Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 161–185 | Cite as

Opening the Regulatory Black Box of Clinical Cancer Research: Transnational Expertise Networks and “Disruptive” Technologies

  • Alberto Cambrosio
  • Pascale Bourret
  • Peter Keating
  • Nicole Nelson
Article

Abstract

Building on previous work on “regulatory objectivity,” the paper examines recent translational research and cancer genomics to explore the bundle of scientific and regulatory activities that generate and manage the platforms at the core of clinical trials, the “gold standard” of clinical research and evidence-based medicine. In particular, the paper explores the activities of a chain of mediators within a seamless regulatory web characterized by the interaction of endogenous and hybrid regulatory activities that are neither hierarchical nor linear. We contend that a full understanding of the dynamics of regulation in the biomedical domain ought to consider this chain of mediations; that their analysis necessitates understanding the content of the practices they regulate; and that in addition to examining the interactions between different regulatory modalities, we need to pay attention to their development insofar as regulation, far from being mere routine, leads to the emergence of novelty by coproducing the entities it regulates. These activities include not only setting out the conditions that must be respected in order to produce reliable test results, but also the conditions that define the relations (within a clinical context) between the different components of diagnosis as well as the consequences of such relations on clinical judgment. This is why we cannot treat organizational practices as distinct from the content of bio-clinical activities.

Keywords

Oncology Clinical cancer research Biomedical regulation Transnational expertise networks Cancer pathology Biomarkers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Conference “Towards personalized medicine? Biomarkers between health care practices and imagined futures” at the University of Vienna (June 28–29, 2012). We would like to thank the organizers, Ingrid Metzler and the late Herbert Gottweis, for their kind invitation. We would also like to thank the clinicians and researchers who kindly accepted to be interviewed, Patrick Castel who single-handedly introduced us to the sociology of organizations, and Étienne Vignola-Gagné for his thoughtful comments on the present version, Research for this paper was made possible by grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (MOP-93553), the Fonds de recherche du Québec Société et culture (SE-164195), and the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) (0610/3D1418/SHS08).

References

  1. Ahrne, Göran, and Nils Brunsson. 2004. Soft regulation from an organizational perspective. In Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis, ed. Ulrika Mörth, 171–190. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, Malorye. 2010. The HER2 testing conundrum. Nature Biotechnology 28: 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azarian, G. Reza. 2005. The general sociology of Harrison C. White. Chaos and order in networks. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azim, H.A., S. Michiels, F. Zagouri, S. Delaloge, M. Filipits, M. Namer, P. Neven, W.F. Symmans, A. Thompson, F. André, S. Loi, and C. Swanton. 2013. Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 working group consensus statement. Annals of Oncology 24: 647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazell, Robert. 1998. Her-2: The making of Herceptin, a revolutionary treatment for breast cancer. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, Howard Saul. 1986. Doing things together: Selected papers. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blind, Knut. 2012. The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Research Policy 41: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boddewyn, Jean J. 1985. Advertising self-regulation: Organization structures in Belgium, Canada, France and the United Kingdom. In Private interest government. Beyond market and state, eds. Wolfgang Streeck, and Philippe C. Schmitter, 30–43. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Borowsky, Alexander, and Laura Esserman. 2016. When the gold standard loses its luster, perhaps it is time to change nomenclature. Annals of Internal Medicine 164: 694–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourret, Pascale. 2005. BRCA patients and clinical collectives: New configurations of action in cancer genetics practices. Social Studies of Science 35: 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourret, Pascale, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2008. Décision et jugement médicaux en situation de forte incertitude: l’exemple de deux pratiques cliniques à l’épreuve de la génétique. Sciences Sociales et Sante 26(1): 33–64.Google Scholar
