OnCo
ideasIdea

Treat resistance like an infectious disease and run national surveillance

Countries track how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and publish it. Doing the same for cancer drugs would show which escape routes are becoming common and where.

Routine post-progression sequencing already happens in many health systems but the results are not aggregated. A surveillance system, modelled on antimicrobial resistance reporting, would pool de-identified mechanism data by drug, line and region, publish periodic reports, and flag emerging mechanisms early. Laboratories would submit structured results as a condition of accreditation or reimbursement.

Hypothesis
National surveillance detects shifts in resistance mechanism frequency (for example rising rates of a specific bypass after a new drug's uptake) at least a year earlier than the published literature.
Rationale
Antimicrobial resistance surveillance changed prescribing behaviour and guided development priorities; oncology generates the same data but discards its population-level signal.
What would test it
Pilot in one country aggregating results from accredited laboratories for two drug classes for 18 months, and compare detection timing of known mechanism trends with publication dates.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
policy
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
4
Bottlenecks it attacks
  • Acquired resistance to every therapy · Nearly every targeted therapy stops working within months to a few years as the tumour adapts.
  • Weak real-world evidence and registries · We do not reliably know what happens to patients after approval, so we cannot tell which drugs deliver in practice.
  • Data silos · Records, scans, genomes and outcomes sit in separate systems that cannot talk. Every patient's experience is lost to the next.

Connected

7top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links