Some Tumors Are Responding to A New Cancer Therapy (bloomberg.com) 53
A new cancer therapy in an early-stage trial by the U.S. National Cancer Institute "continued to be safe and show durable responses against solid tumors for some patients," reports Bloomberg. "In a trial of 14 patients who received different doses, three patients' cancers have shrunk partially, according to a study presented Sunday... The researchers had presented initial positive data in November, and the updated study shows that the three partial responses were durable, with one cervical cancer patient's response continuing at 15 months." Kite Pharma Inc. licensed the therapy, and by the end of the year will file an "investigational new drug" application with the FDA to begin the next round of testing. The therapy involves genetically engineered T cells, targeted to the solid tumors using the MAGE-A3 protein as a unique marker expressed in up to 30 percent of cancers.
Ah so its about gm tech (Score:5, Insightful)
This just takes the price for least informative summary ever. So a new cancer drug has effects. Ok great, every day we see these trials and most have at least some effect. Only in the last sentence is desribed why this particular trial is worth mentioning.
Re:Ah so its about gm tech (Score:5, Informative)
This just takes the price for least informative summary ever. So a new cancer drug has effects. Ok great, every day we see these trials and most have at least some effect. Only in the last sentence is desribed why this particular trial is worth mentioning.
The summary says "The therapy involves genetically engineered T cells, targeted to the solid tumors using the MAGE-A3 protein as a unique marker expressed in up to 30 percent of cancers." Seems pretty informative to me.
Re: (Score:2)
In journalism, they call that "burying the lede". That bit should have been in the very first sentence, or at the very latest, the second sentence. Instead, it is at the very end of the story, where it is almost guaranteed to get chopped off in the future by some well-meaning editor trying
Re: (Score:2)
Nah it's pretty mundane and only tells you about their stuff, how it does something complicated and patentable with something expressed by 30% of cancers. Big deal.
In 2007, Potter, Burke et al found CYP1B1 in nearly 100% of cancers.
Fitst they found Resveratrol ("red wine") killed cells with these markers (which turn the Resveratrol into potential which kills only that cell) but it wasn't strong enough to work on humans. Next they found the Salvestrol family of molecules.
Have a look for yourself how well tha
Re: (Score:2)
yes in the last sentence, this is what i mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming soon (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's assume it does cost that much. Suppose I'm a minister of a health department, and I have 10 million to spend on medication for 10.000 patients. I can treat them all with vaccines, antibiotics, and set broken bones for that amount, or I can provide therapy for one patient... I'm afraid that one patient will have to go elsewhere.
As long as the medical companies are racking up profits to the tune of 1000% on medication, there will NEVER be a budget that can buy all the medication a population needs. Since each company will charge "what the market will bear" the combined effect is more than the market can actually bear. And thus people die.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume it does cost that much. Suppose I'm a minister of a health department, and I have 10 million to spend on medication for 10.000 patients. I can treat them all with vaccines, antibiotics, and set broken bones for that amount, or I can provide therapy for one patient... I'm afraid that one patient will have to go elsewhere.
As long as the medical companies are racking up profits to the tune of 1000% on medication, there will NEVER be a budget that can buy all the medication a population needs. Since each company will charge "what the market will bear" the combined effect is more than the market can actually bear. And thus people die.
I guess you would have to get affordble treatment outsideof the USA (Europe,Israel, Russia, Canada, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Europe, in The Netherlands. I just quoted the discussion that is currently running in the papers and the media. I live in a rich country, but the budget for healthcare is still limited. Cheaper than the US, but paying a lot of money for three months more life? Nope.
Since I wrote my previous comment, we got some news related to this. An acquaintance of my wife lived in China. Last week he suicided. He had cancer, and if had lived on, his daughter would have had to take on a lot of debt to pay for h
"Affordable" treatment in Russia is a croc of shit (Score:2)
I guess you would have to get affordble treatment outsideof the USA (Europe,Israel, Russia, Canada, etc)
"Affordable" in Russia? What a horrible joke. Treatment in Russia is not affordable. It was kinda affordable in USSR but you had to spend a lot of time proving that you need treatment, and even then it was matter of luck and bribing the "right" people. Today nothing real is available through "free" system except very basic paperwork and if you need real treatment you have to pay a lot of money. And commercial medical insurance is outrageously expensive, impossible to pay for average people.
And if you've g
Re:Coming soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares how much it costs if it can safe your life?
People who can't afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
For only $500,000 per dose.
But only $20 in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why it is best no to have this kind of cure. All it does is mess up the actuary tables for Social Security.
This is a good point.
Because it is our reason for existing to make actuaries happy because...
OK, I can't hold out any longer: FUCK THEM.
"Oh my holy hell, you sank my business model!"
"And?"
"But it's MY business model!"
"And?"
"But .. but .. but ..."
"And?"
Not really caring about some "bro" and his business model.
