way of extending and nuancing the molecularization trope as it applies to the domain of (post)genomic oncology. In particular we look at how infra-molecularity is enacted in practice as part of the so-called "histology-agnostic" turn in clinical cancer research and care. Drawing on fieldwork in North American oncology settings, we analyze how histology agnosticism partially reconfigures knowledge and practice across the linked domains of drug development and clinical trials, therapeutic decision making, and regulation, and the implications of this for an ongoing revision of how we understand the biopathology and temporality of cancer. We show how, in practice, the inframolecular gaze entails a "return" of histology as a modulator of histology-agnostic drugs and background for interpretation of mutational complexity.

Decision-making as discovery: Vetting clinical research in a leading precision oncology service.

Based on fieldwork carried out at the Early Drug Development Service of a world-leading cancer institution, our study sheds lights on decision-making processes at the stage where decisions are made about which clinical trial to pursue and thus which experimental drugs will feed the growing pipeline of molecularly guided therapies and therapeutic strategies available to treating physicians. The paper shows how such collective decision-making practices by a translational research unit employ formal tools and ad hoc valuation strategies that interweave technical-scientific matters of concern with patient-oriented clinical ones, as part of the institutional assetization of biomedical knowledge production. In the process, decision-making practices in part define the conditions of possibility for the provision of care in what is increasingly becoming a 'clinic of variants.' They do so by reconfiguring on an evolving basis the socio-material ecosystem through which precision oncology is enacted as a rapidly evolving assemblage of patients, physicians, research and support staff, protocols, molecular markers, drugs and administrative components.

Organizing precision medicine: A case study of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's engagement in/with genomics.

Recent decades have seen a dramatic rise of in the number of initiatives designed to promote precision oncology, a domain that has played a pioneering role in the implementation of post-genomic approaches and technologies such as innovative clinical trial designs and molecular profiling. In this paper, based on fieldwork carried out at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from 2019 onwards, we analyze how a world-leading cancer center has adapted, responded, and contributed to the challenge of "doing" precision oncology by developing new programs and services, and building an infrastructure that has created the conditions for genomic practices. We do so by attending to the "organizing" side of precision oncology and to the nexus between these activities and epistemic issues. We situate the work that goes into making results actionable and accessing targeted drugs within the larger process of creating a precision medicine ecosystem that includes purpose-built institutional settings, thus simultaneously experimenting with bioclinical matters and, reflexively, with organizing practices. The constitution and articulation of innovative sociotechnical arrangements at MSK provides a unique case study of the production of a large and complex clinical research ecosystem designed to implement rapidly evolving therapeutic strategies embedded in a renewed and dynamic understanding of cancer biology.

Domain-topic models with chained dimensions: Charting an emergent domain of a major oncology conference.

This paper presents a contribution to the study of bibliographic corpora through science mapping. From a graph representation of documents and their textual dimension, stochastic block models can provide a simultaneous clustering of documents and words that we call a domain-topic model. Previous work investigated the resulting topics, or word clusters, while ours focuses on the study of the document clusters we call domains. To enable the description and interactive navigation of domains, we introduce measures and interfaces that consider the structure of the model to relate both types of clusters. We then present a procedure that extends the block model to cluster metadata attributes of documents, which we call a domain-chained model, noting that our measures and interfaces transpose to metadata clusters. We provide an example application to a corpus relevant to current science, technology and society (STS) research and an interesting case for our approach: the abstracts presented between 1995 and 2017 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, the major oncology research conference. Through a sequence of domain-topic and domain-chained models, we identify and describe a group of domains that have notably grown through the last decades and which we relate to the establishment of "oncopolicy" as a major concern in oncology.

Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as "oncopolicy".

Social studies of biomedicine often focus on how exogenous policies shape the medical domain. While policy agendas no doubt affect complex biomedical projects, in the present paper we analyze a different dynamic, namely how oncologists enact policy as part of several flagship precision oncology endeavors. Empirically, the article focuses on the U.S. TAPUR trial, the Dutch DRUP trial, and the Canadian CAPTUR trial, which have recently been joined by similar Scandinavian studies. Taken together, these trials represent innovative forms of clinical research that, beyond their varying experimental nature, have been designed to transform the evidential processes to provide access to biomarker-driven treatments. Along with gathering evidence on effectiveness of off-label targeted therapies, their explicit goals include the recentering of a major professional organization around research, and the reframing of healthcare as a learning system seamlessly connecting epistemic, organizational, and economic issues. Accordingly, we analyze the design and implementation of these trials as a form of (onco)policy by other means.

