Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Medicine

mRNA Companies are Now Testing Cancer-Fighting Vaccines (usatoday.com) 79

Posted by EditorDavid from the good-fights dept.
USA Today reports: Companies like Moderna and Pfizer's partner BioNTech, whose names are familiar from COVID-19 vaccines, are using mRNA to spur cancer patients' bodies to make vaccines that will — hopefully — prevent recurrences and treatments designed to fight off advanced tumors. If they prove effective, which won't be known for at least another year or two, they could be added to the arsenal of immune therapies designed to get the body to fight off its own tumors...

Over the last decade, pharmaceutical companies around the world have been developing new ways to train the body's immune system to fight off tumors, particularly melanoma. They had learned how to remove a brake installed by tumors, unleashing the warriors of the immune system. Ten years ago, only about 5% of people with advanced melanoma survived for five years. Now, nearly half make it that long. Trials of mRNA cancer vaccines aim to boost that number even higher by adding soldiers to the fight... Once a tumor has been largely removed through surgery, a vaccine can help generate new immune soldiers known as T cells... A computer algorithm analyzes the mutations distinct to the cancer cells, looking for ones that trigger the production of T cells, said Melissa J. Moore, Moderna's chief scientific officer, of platform research. So far, she said, Moderna, working with partner Merck, has tested these personalized vaccines in about 100 patients. They aim eventually to make a personalized mRNA vaccine within about 45 days after the patient's cancer surgery, during their recovery...

Mutated cancer cells have proteins on their surface that can be targeted by an mRNA vaccine. For a tumor that has, say, five common mutations, a patient could get a combination of five of these vaccines. On Friday, BioNTech announced it was launching a new trial for this approach, testing it in 120 melanoma patients Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and the U.S. The new treatment, given in connection with an antibody from Regeneron, is aimed at four tumor-associated antigens. More than 90% of melanoma tumors contain at least one of the four.
The U.S. federal government now lists 29 studies underway or that will be soon investigating mRNA cancer vaccines, according to the article.

And Dr. Stephen Hahn, who had a career as an oncologist before running the Food and Drug Administration from 2019 until early this year, "said he's more optimistic this time because of how much researchers have learned about the role the immune system plays in cancer. 'That gives us an edge to maybe finally get to the place where we need to be.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

mRNA Companies are Now Testing Cancer-Fighting Vaccines More

mRNA Companies are Now Testing Cancer-Fighting Vaccines

Comments Filter:

  • The easy road. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ostracus ( 1354233 )

    Better than chemo or radiation.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Too bad we are so scared of vaccines that no one will risk vaccinated their kids out of fear of autism. In the mid 20th century serious polio cases in the US spiked to tens of thousands and thousand of kids died in one year, but who is going to vaccinate their kid on that off chance when it certain the vaccine will kill the kid when we inject the demon juice in him.

      1.5 million people die from cervical and other HPV cancers. We have a vaccine. Like all vaccines, these need to be given young. Yet we are so

      • Re:The easy road. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @04:35PM (#61504788)
        Cancer vaccines they're working on aren't preemptive. They make a set for a very specific cancer you have-- they have to sequence your tumor, and if possible resect as much as they can surgically. The idea is to get your body to then target the remaining cancerous cells. The number of people who actually have cancer killing them, but will still refuse this treatment, is much smaller but unfortunately still probably not zero.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fermion ( 181285 )
          Then this is not a vaccine, this is drugs.
          • It is a vaccine, because it mobilizes the body's immune system. It's just being mobilized against something different than what most vaccines have done so far, and in a much more customized way.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            The problems are enormous. Lets drop the word cancer for a moment. They take one of your cells, that has genetic damage that impacts it normal cellular function and reproduces out of control, does not self destruct and does not trigger an attack from your immune system because of course it is still too much like you.

            They are going to try to cut that dividing line. Inject you with a mutagen which will alter the way cells functions, trigger an attack on the body, using a element of your DNA damaged cell that

            • The reason to get vaccinated before traveling to areas where certain diseases are endemic that are not endemic in the location one is traveling from is so that one does not get sick at the foreign area and have to "put up with" their medical system.

              Vaccine Passports are bloody stupid. If some moron wants to travel to an area where some virus is endemic and risk being exposed to it any dying, that is their problem. Why the hell should anyone care whether they are vaccinated or not if they do not care thems

              • Well, let's see - why should anyone care if you get vaccinated for local diseases before traveling?

                1) You tie up local resources if you get sick - resources that may not be available to help someone local that needs them. Or have the government expend their resources to treat you / help you in order to lessen a perceived "lack of hospitality".

                2) You may bring something contagious back with you when you leave. That could have serious consequences when your country imposes restrictions on travel to theirs.

          • Your definition of vaccine is too narrow. It's like saying injecting someone with the influenza vaccine when they are (unbeknownst to them at the time) already infected with influenza means you were injecting them with drugs instead of a vaccine. The state of the host body does not define the properties of the treatment.

