A Virus that Attacks Brain Cancer

Ponca City, We Love You writes "In the past few years, scientists have looked to viruses as potential allies in fighting cancer. Now researchers at Yale University have found a virus in the same family as rabies that effectively kills an aggressive form of human brain cancer in mice. Using time-lapse laser imaging, the team watched vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) rapidly home in on brain tumors, selectively killing cancerous cells in its path, while leaving healthy tissue intact. 'A metastasizing tumor is fairly mobile, and a surgeon's knife can't get out all of the cells,' says Anthony Van den Pol, lead researcher and professor of neurosurgery and neurobiology at Yale. 'A virus might be able to do that, because as a virus kills a tumor cell, it could also replicate, and you could end up with a therapy that's self-amplifying.' It's not yet clear why VSV is such an effective tumor killer, although Van den Pol has several theories. One possible explanation may involve a tumor's weak vascular system. Vessels that supply blood to tumors tend to be leaky, allowing a virus traveling through the bloodstream to cross an otherwise impermeable barrier into the brain, directly into a tumor."

is this an "I am Legend" promo?

[peter303 (12292)]

The premise of several of the zombie movies is a brain virus that gets out of control. "I am Legnd", "28 days"

Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo?

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

IIRC, in 28 Days, the virus involved was being developed as a bioweapon rather than as a cancer cure.

I don't think that this will lead to a zombie plague, though--I think it's more likely if something goes wrong that the patient would die of encephalitis or something similarly unpleasant.

A 'zombie-like' state would require the virus to target fairly specific areas of the brain--temporal lobes and the like, if I'm remembering my brain geography correctly. Though, of course, this depends on whether you want to produce the 'traditional' shambling-servant type, or the hip new raging maniac type.

Still, if it's a choice between possible death and even more possible death, or between possible zombification and likely death, I'd take the risk. Brain tumors can really mess you up, y'know?

Re:

[Wandering Wombat (531833)]

You recall wrong. It was being developed as a cure for violent, psychopathic behavior. It, uh.... it didn't work.

Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo?

[mapsjanhere (1130359)]

That why I prefer G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate for all my pacification needs. Better living with chemistry!

Re:

[Wandering Wombat (531833)]

Cutting yourself and eating people's skin? Where does that get fun?

Re:

[xSauronx (608805)]

Indeed. Every good cook knows that skin isn't worth eating if it isn't crispy!

Re:

[Duncan Blackthorne (1095849)]

Yeah, that 0.1% that it backfires on, that's not enough people to really care about now is it? A few nice bribes to the FDA and no problems, right?

Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo?

[Guppy (12314)]

Yeah, that 0.1% that it backfires on, that's not enough people to really care about now is it? A few nice bribes to the FDA and no problems, right?

The medical community would be absolutely thrilled at a "0.1%" rate. Remember to compare with the mortality and quality-of-life of untreated and conventionally treated brain tumors.

Oh, and FDA inspectors (at least the rank-and-file that I've encountered) are known for being very scrupulous -- they follow an strict inspection procedure that is openly published for examination, and are not allowed to accept even a cheap lunch.
 

Re:

[Metasquares (555685)]

Particularly GBM, which seems to be the tumor they tested this on. The survival rates for that type are currently abysmal, and anything that raises them is welcome, .1% having side effects or not.

Re:

[iamacat (583406)]

Given that rabies already produces a real-life zombie plague without specifically targeting temporal lobes, I wouldn't rule out the risk of any virus that penetrates blood-brain barrier. You may take a risk of being a zombie in exchange for certainty of death, but what about all the people whom you might infect by biting, sneezing and so on?

beat me too it

[circletimessquare (444983)]

i was going to say a better title for this story would be "when genuine scientific research imitates disposable scifi movie dialogue"

and add one more movie to your list : i saw that bad 2004 "doom" movie starring the rock last night on tnt, and i was having flashbacks to the movie's dialogue with this story

Re:beat me too it

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Instead of funding this risky research into brain altering viruses, the government should restore funding for *my* experimental research into a cure for brain cancer!

