Cancer cured?

[Grinner]

I find it a bit odd this hasn't been posted yet, but a new cancer therapy is showing great promise, according to 60 Minutes. A genetically-modified form of the polio virus is injected into the tumor, where it then attacks the tumor.

Details here (http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/7273).

[Killer Angel]

I find it a bit odd this hasn't been posted yet, but a new cancer therapy is showing great promise, according to 60 Minutes. A genetically-modified form of the polio virus is injected into the tumor, where it then attacks the tumor.

Details here (http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/7273).

And here I was, thinking about an april's fool.

Interesting, but not so surprising. Medical science is in constant evolution.

[Brother Oni]

I find it a bit odd this hasn't been posted yet, but a new cancer therapy is showing great promise, according to 60 Minutes. A genetically-modified form of the polio virus is injected into the tumor, where it then attacks the tumor.

Details here (http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/7273).

You do realise that the article you've linked is from 2003, the treatment is only for certain type of brain tumours and despite being in develoment for over 12 years, it's only just reached Phase 1 clinical trials.

This article has a review and a number of positive and negative criticism regarding the programme: link (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/03/30/60-minutes-covers-dukes-polio-virus-clinical-trial-against-glioblastoma/).

A bit of background; Phase 1 clinical trials means it's still in very early development - it could be another 10-15 years at least before it's available as a treatment, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.
That said, if you have one of the cancers that the treatment could possibly cure and are interested in volunteering, I would suggest getting in touch with your doctor about it.

[LamaFrancis]

That's not the only one. In this work, they modified T-cells from lymphoma patients, multiplied the modified cells in the lab, then put the new cells back into the patients: link (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/research-updates/2013/CAR-T-Cells)

Cancer comes in many flavors, the polio works on the brain tumors because poliovirus can get into neurons. That won't help with bone or stomach cancer. The modified T-cells work great on lymphoma because the cancer is not solid. The cancer cells have no place to hide where the T-cells can't find them.

I do believe that any cure for cancer will have to harness the power of the immune system, however, because it appears that cancer is the culmination of mutations in two cell systems: cell motility and cell cycle control. Once cell cycle control is lost you have cells growing out of control. When cell motility has been achieved the cancer can spread. It seems that once the mutations have built up enough, cancer is inevitable and even if you knock one down, two more are right around the corner. The only defense against this is an enhanced immune system. It seems that most people have immune systems that recognize tumor cells and kill them until the T-cells seem to "forget" what a tumor cell looks like.

It also looks like "bio-medicine" is finally coming to its own. We have technologies to genetically engineer cells, bacteria, and viruses quickly and cheaply enough that biology can join chemistry and physics in the war on cancer.

[Killer Angel]

You do realise that the article you've linked is from 2003,

Ouch. In my mind, that "updated december 2004", somehow became "december 2014"... :smallsigh:

[Brother Oni]

The only defense against this is an enhanced immune system.

The problem then is programming the cells to recognise the correct cell markers, else you get a probably lethal autoimmune response.



It also looks like "bio-medicine" is finally coming to its own. We have technologies to genetically engineer cells, bacteria, and viruses quickly and cheaply enough that biology can join chemistry and physics in the war on cancer.

Biologics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopharmaceutical) have been around for a while (human insulin made via recombinant DNA techniques has been around since 1982). It's just due to significant negative publicty that genetic modification can cause, has kept them having a comparatively low profile.

[Dodom]

I've seen similar news in the last few years. It's not going to be a panaceia, but it could be effective against many cancers. Seems like the major obstacle so far was funding clinical trials: if any of the viruses used wasn't as tame as expected and harmed the host, it'd probably get a lot more press than a similarly severe adverse drug reaction, and no matter how unlikely, no one wants their name attached to that.

Assuming we get over that hurdle (we probably will, but it'll be frustratingly long) I imagine it'll be a great boost to targeted therapy. But not an end to cancer altogether. Most malignant cells are vulnerable to viruses to begin with, they often have defective defenses, and an actively dividing cell is a treat to a virus, but variably so. Clonal selection is already a problem with traditional drugs, it could easily be even worse with a virus, due to the more complex action. Even when it's the case, it doesn't make it useless though: eliminating all the cowpox sensitive cells and leaving the rest to re-colonise isn't a cure, but it buys time, and someone who thought they had a couple months to live isn't going to complain if a nearly painless treatment turns that into a couple years.
So that's another PR problem: it'll ONLY work on some cancers, and for the ones it's effective against, sometimes it'll ONLY cause a temporary remission. That "ONLY" is going to make it uninteresting to the public no matter how much it means to doctors and patients.