  13. Bourret, Pascale, Peter Keating, and Alberto Cambrosio. 2011. Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment? Social Science & Medicine 73: 816–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brunsson, Nils, Bengt Jacobsson, and Associates. 2000. A world of standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bueno-de-Mesquita, Jolien M., D.S.A. Nuyten, J. Wesseling, H. van Tinteren, S.C. Linn, and M.J. van de Vijver. 2010. The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment. Annals of Oncology 21: 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burki, Talha Khan. 2014. Pathological complete response is no surrogate for survival. Lancet Oncology 15(3): e111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Busch, Lawrence. 2011. Standards: Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cambrosio, Alberto, and Peter Keating. 2000. Of lymphocytes and pixels: The techno-visual production of cell populations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31: 233–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cambrosio, Alberto, Camille Limoges, and Eric Hoffman. 1992. Expertise as a network: A case study of the controversies over the environmental release of genetically modified organisms. In The culture and power of knowledge, eds. Nico Stehr, and Richard V. Ericson, 341–361. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, Thomas Schlich, and George Weisz. 2006. Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine. Social Science & Medicine 63: 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, and Nicole Nelson. 2014. Régimes thérapeutiques et dispositifs de preuve en oncologie: l’organisation des essais cliniques des groupes coopérateurs aux consortiums de recherche. Sciences Sociales & Santé 32(3): 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carpenter, Daniel P. 2010. Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Castel, Patrick, and Ivanne Merle. 2002. Quand les normes de pratiques deviennent une ressource pour les médecins. Sociologie du Travail 44(3): 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Check, William. 2015. Medical genetics labs shine in 10-year proficiency test data. CAP Today 29(1): 1, 9–10, 15–16.Google Scholar
  25. Coates, Alan S., Marco Colleoni, and Aron Goldhirsch. 2012. Is adjuvant chemotherapy useful for women with Luminal A breast cancer? Journal of Clinical Oncology 30: 1260–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Collins, Harry M. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Collins, Francis S. 2011. Reengineering translational science: The time is right. Science Translational Medicine 3: 90cm17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Crompton, Simon. 2011. Redefining the role of pathology. Cancer World 45 (November/December): 34–39.Google Scholar
  29. Daemmrich, Arthur P. 2004. Pharmacopolitics: Drug regulation in the United States and Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  30. Demortain, David. 2017. Expertise, Regulatory Science and the Evaluation of Technology and Risk: Introduction to the Special Issue. Minerva 55(2). doi: 10.1007/s11024-017-9325-1
  31. Dixon, J. Michael, Victoria Wilson, Mark Verrill, and W. Fraser Symmans. 2012. HER2 testing in patients with breast cancer. BMJ 344: e3958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Djelic, Marie-Laure, and Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson. 2006. Introduction: A world of governance: The rise of transnational regulation. In Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation, eds. Marie-Laure Djelic, and Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, 1–28. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Doern, Bruce G., and Peter W.B. Phillips. 2012. The genomics “regulatory-science” regime: Issues and options. Genome Canada. Policy Brief No. 6.Google Scholar
  34. Dowsett, Mitch, Torsten O. Nielsen, Roger A’Hern, John Bartlett, R. Charles Coombes, Jack Cuzick, N. Matthew Ellis, Lynn Henry, Judith C. Hugh, Tracy Lively, Lisa McShane, Soon Paik, Frederique Penault-Llorca, Ljudmila Prudkin, Meredith Regan, Janine Salter, Christos Sotiriou, Ian E. Smith, Giuseppe Viale, Jo Anne Zujewski, and Daniel F. Hayes. 2011. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103: 1656–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eisenhauer, E.A., P. Therasse, J. Bogaerts, L.H. Schwartz, D. Sargent, R. Ford, J. Dancey, S. Arbuck, S. Gwyther, M. Mooney, L. Rubinstein, L. Shankar, L. Dodd, R. Kaplan, D. Lacombe, and J. Verweij. 2009. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer 45: 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Epstein, Steve. 1997. Activism, drug regulation, and the politics of therapeutic evaluation in the AIDS era: A case study of ddC and the ‘surrogate markers’ debate. Social Studies of Science 27: 691–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Evans, Barbara J., Wylie Burke, and Gail P. Jarvik. 2015. The FDA and genomic tests. Getting regulation right. The New England Journal of Medicine 372: 2258–2264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eyal, Gil. 2013. For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology 118: 863–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fojo, Antonio T., and Anne Noonan. 2012. Why RECIST works and why it should stay. Cancer Research 72: 5151–5157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fromer, Margot J. 2015. Clinical trial system badly in need of overhaul, say panelists at Friends-Brookings conference. ASCO Post 6(23), http://www.ascopost.com/issues/december-25-2015/clinical-trial-system-badly-in-need-of-overhaul-say-panelists-at-friends-brookings-conference/.