You see, I, the great Doctor Alexander von Hubris, have found a means by which to re-animate dead cells! But those foolish, short-sighted politicians cut my funding! My colleagues called my research "irresponsible" and "dangerous". And the ethics review panel called my experiments "troubling" and "unnecessarily painful". The fools! They laughed, they all laughed!

But now, I can cure all diseases, because I have now found a way to bring dead tissue back to life! Yes, certain... shall we say, sacrifices... had to be made, but it was all in the name of science! And now, now I have found that which mankind has always dreamed of: a path to immortality. And nothing, I tell you, nothing can possibly go wrong! Tonight, I will test my technique on myself, and then you will see, you will all see!

Re:

[riceboy50 (631755)]

You must have meant 28 Days Later [imdb.com], not 28 Days [imdb.com].

Re:

[EMeta (860558)]

Actually, most characters were zombies in that one too.

Re:

[kalirion (728907)]

I, for one, am going to wait for micro-machine therapy.

Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo?

[TheMadcapZ (868196)]

I second that. At least with this method if you do become a raging zombie, with the click of a button ,those little buggers can play a round of Dig-Dug in your head thus sparing humanity the ensuing brain eating rampage.

Re:

[tor528 (896250)]

Even if you only had a few months left to live?

Re:

[AmaDaden (794446)]

Some say the world will end in Goo;
Some say in Zombies...

Robert Frost 2010?

Re:is this an "I am Legend" promo?

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

Well, to be fair, Edward Jenner had no sweet clue why cowpox would protect someone from smallpox, but once he figured out how to protect people, it was in his best interests to protect as many people as possible rather than waiting for the full 'why' before doing something.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

rather than waiting for the full 'why' before doing something.

Right!
Because we can use the virus to kill the cancer, then bacteria to kill the virus, then worms to eat the bacteria, birds to eat the worms, cats to eat the birds, dogs to eat the cats, and gorillas to kill the dogs. Don't worry, the gorillas won't be a problem because they'll eventually freeze* to death.

*Note: does not apply to tropical climates

Followed by...

[betterunixthanunix (980855)]

...a William Smith who attacks the virus!!!

(I just had to).

Good news and bad news

[sm62704 (957197)]

Doctor: I have good news and bad news. The good news is, your cancer is under remission.

Patient: And the bad news?

Doctor: We gave you rabies.

Re:Good news and bad news

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Rabies? Well, that is alright. My husband might be upset if it was babies. But rabies should be fine.

Re:

[StaticEngine (135635)]

I'll drink to that!

Oh, wait...

Cure (potentially) worse than the disease?

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

From the summary:

'A virus might be able to do that, because as a virus kills a tumor cell, it could also replicate, and you could end up with a therapy that's self-amplifying.'

Yes...and it may also mutate, and you'd wind up with a virus that has developed a taste for healthy brain cells. Granted, the chances are slight, but they're not nonexistent. Don't get me wrong...as the husband of a brain cancer victim, I find this development very exciting. I just have a habit of looking on the darker side of things.

Re:

[cmorriss (471077)]

As they stated in the article, they had to immunosupress the mice so that they wouldn't reject the human brain tumor that was put in their brain. This suppression allowed the virus to make its way to the cancer cells without being attacked and killed.

To do this in a normal human being, the virus would have to be engineered in such a way that the immune system somehow let's it go.

Now we have a virus that is engineered to avoid a human immune response. Throw in a dose of your mutation where it attacks human

Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease?

[RallyNick (577728)]

Or you could temporarily immunosupress the cancer patient?

Re:

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

Not quite.

Chemotherapy already suppresses normal immune response. Combine chemo and this, and you may have an effective treatment regimen for difficult tumors...

Re:

[RallyNick (577728)]

So you think 5% chance of getting rabbies and dying is worse than 50% chance of dying from brain cancer?

Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease?

[backslashdot (95548)]

Also worthy of pointing out is that the brain isn't patrolled by the immune system. Still, stage IV cancer will kill a person too. Furthermore, this virus .. VSVrp30a isn't a human attacking virus. I believe it would require too high a number of specific mutations in its genome to acquire the ability to target non cancerous cells (though I have no idea what the specific SNP's are). Now before someone runs around claiming this is in the rabies virus family... the amount of mutations required to get there is astronomical (unless there somehow exist conditions for directed evolution).

