Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Biotech

Vaccines to Treat Cancer Possible by 2030, Say BioNTech Founders (bbc.com) 150

Posted by EditorDavid from the following-the-science dept.
Ugur Sahin and and Özlem Türeci. The BBC calls them "the husband and wife team behind one of the most successful Covid vaccines" — the couple who co-founded the German biotech company BioNTech in 2008, "exploring new technology involving messenger RNA to treat cancer."

And though they partnered with Pfizer to ues the same approach for their Covid vaccine, "Now the doctors are hopeful it could lead to new treatments for melanoma, bowel cancer and other tumour types." BioNTech has several trials in progress, including one where patients are given a personalised vaccine, to prompt their immune system to attack their disease. The mRNA technology being used works by sending an instruction or blueprint to cells to produce an antigen or protein. In Covid this antigen is part of the spike protein of the virus. In cancer it would be a marker on the surface of tumour cells. This teaches the immune system to recognise and target affected cells for destruction.

Speaking on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Prof Tureci said: "mRNA acts as a blueprint and allows you to tell the body to produce the drug or the vaccine... and when you use mRNA as a vaccine, the mRNA is a blueprint for the 'wanted poster' of the enemy — in this case cancer antigens which distinguish cancer cells from normal cells."

Harnessing the power of mRNA to produce vaccines was unproven until Covid. But the success of mRNA vaccines in the pandemic has encouraged scientists working with the technology in cancer.
The Guardian notes that the couple said cancer-targetting vaccines could be available "before 2030", though Özlem Türeci warns that "As scientists we are always hesitant to say we will have a cure for cancer. We have a number of breakthroughs and we will continue to work on them." BioNTech was working on mRNA cancer vaccines before the pandemic struck but the firm pivoted to produce Covid vaccines in the face of the global emergency. The firm now has several cancer vaccines in clinical trials.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vaccines to Treat Cancer Possible by 2030, Say BioNTech Founders More

Vaccines to Treat Cancer Possible by 2030, Say BioNTech Founders

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds good, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by b33fch0w ( 10184537 ) on Sunday October 16, 2022 @10:09PM (#62972549)
    ... easier said than done. Cancer is hard because: 1) the cells keep mutating to evade the immune system, and 2) often the micro-environment surrounding the tumor is really hostile to immune cells. So even if you teach the immune system to recognize a cancer antigen using mRNA, chances are either the tumor population will eventually mutate to no longer produce that antigen, or the immune cell itself can't survive long enough in the tumor microenvironment to be effective (like in glioblastoma for instance).

    • This headline should be modified to say, "Vaccines to treat some cancers possible by 2030." It's not all of them.

    • All of what you said is true, however, immunotherapy exists today (though much more difficult to do, since without an mRNA vaccine, those antibodies have to be grown in a lab) and it works.
      It's just not economical.

      So while it's "easier said than done", it's not remotely something that we don't understand the difficulties of.
  • If this works, then we'll be looking at death by dementia as the tradeoff. Or the odd accident.

    I've seen enough of that in my family that I hope they legalize euthanasia. Last thing I want to do is burden my family with that, and now making that the main cause of death? Zoinks!

    But don't worry, new treatments and drugs can keep your body functioning long after your mind is gone.

    Hella profit for the nursing homes,though. Hope your kids aren't expecting any inheritance.

    Remember - any cause of death

    • Remember - any cause of death that is decreased in the population, merely increases the odds of dying from something else.

      I think you've just discovered why the life expectancy of USAians has been decreasing since 2019. And you're displaying the symptoms yourself.

      Maybe stop drinking the idiot juice?

    • Where I live it is legal but dementia is not a legal reason for euthanasia, unless you are still sound of mind when you request it. A real problem. Euthanasia is not something you can request for others (otherwise its have a "leetle list..." :)). My mother just had it a month ago, but her mind was sharp.

      Dementia is horrible, but at a certain point is only a problem for others. The person itself no longer knows much and thus, isn't suffering. As for cost: you will have to pay what you can if you suffer from

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        I'm hoping to notice in time if my mind is slipping. I've heard anecdotes of it going downhill inside of months though, so I just cross fingers and hope for the best.

        Being useful is what keeps me alive today. It may be true that once the mind is gone, it's no longer a problem of mine but I'll be damned if I suffer through this existence only for my legacy to be tarnished that way.

        • Yup. We need some kind of dead-man's trigger for euthanasia.
          Or a trusted friend to accidentally let us walk over a cliff. I don't know. But the idea of ending up like my grandmother, senile for a fucking decade terrifies me. I don't want to put my family through that shit. I don't want to be remembered like that.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

            I think this should be part of a patient decree. In case of irreversible mental decline to a certain threshold, put a bullet in my brain (or the medical equivalent thereof).

            • I think this should be part of a patient decree. In case of irreversible mental decline to a certain threshold, put a bullet in my brain (or the medical equivalent thereof).

              Unfortunately, that decreases the Nursing home's profits. Sounds crass, but it's true.

          • Yup. We need some kind of dead-man's trigger for euthanasia. Or a trusted friend to accidentally let us walk over a cliff. I don't know. But the idea of ending up like my grandmother, senile for a fucking decade terrifies me. I don't want to put my family through that shit. I don't want to be remembered like that.

            I know - horrifying stuff.

