4 ms·

Why does more testing need to take place? I would be willing to bet the majority of people currently dying of cancer within the next month or so would have zero

by Vysero 7y ago

Why does more testing need to take place? I would be willing to bet the majority of people currently dying of cancer within the next month or so would have zero problems testing it for them. So much bureaucracy. People need help now.

jessriedel 7y ago
Vast majority of new cancer treatments do not end up improving survival times and generally come with significant, unpleasant side effects. Of the small minority that are found to be a net benefit, most are just barely worth it: very modest extension of life expectancy with sufficient toxicity that many well-informed patients will nevertheless decline them. This is not just chemo either; immunotherapies can be brutal.
randcraw 7y ago
Like most new cancer therapies, this will surely get “expedited” status from the US FDA, which will enable as fast a development as imaginable, like FIM (first in man) within the year. If it delivers on its promise, it will receive initial approval for those with advanced metastases of the initially targeted forms of cancer within a year after that. A major question is the cost of the therapy. If it equals CAR-T, which it closely resembles, it will NOT see rapid adoption until the price per treatment falls below CAR-T's current bill of $500,000 US.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Beating 500k/patient seems like an approachable target. When my mom had lung cancer, when it recurred it came so fast there was never any time to think about speculative treatments. Of course you'd pay anything to save your loved one.
jonstewart 7y ago
I went from 0-60 on prostate cancer in a few days last year when my dad was diagnosed at stage 4 (he’s much better now). I was surprised to find that getting into clinical trials is not so difficult and they’re well catalogued; as an example, check out https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trials https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trial.... Generally, it seems that promising therapies advance pretty quickly, and oncologists seem to stay current. So, I don’t think there’s quite the level of bureaucracy as you may suspect. That said, with trials there’s a good chance a patient will wind up in the control group (sad trombone), and a lot of new treatments don’t work all that well, or merely extend survival for a few months in exchange for several side effects. A LOT of trials are also simply studying the efficacy of the combination of known treatments; these trials are safer bets, but they’re also unlikely to provide one with a miracle. With immunotherapies, keep in mind that side effects during treatment can be severe and potentially fatal. Basically, if you have late stage cancer and treatment works, you almost die from the toxic effects of your immune system kicking into overdrive and blowing up all the tumor cells in a few days. There’s a ton of supportive therapy. If a new immunotherapy like the one in TFA showed promise, all the necessary supportive therapy acts as a limiter on rapid scale-up, even with perfect knowledge sharing and patient access.

by Vysero 7y ago

jessriedel 7y ago

Vast majority of new cancer treatments do not end up improving survival times and generally come with significant, unpleasant side effects. Of the small minority that are found to be a net benefit, most are just barely worth it: very modest extension of life expectancy with sufficient toxicity that many well-informed patients will nevertheless decline them. This is not just chemo either; immunotherapies can be brutal.

randcraw 7y ago

Like most new cancer therapies, this will surely get “expedited” status from the US FDA, which will enable as fast a development as imaginable, like FIM (first in man) within the year. If it delivers on its promise, it will receive initial approval for those with advanced metastases of the initially targeted forms of cancer within a year after that. A major question is the cost of the therapy. If it equals CAR-T, which it closely resembles, it will NOT see rapid adoption until the price per treatment falls below CAR-T's current bill of $500,000 US.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Beating 500k/patient seems like an approachable target. When my mom had lung cancer, when it recurred it came so fast there was never any time to think about speculative treatments. Of course you'd pay anything to save your loved one.

jonstewart 7y ago

I went from 0-60 on prostate cancer in a few days last year when my dad was diagnosed at stage 4 (he’s much better now). I was surprised to find that getting into clinical trials is not so difficult and they’re well catalogued; as an example, check out https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trials https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trial.... Generally, it seems that promising therapies advance pretty quickly, and oncologists seem to stay current. So, I don’t think there’s quite the level of bureaucracy as you may suspect. That said, with trials there’s a good chance a patient will wind up in the control group (sad trombone), and a lot of new treatments don’t work all that well, or merely extend survival for a few months in exchange for several side effects. A LOT of trials are also simply studying the efficacy of the combination of known treatments; these trials are safer bets, but they’re also unlikely to provide one with a miracle. With immunotherapies, keep in mind that side effects during treatment can be severe and potentially fatal. Basically, if you have late stage cancer and treatment works, you almost die from the toxic effects of your immune system kicking into overdrive and blowing up all the tumor cells in a few days. There’s a ton of supportive therapy. If a new immunotherapy like the one in TFA showed promise, all the necessary supportive therapy acts as a limiter on rapid scale-up, even with perfect knowledge sharing and patient access.