Viruses that attack tumors (oncolytic viruses), have been studied for years and there is a whole list of them .. check out wikipedia.

Outside the brain most viruses can be handled effectively by the immune system, especially if primed against it (thats why small pox, rabies etc. vaccines exist). Yes, yes, I know HIV and HCV aren't. They're exceptions.

Re:Cure (potentially) worse than the disease?

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

Meh. As long as it doesn't become airborne it's no big deal with this type of brain cancer. My mother had it, so I know a decent amount about it.

As it stands, if you get a glioblastoma, you're dead. It may take a year, but more likely you have a lot less, and it won't be quality time either, it will be a quick trip down the road toward being a non-responsive vegetable.

So if the cure kills you, no big deal. Your chances are pretty non-existent either way. Most cancer "cures" are really just a test to see if your normal healthy cells are able to take more punishment than the cancer cells. With a GBF, you're just prolonging the process.

Re:

[getling (114602)]

I agree completely - my father had the same and we were lucky that it in fact WAS the treatment that killed him after three years living with it. Yes that's right, he lasted three years - for those that know about glioblastoma that is an eternity. They pumped him full of steroids, gamma knife, radiation and oral chemo (newer drug, I forget the name) and eventually the body just shut down largely due to the steroids.

So yes, this is great news.

However, haven't we heard this before working on the same tumor, o

Re:

[DrBuzzo (913503)]

First, sorry to hear about your spouse having brain cancer.

Obviously this is one of the many concerns that such a therapy would have and this is far from being to the point of being a viable therapy. However, even if it does turn out that there is a risk of this happening, there are risks with nearly all drugs and therapies and for severe brain cancer the small risk might be worth it.

Re:

[vimh42 (981236)]

Let's say you have a 5% chance of having your brain eaten if you try a new fangled rabies treatment. Old fashion technique, you have a 30% chance of dying. Doing nothing, you have a 99% chance of dying. You might give it a shot.

Re:

[A nonymous Coward (7548)]

They found this version of the virus by letting it mutate. Best of breed, you might say. But they were doing the selecting, not nature, so I too wonder what would happen to it in vivo.

That's pretty cool, and I hope it's life saving.

[explosivejared (1186049)]

However, as long as we are on the topic of symbiotic relationships, I've always felt that training domesticated zombies to home in on cancer cells as a delicacy would be pretty effective. Remissions wouldn't be a problem, cause zombies have pretty big appetites.

On a tangent, it upsets me when people talk about how the government shortchanges the field of stem cells, when practically nobody is talking about zombie-centric methods of treatment. I swear, you have all these good ideas and can back them up with sound science, and it is as if no one is listening.

Oh well, maybe one day we can grow up in a world where somebody can truthfully say, "... if it wasn't for the walking dead, I wouldn't be here!"

Re:

[bluefoxlucid (723572)]

The government only short-changes embryonic stem cell research; adult stem cell research is where it's at anyway. ESR generated tissue needs all kinds of fine chemical control to be made to work almost-right, and then the new host rejects it and needs immune system suppression drugs (hi, liver transplant or ESR liver tissue, we need to package a weak form of induced AIDS with that). ASR on the other hand has found many uses (chemo therapy relies on using stem cells extracted from the patient before therap

Virus - Tumor - Immune System

[j3wwy (848834)]

"In more-realistic models, the host may have a response to the virus that limits the effect."

Kinda like biological paper-rock-scissors.

Human cells in mice?

[Cedric Tsui (890887)]

I'm a little surprised that they injected malignant human cells into mice. These viruses do have a different effect on human cells and mouse cells don't they?

If this does end up working, the procedure would have a substantial problem. It would need to be performed on an immuno-suppressed people or else the virus is 'stamped out' before it has a chance to mount an effective attack on the cancer.

Re:Human cells in mice?

[mapsjanhere (1130359)]

I think the main part here is that the virus can penetrate the blood - brain barrier. The reason we don't die all from encephalitis during every cold is that the brain is very well screened against infectious agents. So it doesn't really matter what virus we're using for this, it's the fact that the virus can selectively penetrate into tumor tissue that's the importance of the discovery.