  41. Gaudillière, Jean-Paul. 2009. New wine in old bottles? The biotechnology problem in the history of molecular biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40: 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Goldberg, Paul. 2015. FDA’s activism changes the landscape in treatment, trials of squamous NSCLC. The Cancer Letter 41(9): 1, 6–9.Google Scholar
  43. Goldhirsch, A., W.C. Wood, A.S. Coates, R.D. Gelber, B. Thürlimann, and H.J. Senn. 2011. Strategies for subtypes–dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: Highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Annals of Oncology 22: 1736–1747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guiu, S., S. Michiels, F. Andre, J. Cortes, C. Denkert, A. Di Leo, B.T. Hennessy, T. Sorlie, C. Sotiriou, N. Turner, M. Van de Vijver, G. Viale, S. Loi, and J.S. Reis-Filho. 2012. Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: How do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 working group statement. Annals of Oncology 23: 2997–3006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hagemann, Ian S., Catherine E. Cottrell, and Christina M. Lockwood. 2014. Design of targeted, capture-based, next generation sequencing tests for precision cancer therapy. Cancer Genetics 206: 420–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hammond, M. Elizabeth H., Daniel F. Hayes, Mitch Dowsett, D. Craig Allred, Karen L. Hagerty, Sunil Badve, Patrick L. Fitzgibbons, Glenn Francis, Neil S. Goldstein, Malcolm Hayes, David G. Hicks, Susan Lester, Richard Love, Pamela B. Mangu, Lisa McShane, Keith Miller, C. Kent Osborne, Soonmyung Paik, Jane Perlmutter, Anthony Rhodes, Hironobu Sasano, Jared N. Schwartz, Fred C. G. Sweep, Sheila Taube, Emina Emilia Torlakovic, Paul Valenstein, Giuseppe Viale, Daniel Visscher, Thomas Wheeler, R. Bruce Williams, James L. Wittliff, and Antonio C. Wolff. 2010. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 28: 2784–2795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hayes, Daniel F. 2012. Targeting adjuvant chemotherapy: A good idea that needs to be proven! Journal of Clinical Oncology 30: 1264–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hayes, Daniel F., and Henry N. Lynn. 2006. Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. The Oncologist 11: 541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hayes, Daniel F., Jeff Allen, Carolyn Compton, Gary Gustavsen, Debra G.B. Leonard, Robert McCormack, Lee Newcomer, Kristin Pothier, David Ransohof, Richard L. Schilsky, Ellen Sigal, Sheila E. Taube, and Sean R. Tunis. 2013. Breaking a vicious cycle. Science Translational Medicine 5: 196cm6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoffman, Andrew S., Alberto Cambrosio, and Renaldo Battista. 2016. Comparative effectiveness research in health technology assessment. In Comparative effectiveness research in health services, eds. Adrian Levy, and Boris Sobolev, 57–93. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.). 2004. States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.). 2011. Reframing rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Jordan, Kathleen, and Michael Lynch. 1992. The sociology of a genetic engineering technique: Ritual and rationality in the performance of the plasmid prep. In The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences, eds. Adele E. Clarke, and Joan H. Fujimura, 77–114. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kaufman, Peter A., Kenneth J. Bloom, Howard Burris, Julie R. Gralow, Musa Mayer, Mark Pegram, Hope S. Rugo, Sandra M. Swain, Denise A. Yardely, Miu Chau, Deepa Lalla, Bongin Yoo, Melissa G. Brammer, and Charles L. Vogel. 2014. Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer. Cancer 120: 2657–2664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio. 1998. Interlaboratory life: Regulating flow cytometry. In The invisible industrialist: Manufacturers and the construction of scientific knowledge, eds. Jean-Paul Gaudillière, and Ilana Löwy, 250–295. London: Macmillan/New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  56. Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio. 2003. Biomedical platforms. Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth-century medicine. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio. 2012. Cancer on trial: Oncology as a new style of practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Keating, Peter, Alberto Cambrosio, and Nicole Nelson. 2016. ‘Triple negative breast cancer’: Translational research and the (re)assembling of diseases in post-genomic medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 59: 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Knaapen, Loes A. 2013a. In search of standards that avoid standardization: The production and regulation of evidence-based guidelines. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Sociology, McGill University.Google Scholar
  60. Knaapen, Loes. 2013b. Being ‘evidence-based’ in the absence of evidence: The management of non-evidence in guideline development. Social Studies of Science 43: 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kohli-Laven, Nina, Pascale Bourret, Peter Keating, and Alberto Cambrosio. 2011. Cancer clinical trials in the era of genomic signatures: Biomedical innovation, clinical utility, and regulatory-scientific hybrids. Social Studies of Science 41: 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lampland, Martha, and Susan Leigh Star (eds.). 2009. Standards and their stories. How quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Leonelli, Sabina. 2012. When humans are the exception: Cross-species databases at the interface of biological and clinical research. Social Studies of Science 42: 214–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lynch, Michael. 1982. Technical work and critical inquiry: Investigations in a scientific laboratory. Social Studies of Science 12: 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lynch, Michael. 1991. Laboratory space and the technological complex: An investigation of topical contextures. Science in Context 4: 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lynch, Michael, Simon A. Cole, Ruth McNally, and Kathleen Jordan. 2008. Truth machine. The contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mann, John. 1999. The elusive magic bullet: The search for the perfect drug. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Marks, Harry M. 1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Mörth, Ulrika (ed.). 2004. Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  71. Moscow, Jeff. 2014. Phase 2 clinical trial component of the ETCTN. http://ctep.cancer.gov/initiativesPrograms/docs/Phase2ProgramBSA.pdf.
  72. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Biomarker tests for molecularly targeted therapies: Key to unlocking precision medicine. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  73. Nelson, Nicole, Peter Keating, Alberto Cambrosio, Adriana Aguilar-Mahecha, and Mark Basik. 2014. Testing devices or experimental systems? Cancer clinical trials take the genomic turn. Social Science & Medicine 111: 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Niezen, Maartje G.H., Roland Bal, and Antoinette de Bont. 2012. Reconfiguring policy and clinical practice: How databases have transformed the regulation of pharmaceutical care? Science, Technology, & Human Values 38: 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ong, Mathew Bin Han. 2013. “Master Protocol” to rely on biomarkers in testing multiple lung cancer agents. The Cancer Letter 39(43): 1–6.Google Scholar
  76. Ong, Mathew Bin Han. 2014. NCI launches M-PACT next-generation trial as group system nears March 1 transition. The Cancer Letter 40(8): 1–5.Google Scholar
  77. Paik, Soonmyung, John Bryant, Elizabeth Tan-Chiu, Edward Romond, William Hiller, Kyeongmee Park, Ann Brown, Greg Yothers, Steve Anderson, D. Roy Smith, Lawrence Wickerham, and Norman Wolmark. 2002. Real-world performance of HER2 testing. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94: 852–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. PCAST. 2012. Report to the President on propelling innovation in drug discovery, development, and evaluation. Executive Office of the President of the United States (September). https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-fda-final.pdf.