Multi-polar scripts: Techno-regulatory environments and the rise of precision oncology diagnostic tests.

The paper examines the development and marketing of five multi-gene tests, a.k.a. as tumor signatures, designed to aid clinicians and cancer patients in therapeutic decision-making, and, in particular, to avoid overtreatment. We build on a 2011 paper that investigated the emergence of this new domain by opening the 'black box' of two pioneering tests and analyzing the hybrid, scientific-regulatory 'scripts' that were built into them. In subsequent years, second-generation tests, produced by a diverse blend of academic and commercial initiatives, have become available, and they all built into their scripts the lessons learned from their predecessors. The present paper confirms the heuristic value of the initial script-analysis but expands it to consider the multi-polar nature of the space within which multigene tests mutually position themselves. We examine how the tests were first problematized - i.e. how they described and prescribed the kind of world in which they would operate - and how their initial problematization was re-specified following the emergence of a comparative arena and their resulting informational enrichment. In parallel, we explore valuation processes, i.e. the evolving definition of the set of referents against which the assays are mutually compared, and the debates about the appropriate criteria for doing so. We note that the cancer diagnostic industry is involved in the reconfiguration of the multi-polar environment defined by socio-technical, techno-scientific, and regulatory matters of concern that seamlessly blend commercial and scientific considerations.

Genomic expertise in action: molecular tumour boards and decision-making in precision oncology.

The recent development of cancer precision medicine is associated with the emergence of 'molecular tumour boards' (MTBs). Attended by a heterogenous set of practitioners, MTBs link genomic platforms to clinical practices by establishing 'actionable' connections between drugs and molecular alterations. Their activities rely on a number of evidential resources - for example databases, clinical trial results, basic knowledge about mutations and pathways - that need to be associated with the clinical trajectory of individual patients. Experts from various domains are required to master and align diverse kinds of information. However, rather than examining MTBs as an institution interfacing different kinds of expertise embedded in individual experts, we argue that expertise is the emergent outcome of MTBs, which can be conceptualised as networks or 'agencements' of humans and devices. Based on the ethnographic analysis of the activities of four clinical trial MTBs (three in France and an international one) and of two French routine-care MTBs, the paper analyses how MTBs produce therapeutic decisions, centring on the new kind of expertise they engender. The development and activities of MTBs signal a profound transformation of the evidentiary basis and processes upon which biomedical expertise and decision-making in oncology are predicated and, in particular, the emergence of a clinic of variants.

Correction to: Informing materials: drugs as tools for exploring cancer mechanisms and pathways.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Three entries are incorrect in the reference list. The corrected references are given below.

Informing materials: drugs as tools for exploring cancer mechanisms and pathways.

This paper builds on previous work that investigated anticancer drugs as 'informed materials', i.e., substances that undergo an informational enrichment that situates them in a dense relational web of qualifications and measurements generated by clinical experiments and clinical trials. The paper analyzes the recent transformation of anticancer drugs from 'informed' to 'informing material'. Briefly put: in the post-genomic era, anti-cancer drugs have become instruments for the production of new biological, pathological, and therapeutic insights into the underlying etiology and evolution of cancer. Genomic platforms characterize individual patients' tumors based on their mutational landscapes. As part of this new approach, drugs targeting specific mutations transcend informational enrichment to become tools for informing (and destabilizing) their targets, while also problematizing the very notion of a 'target'. In other words, they have become tools for the exploration of cancer pathways and mechanisms. While several studies in the philosophy and history of biomedicine have called attention to the heuristic relevance and experimental use of drugs, few have investigated concrete instances of this role of drugs in clinical research.

"Triple negative breast cancer": Translational research and the (re)assembling of diseases in post-genomic medicine.