Re:

[eln (21727)]

It has an even more serious problem than that: Sure, it's effective against human brain cancer in mice, but unfortunately it's only effective against mouse brain cancer in humans. So, not very useful I'm afraid.

Re:

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Chemotherapy and radiation treatment tend to do a pretty good job of immunosuppression anyway. If you could develop a treatment with a virus, requiring that the patient be immunosuppressed wouldn't be such a big hurdle.

The virus might attack the primary tumor in mice as a result of its having been surgically disrupted during transplantation. That doesn't affect metastases though. Also, the virus might attack normal human cells while leaving normal mouse cells alone, but someone else pointed out that it d

Breast

[_14k4 (5085)]

Hopefully this will work well, and spin off some thought on breast cancer and other types. My wife had (or has depending on who you ask) breast cancer and any steps toward a cure are good steps, in my opinion.

Yet another cancer treatment...

[scubamage (727538)]

...that will probobly never see the light of day. Its kind of sad how often we see hopefuly cancer treatments that either don't make it through clinical trials or simply vaporize. I can understand the reasoning if they don't make it through clinical trials, but the others... well, I hate to sound jaded, but it *is* more profitable to treat a disease than cure it. Not to mention this is a virus so rapid mutation is its raison de etre.

Re:

[robertjw (728654)]

One good thing about Brain Cancer, at least from an economic perspective, is that it can be very hard to treat. You can't just remove someone's brain the way you can a breast. I actually new a guy that died from inoperable brain cancer, nothing they could do but make him comfortable.

It *is* profitable to cure someone who has a cancer you can't treat.

Probably for technical reasons

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Sure it is good to find something new, but very few of these ever work out in the real world. Having a virus eat bad brain cells and leave good ones is one thing, but there are still many other hurdles before this becomes an effective and reliable treatment. For instance, it might ignore good brain cells but it might eat liver cells or spinal nerve cells. The toxins from the broken down brain cells could be quite harmful too.

That said though, if many of our food items were new today, the FDA would ban them.

then I say let's make it profitable!

[rev_sanchez (691443)]

Hunting humans is generally frowned upon in modern society but if we loaded dart guns with anti-tumor brain virus and let hunters track cancer victims through a jungle or something then the patient and hunter could go dutch on the treatment. The patient's give them a good hunt and the hunter bags their prey. The incentive for the patient is that they don't have to pay for any of the treatment if they evade the hunter for 3 days.

In the end the hunter gets a happy picture of a bald person with a dart in their ass as a trophy and the patient gets their expensive treatment. We could handle vaccinations for poor 3rd world kids the same way. Next time Angela Jolie goes to bumbuck nowhere I say we hand her a rifle with MMR shots.

780 days too late...

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

My wife died of the same type tumor tested in TFA, a Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), just over two years ago - only seven weeks weeks after diagnosis.

I believe that 6,000 to 12,000 people are diagnosed with this every year and the death rate for GBM is 100% with an average LE of only 4 - 18 months with successful treatment. All joking aside, anything that can help is welcome.

This is not the first virus found that can kill cancer. The "Reovirus" (commonly found in human respiratory and enteric tracts) also seems to work pretty well. See the following: Curing Cancer? Patrick Lee's Path to the Reovirus Treatment [uwaterloo.ca] and Reovirus to target cancer [bbc.co.uk]

"We injected the tumours directly with the virus," he said. "We were able to see tumour regression within three to four weeks. The regression appears to be complete and the mice are still living after five to six months.
The tumour tissue seems to have been completely eliminated. The next step is tests in human patients.

Evolutionarily speaking

[Mmm_pickles (624458)]

It's in the virus's best interest that the host survive. Therefore, a virus that heals the host rather than harming, is more likely to live and infect more hosts.

This development makes me wonder whether we already have other natural, benign viruses helping us out.

Re:Evolutionarily speaking

[not-enough-info (526586)]

It's in the virus's best interest that the host survive until transmission to a new host.

There. Fixed that for you. Leaving the host alive means it has time to adapt and develop antibodies. Dead hosts don't create antibodies, nor do they produce offspring who are born with said antibodies pre-infection.