            In the case of cancer, shrinking and/or excising tumors is not the especially difficult part. The difficult part is preventing the cancer from metastasizing and halting it if it has start

      • Too bad we are so scared of vaccines that no one will risk vaccinated their kids out of fear of autism.

        This is not true at all. The vast majority of people vaccinate their kids. Stop repeating lies.

      • Too bad we are so scared of vaccines that no one will risk vaccinated their kids out of fear of autism.

        No one? Really?

  • Not new. Trials go back at least 13 years. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @01:02PM (#61504424) Journal

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]

    2008, mRNA vaccine injected in humans to fight cancer, safe but effectiveness not shown.

    BTW, remember this when the next anti-vaxer says mRNA vaccines are "new to science".

    • Re: Not new. Trials go back at least 13 years. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Laz10 ( 708792 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @01:11PM (#61504444)

      I also think that there are companies that are closer to the goal of delivering a personalized cancer vaccine.

      E.g. Evaxion https://evaxion-biotech.com/ho... [evaxion-biotech.com]

      Often a new technology will disappoint in early trials. I think it is too early to dismiss this. If it works it will be groundbreaking!

      • I also think that there are companies that are closer to the goal of delivering a personalized cancer vaccine.

        If you mean they look at your tumor and give you a vaccine based on a unique cancer type that you have, then that technology is decades away.

        If you mean, they look at your tumor and see a DNA mutation that millions of other people have had and know exactly which treatment to use to target it, then that is a lot closer (for many types of cancer).

        • What exactly is the difference here... they're sequencing the tumors for mutations found in cancerous cells, then making mRNAs specific to those exact mutations. I suppose they'll keep them around for any other for others with each exact mutation, but in targeting 5+ mutations for each therapy the set of mRNAs delivered will be pretty custom especially the first time each is encountered. If you have a novel mutation never before associated with cancer sounds like they'd have a bit more work to do, otherwise

          • but in targeting 5+ mutations for each therapy the set of mRNAs delivered will be pretty custom especially the first time each is encountered.

            The first time a mutation is encountered, you can't create a custom drug instantly. There is no process for doing that. You need to do the research to understand the mutation and then create a drug for that mutation, which will need to go through several trials before it is available on the market. And the first few drugs you make will probably fail.

            This is the situation with breast cancer now. We know several common subtypes of the cancer, and have treatments that work relatively well for some of them. We

    • Yeap! This kind of thing (cancer treatment) was the reason this tech was firstly researched/developed...
    • They are new, and "personalized vaccines" newer still. Being cautious of largely unproven medical technology doesn't make you an "anti vaxer."

    • Re:Not new. Trials go back at least 13 years. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @02:39PM (#61504608)

      BioNTech was created to develop an mRNA vaccine for cancer. When Covid19 landed they made a strategic decision to use mRNA tech to help end the pandemic even though it meant a timeline impact for their cancer efforts.

      The two scientists behind the mRNA effort deserve praise and probably a Nobel for their efforts as they shortened the pandemic by about a year with their developments saving countless lives and may develop a cancer vaccine down the road.

  • Bill Gates? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )
    I think he is right about vaccines, but given his polarizing profile right now, maybe they could have used a better poster boy to explain it in the USA Today article. Who else could they have used? Even Bill Nye would have been better, and he's a mechanical engineer (xD).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k2r ( 255754 )

      Bill Gates the wrong poster child?
      Part of me is perfectly fine with all the conspiracy nuts avoiding an efficient cancer treatment

  • A "T-cell virus" WCPGW? (Score:3)

    by Lost Penguin ( 636359 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @02:26PM (#61504580)
    Resident evil wasn't supposed to be a guideline.

  • Hoping Lyme disease will be next (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RemindMeLater ( 7146661 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @03:15PM (#61504662)
    We really need a Lyme disease vaccine. It'd be nice to go for a walk in the woods and not worry if I'm risking a lifetime of pain and debilitation.

    • Absolutely. The ticks are awful here in New England this year, kids have had a few on them already from running around the woods. While we have the ticks tested and take prophylactic antibiotics there's still a small chance they can contract the disease. Lyme is very odd in that some people are OK and others like you say are disabled for life. Given the abundance this year we've taken to simply avoiding the woods.

      I'd love to see some of this new gene tech be used to make viruses against ticks and other harm

    • There was a specifc Lyme disease vaccine, but the low interest, court cases from anti-vax and fear caused problems for it and the company. In the end the economy won, and today we don't have that vaccine or option any more. From economical point of view Lyme is lite, curable disease and there is low business need to develop a costly vaccine for it. Source: https://time.com/6073576/lyme-... [time.com]

  • Everyone has Cancer, all the time (Score:3)

    by Retired ICS ( 6159680 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @04:01PM (#61504744)

    Everyone has cancer, all the time, from the moment they are born until the moment they die. However, in the normal course, the defective cells are recognized as "not-self" and are killed by the ordinary functioning of the immune system. In some cases, however, the defective cells (cancer cells) continue to express "self" proteins in which case the immune system leaves them alone (auto-immunity) -- defective response (failure of auto-immunity) causes auto-immune diseases in which the immune system attacks "self" rather than merely "not-self".