  79. Perez, Edith A., Javier Cortés, Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo, and John M.S. Bartlett. 2014. HER2 testing: Current status and future directions. Cancer Treatment Reviews 40: 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Polley, Mei-Yin C., Samuel C.Y. Leung, Lisa M. McShane, Dongxia Gao, Judith C. Hugh, Mauro G. Mastropasqua, Giuseppe Viale, Lila A. Zabaglo, Frédérique Penault-Llorca, John M.S. Bartlett, Allen M. Gown, W. Fraser Symmans, Tammy Piper, Erika Mehl, Rebecca A. Enos, Daniel F. Hayes, Mitch Dowsett, and Torsten O. Nielsen. 2013. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 105: 1897–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Prasad, Krishna, and Alasdair Breckenridge. 2011. Pharmacogenomics: A new clinical or regulatory paradigm? European experiences of pharmacogenomics in drug regulation and regulatory initiatives. Drug Discovery Today 16: 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rabeharisoa, Vololona, and Pascale Bourret. 2009. Staging and weighting evidence in biomedicine: Comparing clinical practices in cancer genetics and psychiatric genetics. Social Studies of Science 39: 691–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ray, Turna. 2016. At workshop, FDA gathers input on how to regulate NGS panels to guide cancer treatment. GenomeWeb https://www.genomeweb.com/molecular-diagnostics/workshop-fda-gathers-input-how-regulate-ngs-panels-guide-cancer-treatment.
  84. Sartore-Bianchi, Andrea, Steffen Fieuws, Silvio Veronese, Mauro Moroni, Nicola Personeni, Milo Frattini, Valter Torri, Federico Cappuzzo, Sara Vander Borght, Vittoria Martin, Margaret Skokan, Armando Santoro, Marcello Gambacorta, Sabine Tejpar, Marileila Varella-Garcia, and Salvatore Siena. 2012. Standardisation of EGFR FISH in colorectal cancer: Results of an international interlaboratory reproducibility ring study. Journal of Clinical Pathology 65: 218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmidt, Charlie. 2011. How do you tell whether a breast cancer is HER2 positive? Ongoing studies keep debate in high gear. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103: 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sharma, Manish R., Michael L. Maitland, and Mark J. Ratain. 2012. RECIST: No longer the sharpest tool in the oncology clinical trials toolbox. Cancer Research 72: 5145–5149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Simon, Richard M., Soonmyung Paik, and Daniel F. Hayes. 2009. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101: 1446–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Soares, Michael. 2005. Off-label indications for oncology drug use and drug compendia: History and current status. Journal of Oncology Practice 1: 102–105.Google Scholar
  90. Suchman, Lucy A. 1987. Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Taube, Sheila E., Gary M. Clark, Janet E. Dancey, Lisa M. McShane, Caroline C. Sigman, and Steven I. Gutman. 2009. A perspective on challenges and issues in biomarker development and drug and biomarker codevelopment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101: 1453–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thévenot, Laurent. 1984. Rules and implements: Investments in forms. Social Science Information 23: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Timmermans, Stefan, and Marc Berg. 2003. The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Vasella, Daniel, and Robert Slater. 2003. Magic cancer bullet. How a tiny orange pill is rewriting medical history. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  95. Viale, Giuseppe. 2011. Controversies in testing for HER2. ASCO’s 2011 Educational Book, 3–7.Google Scholar
  96. von Hippel, Eric A. 1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5: 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weigelt, Britta, Frederick L. Baehner, and Jorge S. Reis-Filho. 2010. The contribution of gene expression profiling to breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction: A retrospective of the last decade. Journal of Pathology 220: 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Yu, Peter P., Mark A. Hoffman, and Daniel F. Hayes. 2015. Biomarkers and oncology: The path forward to a learning health system. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 139: 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhao, Fengmin. 2016. Surrogate end points and their validation in oncology clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 34: 1436–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Cambrosio
    • 1
  • Pascale Bourret
    • 2
  • Peter Keating
    • 3
  • Nicole Nelson
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Social Studies of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIMMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Department of HistoryUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of HistoryUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations