18 ms·
Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice
- seannyg 9y agoIt's hard to overstate the significance of this news.
- sdpurtill 9y agoThis sounds groundbreaking. Could someone with a medical background explain what this might mean?
- justonepost 9y agoGroundbreaking for mice, that’s for sure. Immune therapy in cancer is very promising though. Lots of reasons to be hopeful here.
- lwhalen 9y agoWe have cured cancer in mice many times. The trick is getting it formulated for humans in ways that are similarly effective and non-lethal. Put another way, signs of efficacy in mice is necessary, but not sufficient, of a human-applicable treatment.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- danieltillett 9y agoAs far as I know we aren’t able to cure cancer in mice. Sure we can cure them of artificial cancers we give them in the lab, but actually curing spontaneous mouse cancer in outbred mouse populations (i.e. something like human cancer) is not something I have ever seen anyone try, let alone succeed.
- taneq 9y agoWouldn't that just mean we don't know whether it works or not?
- danieltillett 9y agoYes, but I was responding to the OP that claimed we know how to cure cancer in mice, when we have never tried. I suspect that we are actually a lot better at curing real cancer in people than in mice.
- taneq 9y agoFair point, I was just saying there's still a good chance it'll work (at least if the induced tumors are anything like 'natural' tumors.) Very interested in seeing how this goes, either way.
- randcraw 9y agoThe article does mention that they also treated a strain of mice that routinely develops tumors in "all ten breasts" and they responded to the therapy too, but not as fully, requiring multiple treatments and not yielding as high a rate of success.
- tritium 9y agoWow, this stops and reverses cancer in progress (in mice). It's not just a preventative measure to eliminate the potential of possible cancers from emerging. The cancers the mice already have goes away.
- jcl 9y agoIf I'm understanding the article correctly, it actually can't be used as a strictly preventative measure. It relies on the fact that the subject already has a tumor and that the subject's immune system has made progress in targetting the tumor.
- mark212 9y agoIt also seems like that particular cancer mutation is permanently targeted, but yes it’s not like this shot will be given to four year olds as a general prophylactic
- King-Aaron 9y agoForgive me if this sounds ignorant, but would it not be considered a 'treatment' instead of a 'vaccine' if this is a treatment to the pre-existing condition?
- lukasm 9y agosome vaccines can actually treat cancer so the are called cancer treatment vaccines.
- ghayashi 9y ago"Treatment" does not convey accurately the strength of this approach.
- allenz 9y agoIt is indeed a cancer treatment that needs a tumor to work. The authors call their technique "in situ vaccination" because it stimulates antibodies against that specific cancer, which can work throughout the body to destroy metastases.
- King-Aaron 9y agoCool, thanks for your reply (and those replies below also). I briefly skimmed the article however was sidetracked with work, and admittedly a lot went over my head anyway.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- staunch 9y agoTo the people working on this: please keep at it. You can do it!
- Odenwaelder 9y agoWe see similar effects when we irradiate tumors with X-rays, called 'abscopal effect'. Sometimes, when you irradiate a tumor, the unirradiated metastases also shrink. It is hypothesized that the immune response is triggered by the irradiation, and there are currently studies being done that try to stimulate the immune system even more. What I wonder is why this is being discovered only now.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ghayashi 9y agoHave you ever seen footage of a white blood cell taking apart a cancer cell? This is worlds closer to unlocking that power than hoping a stray radioactive particle bumps the right lever. Perhaps the need for two separate medicines/agents to make this special cocktail and trigger the perfect immune response has been the elusive part?
- pgt 9y agoCould you link to some footage of a white blood cell taking apart a cancer cell?
- tzahola 9y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va1jaBGwoT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va1jaBGwoT8
- Odenwaelder 9y agoYeah, this is an NK cell triggering an apoptotic (self-destruct) response in a cancer cell. So it's basically sending a kill-signal to the cancer cell, which then kills itself. This doesn't work for all cancers, though. In fact, one hallmark of cancer is unresponsiveness to apoptotic triggers.
- 9y ago
- perlgeek 9y agoThis seems to be the actual paper: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/10/426/eaan4488 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/10/426/eaan4488 I hope this translates well to humans and other mammals.
- mbag 9y agoI see that authors are from Stanford University. Can someone from the US clarify if this will be in public domain/knowledge, or is it possible some drug company will patent this later on?
- danieltillett 9y agoIf some drug company doesn't pick this up it will fall by the wayside and never make it to market. On this topic when I was an academic a few years ago I had one of my undergraduate student project groups go through an entire year of Cancer Research (one of the highest ranked cancer journals) from 10 years previously and have them find out what happened to the work published. Rather depressingly the vast majority went nowhere and when my students contacted the PIs to find out why most of the time it was for totally non-scientific reasons like the group lost funding or someone left.
- rplnt 9y ago> If some drug company doesn't pick this up it will fall by the wayside and never make it to market. This isn't mutually exclusive to the treatment being in the public domain.
- icantdrive55 9y agoYea, Polio Vaccine.
- danieltillett 9y agoDrug companies don't pick up treatments that are in the public domain. No patent, no pay.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kerneldeveloper 9y agoThanks for these researchers. They can save the world. Looking forward to the human-applicable treatment!
- vadimberman 9y agoA layman's question: is it implied to be a universal cure, or for a specific type?
- yetihehe 9y agoBoth. It's targeted by injecting into one tumour, but many different tumours can be targetted. Once targetted, this tumour is eliminated along with all "copies" in body. If you had breast cancer and colon cancer you would need two injections.
- randcraw 9y agoYes, but it's hard to say yet how much different the therapy process might be in humans. The treatment regimen could differ from mice significantly. (Human tumors may be buried a lot farther away from the surface than in a mouse, and thus, harder to dose accurately with a long needle.) It's also not clear what toxicities were incurred with this therapy (in mice), which is a significant concern for the approval of any drug in humans.
- nautilus12 9y agoi feel like i see a new 'cure' every week. How is this different aside from the pedigree?
- skohan 9y agoIt might seem like noise, but there is progress being made. My cousin's girlfriend takes a pill every day which has basically eliminated her lung cancer for all intents and purposes because it targets the specific mutation which is in the problem in her case. Relatively new T-Cell therapies "train" the body's own immune system to recognize and delete cancer cells with much fewer negative effects than traditional treatments like radiation or chemotherapy. Stories like this don't mean an end to cancer, but it's still very good news.
- murukesh_s 9y agoI hope this will work out for humans as well. Wondering if we can have something for diabetes as well, it seems to be affecting a large portion of the population and growing rapidly.
- oculusthrift 9y agowe have a vaccine for that. it’s called diet and exercise.
- tzahola 9y agoI hope this is not like those vaporware revolutionary battery technologies we see time to time.
- _neo_ 9y agoI'm curios if someone asked permissions from mice's that people make experiments.
- acrive 9y agoI'm happy when solutions for cancer are found. A little less when the way is genetic engineering. From my ignorance I imagine the genetics like a big complex self programming software and the genetic engineering a way to change little variables in a wide enviroment. In other words: Butterlfy effect, you're welcome.
- afarrell 9y agoIf applied to an individual person, how does this present any risks of ecological damage? Alternately, does this concentrate control of the food supply into the hands of people who might decide to starve some population out of greed/apathy/prejudice?
- Dylan16807 9y ago> In other words: Butterlfy effect The point of the butterfly effect is that everything you do could be responsible for some massive change in the future. (though the odds are extremely low) "using this treatment" and "not using this treatment" are about equally likely to cause a butterfly effect.
- skate22 9y ago87 out of 90 mice cured after the first treatment... very impressive. Hope this works as well for humans.
- headmelted 9y agoI've passively followed this field as a layman observer for the past several years. I'd be interested in getting a lot more information on this work. Generally I view these press releases with a skeptical eye, as the researchers have a need to "talk up" their work in order to keep the funding coming in. On the other hand, Irving Weissman and the labs at Stanford are well respected and not known for spurious claims - often though, the problem with these therapies isn't so much potency as it is persistence, with recurrences being relatively common longer term (and many therapies simply don't translate from mice to humans well). I'd be interested in having someone with in-depth knowledge of this field explain how the OX40 receptor work here differs from the CD47 work also being carried out at Stanford (besides being a different target protein), and existing CAR T therapies being tested elsewhere - although certainly this seems very encouraging in any case.