    The difficulty arises because some of the defective (cancer) cells display properties that are *both* self and *not-self* at the same time. Persons are divided into two categories -- those where the immune safety-system chooses "auto-immunity" in such conditions, and those where the immune safety-systems choose "attack and kill" in such circumstances. The first group will develop what is colloquially called cancer, and the second will develop other auto-immune conditions (lupus, arthritis, and so on).

    The balance, on a species level, is chosen by which causes death before breeding age. Whichever way the scales tip that causes death before breeding is selected against, while the balance which permits successful breeding (and passing along of that genetic trait) survives. The outcome post breeding (onward propagation of the genetic trait) is irrelevant.

    This same principle applies to all mutations and survival characteristics of the species. For example, everyone alive today has the genetic trait which permits the use of cholesterol to perform vascular repair. That is because everyone alive today had ancestors which survived through the last ice age where the dearth of sunlight only allowed those that had this particular genetic trait to breed. Those that did not have that trait (now called arteriosclerosis) died before breeding.

    • Everyone has cancer, all the time, from the moment they are born until the moment they die. However, in the normal course, the defective cells are recognized as "not-self" and are killed by the ordinary functioning of the immune system

      This doesn't seem to be right. Most cancerous mutations are corrected (or cause apoptosis) from within the cell, not by the external immune system.

      • I tend to agree. Even better would be to resolve what is actually causing the mutations ( environmental factors) and remove that exposure. And simultaneously to natively enhance the DNA proofreading efficiency.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jsonn ( 792303 )
      Not every defective cell is a form of cancer. There are two important aspects that are required for a tumor: (1) rapid reproduction and (2) reproduction without aging. Most cells in the human body can only split a certain number of numbers before the DNA structure itself starts to break. This is a result of the Telomerase transcription being faulty. Certain cells like stem cells can work around this and cancer cells also deploy the genes used. The rapid reproduction is the second part, since a slow growing

      • And this is why chemotherapy drugs work. Chemotherapy is like spraying weed killer (concentrated fertilizer) on your lawn. The "fast growing broad leaf" plants absorb more of the chemicals and poison themselves. The narrow bladed grass does not have enough surface area or growth (uptake) to poison itself. Hence the weeds die and the grass lives. So too chemotherapy which works the same way. The fastest growing cells absorb the most of the chemicals and poison themselves. Unfortunately, "normal" tissu

      • Most cells in the human body can only split a certain number of numbers before the DNA structure itself starts to break. This is a result of the Telomerase transcription being faulty. Certain cells like stem cells can work around this and cancer cells also deploy the genes used.

        Skin cells also work around this, and re-lengthen the telomeres over time. This is because they need to reproduce frequently (whereas other cells might like 80 years without dying, and don't need to re-lengthen the telomeres). The result is that the vast majority of cancers are in skin-type cells (epithelial cells).

  • Imagine how cool it would be to use an mRNA "vaccine" to produce an enzyme to make you phosphorescent. It wouldn't be contagious, would require the injection, and would be time limited. But the prank potential. (You know stuff like this is coming. It's like putting methylene blue in the punch at a party welcoming medical school freshmen. "I'm peeing blue!")

    • It's done in research all the time as a convenient way to measure how much protein expression is happening. I seem to remember it's a firefly chemical, luciferase, that's used for the purpose.

  • Assuming there are only so many different proteins they can target, once they are offering this at-large, would it really require developing a vaccine for each person vs matching that person to the one of the (tens/hundreds/thousands) of variants they have? Maybe the 45 day wait is to get enough people of the same variant for them to make a batch if they don't have a long shelf-life?

    • It may be that the advantage of mRNA here is that they hope custom vaccines will work better. I don't know whether cancers produce a small enough range of antigens that having off the rack vaccines is an option. If so, quicker and cheaper for sure.

      What I'm wondering about is how mRNA compares to viral vector vaccines for this niche. For the COVID vaccines, what has hit the popular press is that mRNA vaccines produce higher antibody levels and viral vector vaccines produce greater T cell responses. If that's

    • Talking with my oncologist friend, he mentioned the big game changer with these types of vaccines is that they can load up hundreds (and potentially thousands) of protein sequences into them. So while for the first few years they may be more bespoke, longer term they may be able to produce 10-20 vaccines that will be able to cover a broad range of cancers and for most folks, theyâ(TM)ll be able to sequence your cancer and determine that you need vaccine 7.
  • That means he focused more or less exclusively on radiation therapy. Certainly, it is a specialty of MD Anderson. I'd personally be interested in the take of a straight up oncologist versus a rad onc.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close