The paper examines the debate about the nature and status of "Triple-negative breast cancer", a controversial biomedical entity whose existence illustrates a number of features of post-genomic translational research. The emergence of TNBC is intimately linked to the rise of molecular oncology, and, more generally, to the changing configuration of the life sciences at the turn of the new century. An unprecedented degree of integration of biological and clinical practices has led to the proliferation of bio-clinical entities emerging from translational research. These translations take place between platforms rather than between clinical and laboratory settings. The complexity and heterogeneity of TNBC, its epistemic and technical, biological and clinical dualities, result from its multiple instantiations via different platforms, and from the uneven distribution of biological materials, techniques, and objects across clinical research settings. The fact that TNBC comes in multiple forms, some of which seem to be incompatible or, at least, only partially overlapping, appears to be less a threat to the whole endeavor, than an aspect of an ongoing translational research project. Discussions of translational research that rest on a distinction between basic research and its applications fail to capture the dynamics of this new domain of activity, insofar as application is built-in from the very beginning in the bio-clinical entities that emerge from the translational research domain.

Testing devices or experimental systems? Cancer clinical trials take the genomic turn.

Clinical trials are often described as machine-like systems for generating specific information concerning drug safety and efficacy, and are understood as a component of the industrial drug development processes. This paper argues that contemporary clinical trials in oncology are not reducible to mere drug testing. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with researchers in the field of oncology from 2010 to 2013, we introduce a conceptual contrast between trials as testing machines and trials as clinical experimental systems to draw attention to the ways trials are increasingly being used to ask open-ended scientific questions. When viewed as testing machines, clinical trials are seen as a means to produce answers to straightforward questions and deviations from the protocol are seen as bugs in the system; but practitioners can also treat trials as clinical experimental systems to investigate as yet undefined problems and where heterogeneity becomes a means to produce novel biological or clinical insights. The rise of "biomarker-driven" clinical trials in oncology, which link measurable biological characteristics such as genetic mutations to clinical features such as a patient's response to a particular drug, exemplifies a trend towards more experimental styles of clinical work. These transformations are congruent with changes in the institutional structure of clinical research in oncology, including a movement towards more flexible, networked research arrangements, and towards using individual patients as model systems for asking biological questions.

Therapy's Shadow: A Short History of the Study of Resistance to Cancer Chemotherapy.

This article traces the history of research on resistance to drug therapy in oncology using scientometric techniques and qualitative analysis. Using co-citation analysis, we generate maps to visualize subdomains in resistance research in two time periods, 1975-1990 and 1995-2010. These maps reveal two historical trends in resistance research: first, a shift in focus from generic mechanisms of resistance to chemotherapy to a focus on resistance to targeted therapies and molecular mechanisms of oncogenesis; and second, a movement away from an almost exclusive reliance on animal and cell models and toward the generation of knowledge about resistance through clinical trial work. A close reading of highly cited articles within each subdomain cluster reveals specific points of transition from one regime to the other, in particular the failure of several promising theories of resistance to be translated into clinical insights and the emergence of interest in resistance to a new generation of targeted agents such as imatinib and trastuzumab. We argue that the study of resistance in the oncology field has thus become more integrated with research into cancer therapy - rather than constituting it as a separate domain of study, as it has done in the past, contemporary research treats resistance as the flip side to treatment, as therapy's shadow.

[The emergence and development of gene expression profiling: a key component of the 3B (bench, bedside, bytes) in translational research]. / Les réseaux de l'expression génique - Émergence et développement d'un domaine clé de la génomique.

This paper examines the emergence and development of one of the key components of genomics, namely gene expression profiling. It does so by resorting to computer-based methods to analyze and visualize networks of scientific publications. Our results show the central role played by oncology in this domain, insofar as the initial proof-of-principle articles based on a plant model organism have quickly led to the demonstration of the value of these techniques in blood cancers and to applications in the field of solid tumors, and in particular breast cancer. The article also outlines the essential role played by novel bioinformatics and biostatistical tools in the development of the domain. These computational disciplines thus qualify as one of the three corners (in addition to the laboratory and the clinic) of the translational research triangle.

Cancer clinical trials in the era of genomic signatures: biomedical innovation, clinical utility, and regulatory-scientific hybrids.