- jcims 9y agoWriting this from a squeaky recliner set beside my wife’s bed in the oncology department of a local research hospital. Three weeks ago she had a radical hysterectomy and partial lymphadenectomy to treat stage IIIc ovarian cancer, and we’re back to try to aid her in her recovery to prepare for chemotherapy. Chemo should start next week, but we are hoping to also participate in a clinical trial for atezolizumab. This is a drug that essentially blocks the cancer cell’s immunosuppressive mechanism (expression of PD-L1) and allows the body’s natural immune response to do work on the disease. Suddenly inspired to learn more of the nitty gritty around how cancer and the associated therapies work, I’m shocked at how sophisticated the battle is. At least in this case, the unregulated reproduction of cells is just the beginning, and my lay mind can’t grasp how simple mutation is responsible for it. If someone told me cancer was sentient with a will to thrive, I’m now much less inclined to laugh them off. Therapies that arm our own immune syatem in the fight against this monster really seem like the light at the end of the long, dark tunnel.
- agumonkey 9y agoI had the same reaction after hearing about the warburg effect. Basically the synergy of all the bugs that are necessary and maintained by cancerous tissue for it to avoid dying, it's eerie. I hope your morale is as high as possible, faith and energy are useful to help your loved ones heal in order to endure side effects of treatments. Also it seems immunotherapies are often well supported by patients across the board, so hopefully it will be easier to fight.
- wiz21c 9y agoFor some reason I wanted to study what cancer and therapies are all about. I reached the same conclusion as yours. The thing is incredibly complex and thus fascinating. After 20 years in IT, I'm seriously considering moving back to university to work on that. All the best for your wife.
- hunta2097 9y agoIf you haven't already read it, "The Emperor of All Maladies" (B004MPR80E) is a really great book about the history of Cancer and Cancer-like diseases. The author concludes the autoimmune system is key to beating cancer. Be strong, be lucky and hang in there.
- Oras 9y agoThe fact that it reached distant metastasis is incredible! Hope this will work well on human with few effects comparing to chemotherapy.
- zaroth 9y agoThe activated T cells completed their training on the target/injected tumor, and then circulated through the body until they found their next target. Trained cancer ninjas.
- shadowtree 9y agoIf they’re at mice this is, at best, 10 years away from getting approved for humans. Immuno-Oncology is the hot new shit, a huge wave of biotech startups is betting everything on it. Celgene bought Juno for 11bn recently, Gilead bought Kite for 12bn. Puts tech startups into perspective :) Tres commas...
- josu 9y ago>10 years away from getting approved for humans. Isn't there a fast-track for experimental treatments for late stage cancer?
- matte_black 9y agoNot sure, but in the United States there may soon be easier access for any person with a terminal illness to get access to any experimental treatment if they so desire, even treatments that are in early stages with no human trials yet.
- epmaybe 9y agoYeah there's a lot of talk about "right to try" laws doing what you have described. Personally? It had better be an airtight law accounting for the edge cases that could allow certain populations to be taken advantage of. For example, if anyone with a terminal illness can try an experimental drug, could a pharmaceutical company charge for said treatment? Or use the data from trying this treatment on the patient to further their own research? I guess it just doesn't sit well with me since researchers in the US have had a history of taking advantage of certain populations in furthering progress (Tuskeegee, prison populations, mental institutions).
- Udik 9y ago> Or use the data from trying this treatment on the patient to further their own research? What would be the problem with it, provided that the treatment is given for free and the patient has no other options?
- aaronheid 9y agoOn a side note, also interesting to read: Fighting cancer with methadone - making chemotherapy more powerful http://www.dw.com/en/fighting-cancer-with-methadone-making-chemotherapy-more-powerful/a-19482264 http://www.dw.com/en/fighting-cancer-with-methadone-making-c...
- lngnmn 9y agoNo two tumors are equal (unless being a product of the same mutation).
- cup-of-tea 9y agoObviously not as important as the main cause but I wonder if a similar thing could be used to treat warts. I had a wart once and successfully got rid of it by applying a trick I read on the internet which is putting a little square of duct tape on it. Surprisingly it really worked. The Wikipedia page used to list the method with dubious citations and said that one theory for why it worked was that the duct tape stimulated the immune system and caused it to attack the wart when it normally wouldn't.
- ams6110 9y agoThere may be something to it, as most folk remedies do have an unscientific history of successes, but it definitely doesn't work on all warts or for all people.
- johntb86 9y agoApparently they can now inject candida antigen into warts, which is supposed to trigger the immune system to attack them.