Re: (Score:2)
For now.
Historically, T-cell therapy has been specific to a single person, because it had to be constructed using that person's own T cells. However, some teams are working on custom T cells that are modified to avoid expressing the genes that would normally cause them to attack unknown cells, thus allowing generic, off-the-shelf T cells to be introduced into anyone. Assuming it is possible to do that with CD4 cells, and assuming the immune system doesn't immediately attack and
Re: (Score:1)
If you think that a viable and functioning treatment will keep staying expensive then you have very little imagination. Immune therapy is a hot topic these days, and seem to be very suitable for automation. It actually seem to be best suited for automation. So my best guess is that prices will plummet if it becomes standard.
MEATBAGS! (Score:3)
It's Slashdot's dirty little secret: many posters are actually meatbags. Sometimes some of them forget to pretend that they aren't interested in meatbag-only news, like meatbag debugging techniques.
If you're (understandably) grossed out by meatbag-related news, yeah, you might want to consider relocating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
have outlawed further research into this.
Read the article. It's a GMO technology, so only Republicans will use it.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be surprised how little effect in some cases.
Re:Uncurable? (Score:5, Informative)
Nice blurb. Of course it mentions FDA aproval otherwise it would be verboten.
Now if you or someone you know is sick with Cancer or another one of those "incurable" diseases my advice is: do not be afraid to search for a cure yourself.
They should - many of the so-called "cures" are dangerous in many ways. Some of them directly (as injecting poisons isn't healthy) and some indirectly (reducing effects of medical treatment). Some are "harmless", assuming the patient doesn't think they should replace real, proven effective treatment with whatever snake-oil they choose. Those in the third category can even have positive effects just as any other placebo.
The very idea of a cancer cure is idiotic as it is a wide spectrum of different kinds of cellular malfunction. That's the reason there are a lot of different drugs and treatments as something effective for one of the cancers will not be effective for another kind.
Yes, a cure. I'm sure it's a crazy concept for many people stuck with approved science but until you have direct, personal experience with an option you can't dismiss it anymore than you can dismiss mainstream-approved chemoterapy and radiotherapy, which by the way are bigger killers than the cancer itself.
And that's bullshit spread by ignorant fools and people wanting to make money on peoples fears and hopes. How do I know? Science, medical science.
Yes there are people that dies of the cancer treatment, most commonly by a fragile body overdosing on painkillers. It isn't talked about much but is a reality. But how should those deaths be avoided? Many terminal cancer cases are extremely painful and not giving them large amounts of painkillers would be torture of people not (even if they'd want to) capable of ending their own lives, even with the Hippocratic ideals in mind allowing the patients to be tortured by their own decaying bodies for a few extra days of "life" in agony isn't a realistic choice.
Mind you I'm not saying there aren't charlatans out for desperate people.There are a lot... in the medical establishment as well as outside of it. Caveat emptor.
I can count 6 people I know of (having read their sites, articles etc.) that thought they knew a cure for cancer. They all died of the cancer they were sure to be cured. Some of them just "knew" the cure(s), some of them left a huge pile of robbed corpses.
There are people that claim to have been cured by something, the thing in common is that they either was self-diagnosed or diagnosed by quacks.
If someone told me or anybody else I know that I/he/she have terminal cancer I'd seek a second opinion (not expecting any better news) and then just accept palliative care trying to make my/his/her last days as comfortable as possible.
I'll end by noting that you didn't say what any of the "cures" are.
Re: (Score:2)
The very idea of a cancer cure is idiotic as it is a wide spectrum of different kinds of cellular malfunction
The treatment in TFA (assuming that TFA is about the same treatment that was in the news a couple of days ago) works by allowing the body's natural defences against cancer to work properly. Cells become cancerous all of the time but they're almost always killed immediately by your autoimmune response. Some mutate in a way that prevents the immune system recognising them as broken and can then spread quite quickly. This treatment allows the immune system to recognise the cancer cells, so is likely to work
For the last time (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory xkcd (Score:5, Interesting)
Genetically modified T-cells to treat cancer, reminds me of this.
https://xkcd.com/938/ [xkcd.com]
Translation (Score:2)
For those that don't know, immunotherapy was a big breakthrough in cancer research in 2010. It's very expensive, as it has to be tailor made to the patient and the specific form of cancer. Many times it involves genetically modifying the patient's immune system to recognize the cancer cells as an infection.
Yawn. Cancer cures abound, just not in big-pharma. (Score:2)
There are many spectacularly successful cures for cancers that simply enable the body to reverse the process that started the tumor in the first place.
My father-in-law had a 10cm lung tumour last year and in 23 days the tumor shrank 50% and was gone in 60 days. The "magic"? The juice of 1.5kg of carrots daily.
Oncologists just laugh and shake their heads because their information network doesn't have room for anything outside the feeds from their petro-chemical overlords. Yes, I said it. They're just b