Brain Tumor Vaccine Shows Promising Results

ScienceDaily is reporting that a new vaccine used in the treatment of a cancer found primarliy in the brain is showing promising results after an initial trial at the University of California. "Of the 12 patients being treated, eight can currently be evaluated for overall survival, while four are still receiving treatment. Seven out of the eight patients have exceeded the historical median benchmark of 6.5 months survival from time of recurrence. The investigators will continue to follow the patients for overall survival. Based on these results, a larger, multi-center phase 2 study is planned for late 2007."

Re:Meaningless Statistics

[flynt]

Well I of course agree with your sentiment, calling the results "meaningless" isn't quite right either. They have some meaning, even if they are based on a small sample. For instance, if all 8 patients died the day of their first dose of vaccine, would you call that meaningless? If you read the article, all the actual investigators understand this is only a Phase I study, but that's where everything starts off. I agree, so many things that seem promising do not work out when done in a large trial, so excitement should be tempered until then. Your criticisms of this study would be valid if it were a Phase II/III trial, but this one clearly wasn't designed to show efficacy.

Re:It's not a tumah!

[drinkypoo]

Why don't we put forth the same heroic visionary goal for our entire society that we put for going to the moon forty years ago and "smokin' out ter'ists" these last six years?

Because construction (halliburton) and oil (everyone) companies don't profit from curing cancer.

In fact, the latter causes cancer, even directly from refinery emissions.

There's lots of things we don't do because there's no way to make money on them, or because we're making money on the status quo. For example, legalization of drugs. We all know that it would reduce crime. And of course, there's the supposed issue of terrorism - they claim that buying drugs funds terrorism, which is highly likely in fact. Buying imported drugs will necessarily be funding terrorism part of the time, it only makes sense. But the war on some drugs is highly profitable for a wide range of people. It also helps protect the plastics and tree paper industries by preventing large-scale production of hemp fibers and oils.

Re:It's not a tumah!

[Seumas]

Yes, but we fund many forms of social welfare (not just corporate welfare). Other than feeding people, what could be a greater social welfare concern than curing a slew of the greatest sicknesses man has ever known?

Really, our society has advanced to the point where we have the resources to do a lot of great things that will benefit everyone. We just seem to lack the will. And while it's nice to think private industry will do it, they're not going to cure cancer, because a cancer cure won't make them rich. They'll lose money. And even if they simply stumble upon some sort of "prolong your life" drug (you know they don't care to CURE it of course), it won't be for decades.

Cautious Optimism

[CrazyTalk]

As someone who has a brain tumor (not a glioma, but still malignant) I keep a sharp eye out for new developments. It seems like every other day a new "cure" is announced, but there is a LOT more work to do. Still, this is a good sign and the more research that goes on the better. Even if this ultimately doesn't prove to be as big a help as it initially appears to be, its one step closer. One thing that these types of treatments DO do, which is often overlooked, is prolong the life (And improve the quality of life) of people with the disease, making it something that is "managed" like say Diabetes as opposed to just being a death sentence. I'm 4 and a half years out of what my doctor told me was a 3-5 year life expectency, and I fully intend to beat that by a wide margin.

Yes, money will solve everything.

[Stickerboy]

>Yes, but we fund many forms of social welfare (not just corporate welfare). Other than feeding people, what could be a greater social welfare concern than curing a slew of the greatest sicknesses man has ever known?

>Really, our society has advanced to the point where we have the resources to do a lot of great things that will benefit everyone. We just seem to lack the will. And while it's nice to think private industry will do it, they're not going to cure cancer, because a cancer cure won't make them rich. They'll lose money. And even if they simply stumble upon some sort of "prolong your life" drug (you know they don't care to CURE it of course), it won't be for decades.

O RLY?

For the record, the US federal government spends $28 billion on medical grants through the National Institutes of Health. Per year. According to Wikipedia, the NIH through the National Cancer Institute [wikipedia.org] sponsored the research of two-thirds of the available cancer drugs we have. And that's not counting state-funded research, or private grants.

Just like all the celebrities who made it their mission in the 1990s to preach, "let's throw more money at curing AIDS!", more money (or more "will", as you like) will not always equal a better solution, simply because the basic research is not there yet. Contrary to your opinion, there are hundreds of thousands of doctors and doctors-in-training who would love to be known as the one who cured a particular type of cancer. Even the ones that work for Big Pharm. The basic scientific problem is that many cancers are the body's own cells, with a few restrictions on growth removed (see Nowell's Law [gatewayforindia.com]). How do you target and kill that without killing your patient? And that's the conundrum.

There have been many advances in cancer research, despite what laypeople will tell you. Many cancers caught in Stage I or even Stage II are curable with multimodality therapy (surgery, chemo, radiation). Which is why cancer screening is such a hot topic in medical literature now. Gardasil and other anti-HPV vaccines in the works have the potential to cure all or most cervical, penile, and scrotal cancers (all have an etiology that starts with HPV). Five years from now, I predict we'll be talking about Epstein-Barr Virus-associated cancers in the same way. The majority of juvenile cancers, like Wilm's tumor or ALL, can be cured. Society could cure 90%+ of future lung cancer by throwing away their damn cancer sticks.

But you would never know the amazing progress being made, because tens of thousands of anonymous researchers and doctors working in labs around the world to find the cure for "cancer" (that's like saying, find the "cure for sports injuries" or the "cure for autoimmune diseases") isn't sexy. What they say doesn't fit in a convenient seven-second sound-bite. Haven't people been working on cancer for centuries, where's the damn cure already?!? And wouldn't you rather know about the latest on Paris Hilton, or watch the latest Grey's Anatomy, or go play some more World of Warcraft instead?