[Flickerdart]

The thing to remember about cancer (which has already been touched on obliquely) is that there's no such thing as one "cancer." There are loads and we're going to have to crush each one more or less separately.

[HandofShadows]

Something be pushed VERY quickly for cancer treatment is the Kanzius Radio Treatment (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2014/06/03/Novel-cancer-treatment-of-Washington-County-native-could-be-headed-to-human-clinical-trials/stories/201406030006). It uses targeted radio waves to destroy tumors. The only problem with it is that in order to work you need gold/carbon nanoparticles to stick to the cancer cells. You get those and you can target anything.

[Grinner]

You do realise that the article you've linked is from 2003, the treatment is only for certain type of brain tumours and despite being in develoment for over 12 years, it's only just reached Phase 1 clinical trials.

I honestly had not noticed. I found that article while looking for the specifics of how the treatment works. It seemed more informative than the 60 Minutes clips I kept finding.

Thank you for pointing that out, though. I hadn't realized that this had been in the works for twenty(!) years...

[Eldan]

Something be pushed VERY quickly for cancer treatment is the Kanzius Radio Treatment (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2014/06/03/Novel-cancer-treatment-of-Washington-County-native-could-be-headed-to-human-clinical-trials/stories/201406030006). It uses targeted radio waves to destroy tumors. The only problem with it is that in order to work you need gold/carbon nanoparticles to stick to the cancer cells. You get those and you can target anything.

Maybe I'm missing something, but... if you get to the point where you get something to stick to cancer cells but not other cells, haven't you almost cured the cancer anyway?

[LamaFrancis]

In the case of the one victim of malignant breast cancer that I'm familiar with, the gold nanoparticles didn't "stick" to the cancer cells preferentially. The nanoparticles were injected into the solid tumor. This type of treatment only works on solid tumors in tissues that are soft enough, and close enough, for injection. No lymphomas, no bone cancer, unlikely for stomach cancer. I'm with Flickerdart, we need more weapons.

[Knaight]

As has been stated, while these particular techniques show promise against some cancers, it's far from cured. There are a bunch of different types of cancer, there's heavy variation in the patients that have cancer, so on and so forth. Some stuff is relatively easy to remove (localized tumors that can be taken care of surgically without losing anything too important), some stuff is pretty entrenched (leukemia comes to mind), and it's good to just keep getting more and more techniques for different situations.

[Dodom]

Maybe I'm missing something, but... if you get to the point where you get something to stick to cancer cells but not other cells, haven't you almost cured the cancer anyway?

That's actually feasible as long as the cells have a couple distinct antigens.
Sticking to one thing and not another is what antibodies do best, and it's feasible to manufacture custom antibodies. It's also possible to change their function: instead of activating the immune system, they can carry molecules around. They're really expensive though, and if someone has an "unique" cancer it might not be financially possible to create them a personal custom serum.

I just checked to see if it was being used any commonly in practice, and Google found me a slideshow (http://fr.slideshare.net/MUHEEM_007/antibodies-drug-delivery-system) about it. If you already know how antibodies work and how synthetic ones are made, you can skip to page 37 for targeted delivery. Seems like it's been done for decades by now.

[Brother Oni]

I just checked to see if it was being used any commonly in practice, and Google found me a slideshow (http://fr.slideshare.net/MUHEEM_007/antibodies-drug-delivery-system) about it. If you already know how antibodies work and how synthetic ones are made, you can skip to page 37 for targeted delivery. Seems like it's been done for decades by now.

They're called mAbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody) and they're (still) ridiculously expensive biologics. For example, Infliximab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infliximab) costs 900 USD per 100mg (that's one tenth of a gram) and a year's course can cost a patient upwards of 19,000 USD (~2.1g of product).

[SowZ]

Yeah, Cancer isn't quite as much of a catch all as, say, Multiple Sclerosis or something. But it is still extremely broad. Even within one type of Cancer, say Liver Cancer, there are several types and several treatments. Maybe your liver cancer is primary bile duct. Maybe it is primary liver. There are other possibilities, too, each with different treatment plans.