The paper examines two large-scale, North American and European clinical trials designed to validate two commercially available genomic tumor signatures that predict a patient's risk of breast cancer recurrence and response to chemotherapy. The paper builds on empirical evidence from the two trials to explore the emergence of diverse regulatory-scientific hybrids; that is, the paper discusses configurations of genomic practice and bioclinical work that depend on linkages between technical, commercial, patient, clinical, and legal interests and institutions. The development of the genomic signatures for each trial--Oncotype DX and MammaPrint--has followed quite different routes. Oncotype began as a commercial platform: the company that produced it did not discover a signature but rather constructed it by asking users at every step what clinical question they wanted the signature to answer and what data would be credible in that regard. The test has been designed to minimally disrupt existing clinical workflows. MammaPrint, on the other hand, began as a breast cancer signature: the researchers who discovered it, at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), established a company to commercialize it as a test after the fact. MammaPrint requires a change in pathologists' routines. Thus, while these two trials signify a new departure for clinical cancer trials on a number of levels--they both incorporate new models of interaction between biotech companies and public research, and they both aim to establish the clinical relevance of genomic markers--they also embody different socio-technical scripts: one attempts to accommodate established routines, while the other openly challenges prevailing evidential hierarchies and existing biomedical configurations.

Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: re-aligning clinical judgment?

In recent years, genomic technologies have entered oncology. In particular, so-called tumor signatures are now commercially available for diagnosing breast cancer. These new diagnostic tools have expanded the content and meaning of diagnosis, by adding a distinctive prognostic (will the disease recur?) and predictive (how will the disease react to treatment?) dimension to this activity, and modifying the relations between diagnosis and therapy. In particular, they raise the issue of the locus of clinical judgment and clinical decision-making insofar as they involve a re-alignment of the biological and clinical components of medical activities. Using as a case study a debate over the regulation of tests for genomic signatures by the US FDA, this paper examines how the actors problematize the issues related to the introduction of molecular diagnostics into clinical settings.

Detection and characterization of translational research in cancer and cardiovascular medicine.

BACKGROUND: Scientists and experts in science policy have become increasingly interested in strengthening translational research. Efforts to understand the nature of translational research and monitor policy interventions face an obstacle: how can translational research be defined in order to facilitate analysis of it? We describe methods of scientometric analysis that can do this. METHODS: We downloaded bibliographic and citation data from all articles published in 2009 in the 75 leading journals in cancer and in cardiovascular medicine (roughly 15,000 articles for each field). We calculated citation relationships between journals and between articles and we extracted the most prevalent natural language concepts. RESULTS: Network analysis and mapping revealed polarization between basic and clinical research, but with translational links between these poles. The structure of the translational research in cancer and cardiac medicine is, however, quite different. In the cancer literature the translational interface is composed of different techniques (e.g., gene expression analysis) that are used across the various subspecialties (e.g., specific tumor types) within cancer research and medicine. In the cardiac literature, the clinical problems are more disparate (i.e., from congenital anomalies to coronary artery disease); although no distinctive translational interface links these fields, translational research does occur in certain subdomains, especially in research on atherosclerosis and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: These techniques can be used to monitor the continuing evolution of translational research in medicine and the impact of interventions designed to enhance it.

Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: a case study of French clinical cancer guidelines.

Both critics and supporters of evidence-based medicine view clinical practice guidelines as an important component of this self-defined "new paradigm" whose goal is to rationalize medicine by grounding clinical decision-making in a careful assessment of the medical literature. We present an analysis of the debates within a guideline development group (GDG) that led to the drafting, revision and publication of a French cancer guideline. Our ethnographic approach focuses on the various aspects of the dispositif (or apparatus) that defines the nature and roles of participants, procedures, topics and resources within the GDG. Debates between GDG members are framed (but not dictated) by procedural and methodological rules as well as by the reflexive critical contributions of the GDG members themselves, who justify their (tentative) recommendations by relating to its (possible or intended) audiences. Guideline production work cannot be reduced to an exchange of arguments and to consensus-seeking between pre-defined professional interests. It is about the production of a text in the material sense of the term, i.e. as a set of sentences, paragraphs, statements and formulations that GDG members constantly readjust and rearrange until closure is achieved. As such, guidelines partake in the emergence and stabilization of a new configuration of biomedical knowledge and practices grounded in the establishment of mutually constitutive links between two processes: on the one hand, the re-formatting of clinical trials into a device for producing carefully monitored evidence statements targeting specific populations and clinical indications and, on the other hand, the increasingly pervasive role of regulatory processes.