            I was listening to a story on NPR told by a woman who's husband contracted dementia. They tried to figure out a way to alleviate his eventual suffering. They Euthanasia rules made it impossible to do that in the USA. The big one was you had to be considered of sound mind, and within 6 months of death to qualify.

            So they found out that they could do this in Sweden. There was still a lot of hoops to jump through, but it wasn't messed up like our rules are.

            She described the pro

  • wouldn't you need a different vaccine for each type of cancer?

    • And most cancers would not present to the immune system in a convenient way. It's a vaccine to treat some kinds of cancer, which is good.

      • And most cancers would not present to the immune system in a convenient way. It's a vaccine to treat some kinds of cancer, which is good.

        Well, a large part of that is just continuing research.
        It's ridiculously difficult to tear apart a cancer genome and try to find something to latch onto.
        But they find more markers of more specific cancer-causing mutations every year that can be used as antigens.

        Current immunotherapy relies on actually growing the antibodies in a vat- and it's obscenely non-economical and problematic- in that they don't reproduce. You need continuing injections.
        For the people lucky enough to have cancers that we have id

        • Presumably there are cancers that don't present any changes on the surface of the cell that the immune system can attach to.

          • Presumably there are cancers that don't present any changes on the surface of the cell that the immune system can attach to.

            Absolutely. But generally, cancer cells that have a mutation that has caused cancer have many mutations, and since they're all clones, those persist.
            This of course means the treatment for such cancers can't be mass produced, but a day will hopefully come when it's easy to whip up a batch of mRNA for a specific protein for an individual person.

            That dream aside, work continues on membrane-penetrating antibodies, and drugs that increase cellular permeability of tumors.
            As for the membrane-penetrating antibo

            • oh, the vast vast majority of cancers follow a similar set of mutations, though. Most random mutations do not lead to cancer. Almost all (if not all) cancers must have mutations that suppress the P53 gene (otherwise they will die). To metastasize, cancers need to develop mutations that allow them to leave the epithelium. To continue growing beyond a certain size, cancers need to develop mutations that attract capillaries, giving them more nutrition.

              So you don't need to make a custom mRNA for an individual p

              • oh, the vast vast majority of cancers follow a similar set of mutations, though.

                They do, indeed.

                Most random mutations do not lead to cancer.

                For sure.

                Almost all (if not all) cancers must have mutations that suppress the P53 gene (otherwise they will die).

                About half, actually.

                To metastasize, cancers need to develop mutations that allow them to leave the epithelium.

                ?? For epithelial cancers, you mean?
                Or did you mean endothelium?
                Once a cell is immortal, any incident transfer (via the lymphatic system) will lead to metastasis.
                I think maybe you're referring to the mutation that allows a tumor to become invasive, rather than simply benign? (i.e., penetrates other tissues)
                Which is separate from metastasis, but a necessary precursor...

                I think we're saying the same thing, just not sure.

                To continue growing beyond a certain size, cancers need to develop mutations that attract capillaries, giving them more nutrition.

                I don't think so, actually.
                I'm prett

    • Yes!
      Obviously?
      Probably not so obvious ...

    • Yes, but that is the point of mRNA vaccines. They can be designed and developed very quickly.

      We're rapidly approaching the era of "personalised medicine".

    • Ideally they could make one up per what your individual cancer's sequence was, which would be pretty amazing. As in, if your cancer mutates, then they just sequence the new variant and make another one up for you.

  • Ok (Score:2)

    by zkiwi34 ( 974563 )
    Having arguably failed with Covid. At best a therapy that reduces on occasion some severe symptoms. Now this *ahem* solution is roving around look for other problems.
    • You're a liar, or grossly misinformed.
      Both of those conditions are correctable. Take whatever action is required to rejoin society, please. We're already over-capacity with fucking morons and bullshit peddlers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Erm, it was massively successful. The success can be observed in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated death rates when controlled for things like age, underlying condition etc. It can be seen in an abundance of medical literature. If can be observed from the continuing campaign to have people vaccinated especially in at-risk groups but elsewhere. It was so much so that countries were able to reopen much sooner than they'd otherwise be able to.

      Not only does it reduce the severity of the disease but also the pote

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      How can you be so stupid and disconnected? Just how?

  • And maybe my ignorance and trolling tendencies as well?
    Now that would be great!

  • So we already cured one cancer, so this isn't new, but expanding it to other cancer types. Keep in mind cancer isn't one disesase, but hundreds, and we have only cured 2 so far.

  • Too late for me: Stage 4 non-Hodgkin lymphoma - not curable. Treatable but currently under control. Remission is a word not used. Depends on which kind/variant which can be more deadly. Maybe one day vaccines will be developed.

  • Harnessing the power of mRNA to produce vaccines was unproven until Covid.

    That's funny, as a lot of people said that mRNA vaccines were safe as they have been used a lot in the past and proven their success, and now it is said it was unproven. So you see how we got lied to over and over.

    • Where did you hear that? There were older technology COVID vaccines available but the reason everyone was excited about the mRNA ones was because they were cutting edge tech.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Not true. mRNA has been used for about a decade in animals and not experimentally. The article is claiming nonsense.

  • The HPV vaccine already does this for certain cancers. Great to see there is potential for other types of cancers, too!

  • It's not entirely clear whether we even have vaccines that treat even covid.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close