They're called mAbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody) and they're (still) ridiculously expensive biologics. For example, Infliximab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infliximab) costs 900 USD per 100mg (that's one tenth of a gram) and a year's course can cost a patient upwards of 19,000 USD (~2.1g of product).

While I agree that this is expensive, 20 grand a year is still, (sadly,) a drop in the bucket for a years worth of cancer treatment.

[Brother Oni]

While I agree that this is expensive, 20 grand a year is still, (sadly,) a drop in the bucket for a years worth of cancer treatment.

It's enough to make you turn to drug dealing.

[Lord Torath]

Doctors are currently testing tumor paint (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/04/08/397364328/doctors-test-tumor-paint-in-people) that is injected into a vein, travels through the body, and then sticks to the cancer cells, making it easier for doctors doing surgery to get the cancer out, all the cancer out, and nothing but the cancer out.

[SowZ]

It's enough to make you turn to drug dealing.

I hear there's a very good market for it in Albuquerque these days.

[enderlord99]

The thing to remember about cancer (which has already been touched on obliquely) is that there's no such thing as one "cancer." There are loads and we're going to have to crush each one more or less separately.

Indeed. A singular cure for all cancers would be just about as unlikely as a singular cure for all viruses, and only marginally more likely than one for all bacterial infections.

[Icewraith]

Indeed. A singular cure for all cancers would be just about as unlikely as a singular cure for all viruses, and only marginally more likely than one for all bacterial infections.

It's the same cure-

Sterilize the planet. No more viruses, no more bacteria, no more cancer. Some fairly significant downsides though.

[Avilan the Grey]

I am a little perplexed here... According to American sites, there are only still "promising trials" for vaccines for ovarian cancer, yet in Sweden the vaccine is out, and is free for women up to the age of 26. It also seems to be really really effective.

Edit: Nevermind, I was confusing cervix cancer and ovarian cancer. The vaccine I am talking about is for cervix cancer.

It is not technically a cure though, it is a vaccine. It doesn't help if you already got it.

[Grinner]

Sterilize the planet. No more viruses, no more bacteria, no more cancer. Some fairly significant downsides though.

...Not to be a party pooper, but aren't bacteria and viruses just two of a large collection of carcinogens?

[Avilan the Grey]

...Not to be a party pooper, but aren't bacteria and viruses just two of a large collection of carcinogens?

PLus you know, we could not survive without them.

[Hamste]

PLus you know, we could not survive without them.

When they said sterilize the planet they probably meant all life including human. Hence why cancer would be a non-issue.

[Icewraith]

When they said sterilize the planet they probably meant all life including human. Hence why cancer would be a non-issue.

Look, I never said it was a PERFECT solution. But it is a complete one.

[Avilan the Grey]

When they said sterilize the planet they probably meant all life including human. Hence why cancer would be a non-issue.

Well makes my point still stand, right? :smallbiggrin:

[enderlord99]

Look, I never said it was a PERFECT solution. But it is a complete one.

Nope. Viruses are not officially "alive" and while there would be nothing for them to actually infect, they'd still exist in a dormant state, indefinitely. At least, some of them would...

Probably.

[Avilan the Grey]

Nope. Viruses are not officially "alive" and while there would be nothing for them to actually infect, they'd still exist in a dormant state, indefinitely. At least, some of them would...

Probably.

Indeed. viruses are the ultimate parasites. They are only technically alive if attached to a cell, basically. On their own they don't have a complete DNA structure AFAIR.

[Chronos]

The other thing to remember about cancer is that promising new treatments are coming out all the time. Most of them, despite being promising, don't end up amounting to anything. Of those that do, they usually apply only to a few very specific forms of cancer. Of those that work, and on the cancers that they work on, they're usually just one more weapon added to an arsenal that already has dozens of weapons in it, and push successful outcomes up by a few percentage points. Occasionally there's something truly huge that comes along, like the HPV vaccine, but in this context, "something huge" means something like "prevent 3/4 of cases of cervical cancer specifically from ever arising, if treatment is administered before first exposure to the virus": It doesn't do a thing for people already exposed, and even if you get it in time, you've still got a chance of getting the cancer anyway.

[Yora]

Once we have cured cancer, can we please find a cure for virus? Virus is a far worse disease.

[SowZ]

Once we have cured cancer, can we please find a cure for virus? Virus is a far worse disease.

I'm more concerned with curing infection. I get more infection than virus, personally.

[enderlord99]

None of those are as bad as parasite: over 60% of all humans who have ever lived have died of parasite.