Two new articles give completely different perspectives on the value of precision medicine. In the case of myeloma, precision medicine means the development of new, targeted therapy based upon specific gene mutations in the myeloma. A review article in Science lists the “Ten things we have to do to achieve precision medicine” and gives a sense of optimism that, although there are challenges, it is only a matter of time before the advent of precision medicine. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine has exactly the opposite perspective! The authors, Drs. Ronald Bayer and Sandro Galea, explain that right now, precision medicine is not what the healthcare system in America needs, and that, in fact, it is a serious distraction from the true needs.

I have to say that I favor this latter viewpoint. Let me explain.

Drs. Bayer and Galea are public-health experts. They are interested in how to keep Americans healthy. For example, they are interested in whether it is better to prevent diabetes or obesity, or wait and just treat them whenever they occur. There is a slowly evolving trend toward prevention as a more effective and cheaper approach. But the public-health infrastructure in the US is terrible, resulting in some of the poorest healthcare outcomes in the world. There is a drastically unequal distribution of resources available to a sizeable population in this country. Many lack access to necessary diagnostics and care, as well as access to programs that keep people healthy! Just waiting and treating is far less cost effective than prevention and early intervention, both of which can really improve outcomes.

If this is starting to sound familiar it is because this is the philosophy of the Black Swan Research Initiative®: look at what is leading to active myeloma and intervene early, BEFORE problems (like “CRAB features”) emerge; and develop therapies which are highly effective across the board, encompassing patients with many types of molecular mutations.

Right now—since we do not know about any truly “driving mutations”—it does not make sense to target many, many secondary mutations that develop along the way. Since development of a new drug costs an excess of $100 million and takes 10 years, conservation of resources and retargeting of resources is a better approach.

Thus, although precision medicine is popular and ultimately feasible, the cost-effective approach to myeloma is to intervene early, using broadly effective therapies which can improve outcomes for the most patients.

Clearly, precision medicine is going to be a topic for ongoing debate and interest, so stay tuned!

Dr. Durie sincerely appreciates and reads all comments left here. However, he cannot answer specific medical questions and encourages readers to contact the trained IMF InfoLine staff instead. Specific medical questions posted here will be forwarded to the IMF InfoLine. Questions sent to the InfoLine are answered with input from Dr. Durie and/or other scientific advisors and IMWG members as appropriate, but will not be posted here. To contact the IMF InfoLine, call 800-452-CURE, toll-free in the US and Canada, or send an email to [email protected]. InfoLine hours are 9 am to 4 pm PT. Thank you.



While i can understand your perspective on preventive medicine as opposed to precision medicine, the former does not help thise of us who already have myeloma. We need precision medicine to stay alive! As far as i can tell we dont yet know what causes mm, do we? There may be a number of different factors involved especially since it is such a heterogeneous disease. I really think we need to employ both prevention and precision in order to address mm

Dear Ellen,
Thank you for this helpful comment. I completely agree that we need to keep the “Precision Medicine” approach moving forward. It is a matter or prioritization and available resources. This aspect was discussed in a recent Editorial, “Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket” (link - It is also the principle of the Black Swan Research Initiative® to explore as many important options as possible at the same time and not let key projects fall by the wayside. So yes, let’s push to make sure precision medicine is a continuing priority!

Add new comment