3 ms·
I hate these articles. They give people a lot more hope than they probably should. Keytruda/pembrolizumab is not new. It's the same drug that Jimmy Carter fam
by pflats 9y ago
I hate these articles. They give people a lot more hope than they probably should.
Keytruda/pembrolizumab is not new. It's the same drug that Jimmy Carter famously took for his melanoma. It and Opdivo/nivolumab are PD-1 inhibitors that are amazing developments in treating late-stage cancer that doesn't respond to chemotherapy.
They're also not the miracle that news articles like to breathlessly push. This one does a decent job of pointing out that this is the first time a drug has been approved to treat cancer based on its genetic profile, rather than the type of cancer. That's an awesome development!
But then you get language like this:
"All carried genetic mutations that disrupted the ability of cells to fix damaged DNA. And all were enrolled in a trial of a drug that helps the immune system attack tumors.
The results, published on Thursday in the journal Science, are so striking that the Food and Drug Administration already has approved the drug, pembrolizumab, brand name Keytruda, for patients whose cancers arise from the same genetic abnormality."
Compared to the abstract:
"Objective radiographic responses were observed in 53% of patients and complete responses were achieved in 21% of patients."
That's around the 30% success rate these drugs usually have. They're great, and they can change your life - if you're one of the lucky ones. If you have a family member that needs this treatment, I hope it works.
But it's a lot of money and a lot of hope for a treatment with some rough side effects that for the average patient will either do nothing or give them a few more months to live.
It's a development, a great one, but the reports really need to rein in their enthusiasm. I'd be curious to see the entire statements the doctors in the article made, because I imagine they were more tempered than the selected quotations imply.
- jszymborski 9y agoShame on the author, who really should know better given her background[0]... The bar for science journalism, imho, is dirt-low. As long as it doesn't claim vaccines cause autism or climate change is bunk, it seems to pass as valid. I feel like when articles like this get written, it's the success of the university's PR team. Frankly, I think this kind of behaviour by universities actually hurt them in the long run. [0] "Gina Kolata is a reporter at The Times, focusing on science and medicine. Her training is in science: She studied molecular biology on the graduate level at M.I.T. for a year and a half and has a master’s degree in applied mathematics from the University of Maryland. Her work at The Times has led her to be a Pulitzer finalist twice — for investigative reporting in 2000 and for explanatory journalism in 2010." (via https://www.nytimes.com/by/gina-kolata https://www.nytimes.com/by/gina-kolata)
- pflats 9y agoIt's not just the reporter, and I wouldn't want to single her out. "Important incremental progress in ________" just doesn't get an article in the Times.
- kurthr 9y agoPart of the key, in both the trials and I hope in the clinic, is that they can use genetic/antibody screening to determine whether one of these PD-1 inhibitors will help you against a cancer... however, it's complicated both for scientific and ethical reasons, when you're running a trial and treating patients. See the excellent Drug Discovery blog _In The Pipeline_ by Derek Lowe: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/08/23/not-so-fast-on-the-pd-l1-comparisons http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/08/23/not... http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/05/25/an-approval-like-no-other http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/05/25/an-...