- rbanffy 9y agoMaybe we could find a way to transfer our consciousness into mice bodies ;-)
- randcraw 9y agoI'm impressed at how precisely and locally targeted the therapy seems to be. Many of the cancer immunotherapies I've heard about are systemic and risk overengaging a diffuse immune response against multiple tissues. This approach trains in-situ using strong signatures from individual tumors first, before the antigens spread out across the body. Perhaps this localizes the cancer antigen signature better, so antibodies cause less collateral damage? But CAR-T therapy should do something similar, though re-introduction of the antibodies is systemic (untargeted). Is the administration of this therapy directly into the tumor somehow essential to its specificity?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- meri_dian 9y agoAs someone very far removed from the medical field, immunotherapy has always seemed to me to be the most logical programme of cancer treatment. The animal immune system has evolved over hundreds of millions of years to target and destroy pathogens. Why use an indiscriminate chemical treatment to destroy cancer when our body already has a self defense system that operates with pinpoint accuracy, unparalleled target recognition capabilities, and ubiquity throughout the body. All these things make it a terrific candidate to destroy cancer. Using it just makes so much sense.
- djsumdog 9y ago> has a self defense system that operates with pinpoint accuracy, unparalleled target recognition capabilities This isn't always true. You body can start attacking itself if cells start misidentifying one another. This can lead to Lupis, MS, Ruhtomotide Arthritis and various other auto-immune diseases.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pl4u 9y agoThis kind of reminds me of coley's toxins treatment a little, although a bit different. Really hoping this is successful and can be available in the near term.
- twouhm 9y agoReminded me of this post on reddit[0] about injecting an ethanol gel into tumors (so it has nothing to do with modifying the immune system as in this tactic, just happens to have a similar means of application). [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/6xsokg/duke_university_researchers_show_that_injecting/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/6xsokg/duke_uni...
- justinclift 9y agoHmmmm, wonder if they could inject the two drugs into a portion of the biopsy sample and re-implant that, assuming the biopsy cells are still viable at the time? Hmmm, not sure keeping the biopsy cells viable until biopsy results arrive though would be practical.
- erl 9y ago"Mice genetically engineered to spontaneously develop breast cancers in all 10 of their mammary pads also responded to the treatment." Woha, I had no idea that we can genetically engineer animals to develop cancer. That is impressive, and a little scary...
- daveheq 9y agoHey as long as Big Pharma can add their own useless ingredients and nonsense pretty packaging to extort as much money as they can out of patented cancer vaccine flavors, we'll never have to worry about those pesky natural cures that can't be patented and aren't as profitable
- smellf 9y agoWhat natural cancer cure would you suggest? Maybe tumeric, or fasting, or acupuncture?
- brockers 9y agoI hate these "XXX found to eliminate cancer in mice" news blurbs. I really want there to be an easy, effective, and inexpensive solution to one of the worst medical conditions imaginable; but they make these kind of announcements 3-4 times a year and 99/100 times they don't pan out because humans are not mice... and medicine is hard.
- kkleindev 9y agoI'm curious as to why you think that lacking impact is due to dissimilarities between humans and test subjects. My best guess would have been that a lack of incentives for parties with the power to realize such advancements are overweighing.
- darth_mastah 9y agoThis is great. Does it mean we finally have cure for cancer? My granddad died because of that shit, and so did my uncle. Maybe there is still hope for me.
- jhiska 9y agoWhenever you hear about amazing breakthroughs in medicine, look to see if it is an animal study. Those usually do not translate into results in humans. Do not get your hopes up just yet.
- mitchtbaum 9y ago> Those usually do not translate into results in humans. Why would that be the case?
- jhiska 9y agoBecause what works in animal studies doesn't often work in humans. This is why you hear about a novel cure for cancer in the news every month -- it's always animal studies. If you want something to get your hopes up, look for stuff undergoing human studies. They're not new(s) -- in fact, it's stuff that is known and has shown promise for years -- but they're more likely to eventually work.
- rado 9y agoPlease invest your billions in this instead of apps that open the door by voice command.
- moring 9y agoAnother layman's question: As far as I understood, the T-cells recognize cancer cells and kill them because the two agents get injected directly into the cancer site, where the T-cells are surrounded by cancer cells. Doesn't this have a risk of the T-cells misjudging normal body cells as dangerous if they happen to have any of them around, or if the injection happens wherewhere else than the cancer site? I'm thinking of (1) lower but high enough numbers of normal cells somewhere between the cancer cells, and (2) plain accidents like the needle pushed too far / not far enough.
- westurner 9y agoThe article is about this study: "Eradication of spontaneous malignancy by local immunotherapy" http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/10/426/eaan4488 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/10/426/eaan4488 > In situ vaccination with low doses of TLR ligands and anti-OX40 antibodies can cure widespread cancers in preclinical models.