Pitt, Johns Hopkins scientist sued over prostate cancer research
A Johns Hopkins researcher and the University of Pittsburgh committed more than five years of research fraud, a Redmond, Wash., company said Wednesday in a lawsuit filed in federal court.
Onconome, a privately owned biotechnology company, said it spent millions of dollars funding prostate-cancer research based on a patent held by the university and Dr. Robert H. Getzenberg. The company also spent millions preparing to produce and market tests based on the patent — only to find that it was based on scientific breakthroughs that "were and are imaginary," the lawsuit states.
"Notwithstanding the spectacular (and false) results proclaimed by defendants, the Getzenberg assay was no more accurate in distinguishing cancerous tissue from normal tissue than flipping a coin," according to the lawsuit.
Pitt spokesman John Fedele said the university doesn't comment on pending litigation. Getzenberg couldn't be reached for comment.
Getzenberg claimed in 2001 to have found a biomarker — Early Prostate Cancer Antigen or EPCA-2 — that was found only in human patients with prostate cancer. Investors founded Onconome based on his claim but learned from other researchers in 2007 that Getzenberg never successfully mapped human DNA and that the only protein he correctly mapped came from a rat, the lawsuit states.
Between 2002 and 2008, Getzenberg acted as the chief scientific development and spokesman for the company. In at least 23 board meetings, he presented research updates claiming progress in developing his alleged discovery into a workable test for prostate cancer, according to the lawsuit.
The progress, though, was illusionary, the lawsuit states. Getzenberg would present the company with carefully selected lab results to show his research was working, but he left out "most of the data from his lab, which was inconsistent with his claims."
The company is suing Pitt for failing to properly supervise Getzenberg's research.
Steven Recht, a Weirton, W.Va., lawyer representing Onconome, declined to comment on the lawsuit other than to say the 68-page complaint lays out the specific claims that the company is making against Pitt and Getzenberg.
An accurate prostate-cancer test would be valuable. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in American males.
The lawsuit says the test for prostate cancer is "problematic" because it often detects cancer where none exists.
Doctors commonly screen for prostate cancer by using a screening test known as PSA — for prostate-specific antigen — that measures a protein in the blood. Although some doctors have questioned its accuracy, others say the PSA is a reliable tool.
"Used in the right way, the PSA is a very good tool," said Dr. Jitendra Desai, a urologist at UPMC Passavant in McCandless. "I'm not sure of the effectiveness of these new tests."
Desai said some men should undergo a PSA in combination with a digital rectal exam — a combination that can help detect cancer in its early stages when treatment is most successful.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Agent: Polamalu undecided whether to play in 2015
- Starkey: In defense of Mel Kiper Jr.
- Penguins forwards struggle in loss to Avalanche
- Overnight snowfall plagues public transportation, schools, commuters
- Angry fans cited in shortage of refs in Western Pennsylvania
- Wolf’s Pa. budget plan seen as having almost no chance
- Mt. Lebanon deer-culling corrals sprayed with urine, repellent
- Springdale Twp. police car crashes into veterinary clinic
- Dermatologist led UPMC residency program
- Ice jam wipes out McKeesport’s marina
- Supreme Court split on Obamacare subsidies