News

High Rate of False-Positives with Annual Mammogram

High Rate of False-Positives with Annual Mammogram

October 17, 2011

During a decade of receiving mammograms, more than half of cancer-free women will be among those summoned back for more testing because of false-positive results, and about one in 12 will be referred for a biopsy. Simply shifting screening to every other year lowers a ...
Five UCSF Scientists Named to Institute of Medicine

Five UCSF Scientists Named to Institute of Medicine

October 17, 2011

UCSF School of Nursing Dean David Vlahov and four other UCSF faculty members have been elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), one of the highest honors in the fields of health and medicine. The new UCSF members were announced today (Oct. 17, 2011) in ...
Triple-Negative Breast Cancer May Succumb to New Treatments

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer May Succumb to New Treatments

October 14, 2011

Treating triple-negative breast cancer is too often like swinging and missing three pitches in baseball. But for a UCSF-led team that includes a breast cancer laboratory researcher, a breast cancer oncologist and a breast cancer surgical oncologist, it’s now a new ballgame. As you can ...
Experts Discuss Personalized Medicine and Gene Discoveries in Disease at Genetics Symposium

Experts Discuss Personalized Medicine and Gene Discoveries in Disease at Genetics Symposium

October 7, 2011

Personalized medicine and new gene discoveries in human disease were a focus of a daylong symposium hosted by the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics on the Mission Bay campus on Oct. 3. Participants in a human genetics symposium honoring the late UCSF medical geneticist Charles ...
UCSF Symposium Showcases New Technologies to Accelerate Drug Development

UCSF Symposium Showcases New Technologies to Accelerate Drug Development

October 3, 2011

Kathy Giacomini, PhD Every year, the pharmaceutical industry invests billions of dollars in testing drugs that are eventually abandoned because they don’t work or cause side effects. What if scientists could make better use of technology to predict which drugs will work and pinpoint the patients they’re most likely to help? UCSF scientists are doing just that as they pioneer a new field — quantitative pharmacology — aimed at improving the efficiency of the drug development process. UCSF's new Center for Quantitative Pharmacology held its first symposium on Sept. 22 and 23, bringing together scientists from academia and industry. A joint department of the schools of pharmacy and medicine, the center brings together faculty for cross-disciplinary research as well as developing courses in this emergent discipline. The new center represents the latest step in UCSF’s significant and ongoing contributions to drug discovery. Kathy Giacomini, PhD, co-chair of the new center and the symposium, answered questions about the burgeoning field of quantitative pharmacology in a recent interview. Giacomini is a professor of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Science in the UCSF School of Pharmacy. Q: The pharmaceutical and biotech industry is facing huge challenges. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 21 new drugs, down from 25 in 2009 and 24 in 2008. A Pfizer Inc. executive at your symposium noted the cost of developing a new drug has reached $1.8 billion when the expense of all the drugs that fail to make it to market is included. Is the industry in crisis? A: Yes, I think the industry has been in crisis for a period of time. They’re also responding to that crisis by changing the way they develop drugs, forming new partnerships with academia. Our partnership with Pfizer may represent a new model for drug discovery and development. (Note: Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company, announced last year that it would provide up to $85 million in funding and milestone payments over the next five years to support research at UCSF that may lead to development of new drugs.) Q: Why do so many drugs fail to make it through the testing process and get abandoned or rejected? A: The newest data suggest that they largely fail due to a lack of efficacy. They enter phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials and the drug people thought would work doesn’t work. There’s also a failure rate of 15 to 20 percent because of safety issues. So you have to ask the question: Why didn’t it work? And why couldn’t they predict that it wasn’t going to work? One reason is they don’t know enough about the drug in humans. They don’t have enough information on the drug’s action and its effect on human biology. The second is there’s a need for integrative models that will help predict these things. That’s where quantitative pharmacology comes in.
The Battle Against Breast Cancer

The Battle Against Breast Cancer

September 30, 2011

Breast Cancer Month: Time to Take Stock of UCSF Advances The eve of Breast Cancer Awareness month is an opportune time to take stock of some of the recent progress being made at UCSF, home to one of the preeminent cancer centers in the nation.