10 ms·
Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models
- flinner 3y agohttps://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended/S2451-9456(23)00221-0 https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended/S2451...
- zmgsabst 3y agoWhat’s the process for this to be tested and moved onwards toward approved use?
- epistasis 3y agoPhase 1: basic safety, some amount of dose-finding. Small number of patients. Phase 2: does it appear to work as intended, tested in a larger number of people Phase 3: is it better than alternatives. Then approval, followed by monitoring of the drug and side effects. There's also an additional phase of getting insurance to pay for the new drug, which can be the most difficult. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/managing-cancer/making-treatment-decisions/clinical-trials/what-you-need-to-know/phases-of-clinical-trials.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/managing-cancer/making-treatme...
- anotherboffin 3y agoNice summary! From my limited knowledge in case someone’s more interested. Don’t know if it’s different in oncology. Phase 1 is pretty big on safety: sentinel dosing, then gradually increasing doses until the established max is reached or until serious side effects show up. Generally also includes PK/PD aspects: what is the half-life, how long it’s detectable in the body, does this match the modeling? How is the drug eliminated? All this is used to refine the dosing (if need be) but also provides a lot of the information needed for the safety documentation.
- piyh 3y agoPhase 1 trial scheduled to end in March 2024 https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05227326 https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05227326
- jokowueu 3y agoTbh Since it's a small molecule you can just hire a lab to make a custom synth , I've seen it done a few times,
- syntaxing 3y agoSo…what kind of labs can you hire to make this and how much would it cost?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jokowueu 3y agoIt depends on the difficulty of making it and the amount required. https://pastebin.com/0pyuDBX1 https://pastebin.com/0pyuDBX1
- anotherboffin 3y agoFormulation is pretty important too. Do they give any detail on that?
- piyh 3y agoQuestion from a layman: >100% of solid tumors Solid tumors == all cancer, or would something like a lymph node cancer not be included?
- isoprophlex 3y agoI'm a layman too but I think this distinguishes them from blood cancer, which does not form solid clumps of cancerous mass...
- anotherboffin 3y agoI’m pretty sure you are correct. At least from the way I’ve seen it used (I took cancer biology lessons but it was more on a cellular level)
- LegitShady 3y agoleukemia
- raincom 3y agoliquid cancers = blood and bone marrow cancers. Lymphomas are classified as solid.
- local_issues 3y agoThe story is beautiful, too: https://nypost.com/2023/08/02/new-cancer-hope-as-pill-kills-tumors-thanks-to-little-girl/ https://nypost.com/2023/08/02/new-cancer-hope-as-pill-kills-... Named after a girl that died. Resulted in fundraising for Neuroblastoma, and this medicine.
- elevaet 3y agoThat's really touching and admirable that they chose to name it after her.
- bfrog 3y agoAmazing if true, and can't be released soon enough. In the US this will likely be a million dollars or something insane, because its the US.
- coralreef 3y agoMedical tourism
- giantg2 3y agoOr, people will set up home labs. Seems like it's not a complex molecule (but I have no real background).
- isoprophlex 3y agoThe molecular compound is about as tricky to synthesize as viagra (which is to say, very simple as far as drug syntheses go), maybe even easier. All it might take is some instagram cancer influencers, a lab in india or china and some darkweb transactions to DIY your cancer away... if this is so incredibly effective and safe in humans, too.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago"All it might take is some instagram cancer influencers, a lab in india or china and some darkweb transactions to DIY your cancer away... " Or DIY yourself away accidentally. But I guess that would make it a tie, since the cancer dies as well...
- vikramkr 3y agoWorth it if it works equally as well in humans. We pay way more for cancer drugs that do way less.
- megaman821 3y agoIf it costs pennies a pill and you are trying to sell it for a million dollars, that is a surefire way to get murdered by a mob. I would just sell the patent to the government for a hefty profit and be done with it.
- olejorgenb 3y agoAlso discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813
- isoprophlex 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996 Look at that molecular structure. Incredible. Two amide bonds, a completely unremarkable aryl ether and an unsubstituted naphthalene ring system. No fussy weird metals or bonds that need pampering, no chiral carbon atom in sight. You could probably pay someone a very modest amount of money to end up with kilograms of this stuff, and it would probably not degrade at all under ambient conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if we soon see desperate, sick, rich people try this out on themselves, skipping FDA approval. Beautiful, uplifting news. Let's hope the clinical trials proceed without issue.
- Terr_ 3y ago> Look at that molecular structure. Incredible. Two amide bonds, a completely unremarkable aryl ether and an unsubstituted naphthalene ring system. Something about this delivery reminds of the business-card scene from Psycho [0]. > Look at that subtle off-white coloring, the tasteful thickness of it--Oh my God, it even has a watermark..." [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY
- janejeon 3y agoNow let's see Paul Allen's molecule.
- deep_merge 3y ago*American Psycho. Dude in Psycho didn’t use a business card.
- nine_k 3y agoOnly it's the inverse: no subtlety, no surprises, all plain.
- Terr_ 3y agoI'm not sure I'd describe that scene as actually containing amazing surprises of printing, typography, or subjective stylishness. I see it as mockery of some maladjusted status-obsessed men as they fawn and suffer over trivial differences in pretty-much-identical plain white business cards. Every card says the same thing except for the name, and many of the things being described aren't even true. (For example, not embossed, no watermark, etc.)
- jjtheblunt 3y agoAbsolute clickbait fraudulent title. From the article in Cell: "Given orally, AOH1996 suppresses tumor growth but causes no discernable side effect" is a VERY different result.
- ugh123 3y agoClickbait? Maybe. But fraudulent? Hyperbole much?
- jjtheblunt 3y agoHyperbole expands a truth; that title states a falsehood (see the paper) as true.
- adamredwoods 3y agoIN ANIMALS (mice and dogs)
- hidelooktropic 3y agoAnd?
- hirvi74 3y agoWell, it doesn't mean it will 1:1 map to humans. We have observed promising treatments for Alzheimer's-like conditions in mice multiple times, but alas, we have very little for humans still.
- thebradbain 3y agoSuppressing tumor growth is how you kill cancer, is it not? Cancer cells themselves, like the original cells they mutate from, don't live forever. Depending on which type of cell we're talking about, they can die within hours (e.g. skin cells)/days (e.g. blood cells)/months (e.g. liver cells). The issue with cancer cells is they are reproducing like crazy way faster than they die, which is why the tumors grow bigger and bigger. Chemo and surgery attempt to kill or remove the tumors immediately, yes, but my understanding is that's because we have no way to stop the growth and the only hope is to eradicate them entirely before they grow too big to treat, which is why the cancer could come back if any parts are missed. You stop the cancer cell reproduction and overall tumor growth, you also kill the cancer.
- malfist 3y agoTemper expectations, in vitro tests are very different than in vivo tests. Arsenic also kills 100% of tumors in vitro. In vitro doesn't answers the question of "can this drug be taken safely" nor "can this drug be delivered to the cancer cells"
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoObligatory xkcd https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
- amluto 3y agoI admit I’ve never been convinced that a handgun would be especially effective. I would certainly not expect a bullet to make a dish full of airborne pathogenic bacteria or viruses safe.
- mrguyorama 3y agoWell the comic is about cancer cells....
- wk_end 3y agoI agree that we should still temper expectations (always, forever), but you seem to have missed the other half of the headline: it also seems to work in animal models with no discernible side-effects. Can't say that for arsenic.
- emn13 3y agoSure, and most miracle drugs don't pan out. Yet there is some reason to at least hope this is a little better than arsenic - it didn't kill the mice nor dogs, and there are various plausible sounding claims about toxicity made (to a non-expert, I just googled the various methods and showed the paper to cancer-researching friend that didn't immediately cry foul). I mean, the track record of such drugs still suggests it'll likely not live up to the hype of the title here, but that's the point of further research, which does appear to be happening. It's quite likely there's some unforeseen limitation, but hey, we can always hope.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoI am a total layperson in medicine but I try to challenge myself to read Derek Lowes blog posts and comments here from people like isoprophlex who do understand it. I really appreciate the simplicity of this solution - it doesn't need to be customized for each person, it doesn't need years of work on targeting, it's stable, potentially with few side affects of users. I know even this is a long shot but if it works, the power to change society! I imagine that it would even encourage cancer screening earlier for people to make for more effective treatments. A working treatment for many cancers will bump many more preventable forms of deaths up the charts - obesity, cars, weapons. I hope that people will be inspired to take more significant actions to reduce those when we've tackled these really really hard ones. And due to the potential low-cost, easy administration, and storage requirements, I am reminded a bit of how antibiotics ended up working in developing countries. Doctors prescribe them for every pain, making them ineffective at best and spawning antibiotic-resistant bugs at worst. I hope the researchers are able to consider this angle (overprescription) before these medicines become a widely distributed thing in other parts of the world. It's an exciting decade for medicine. I hope that if we don't see the efficacy we want with this one, that more "simple" formulations will come around that do work.
- fluidcruft 3y agoInfectious diseases are different because they jump from host/reservoir to host/reservoir and can take their "experience" with them. Cancers spawn off from normal cells that mutate randomly. So the general scheme is that cancers (and each person's cancer's drug-resistance) develops from scratch in isolation within each person. Basically there's no real mechanism for one person's cancer to translate/share its experience against drugs with another person's cancer. Some cancers are related to viruses by increasing mutation rates which in turn increases the chance of a cancer developing. So basically I wouldn't expect overprescription to produce drug-resistance the way it can for anti-virals and anti-bacterials.
- tpool 3y agoI'm not versed in reading biomedical studies, but I'm curious about this. A successful in vitro test would not necessarily mean that the medicine could overcome other biological challenges such as the blood-brain barrier for delivering medication to brain tumors. Is my assumption correct?
- vikramkr 3y agoI guess there's nothing stopping people from just shamelessly making up data on Twitter even when they're linking the actual article. This is very cool and very promising research but "almost completely inhibits the growth of xenograft tumors without causing toxicity to experimental animals" is not the same thing as "kills 100% of tumors." I do understand that there's an incentive to lie like this on the internet - it's not just magical internet points when people get paid real money as creators for getting clicks, but come on, really? Is it worth poisoning the discussion around some actually incredibly cool and promising research while driving false hope (which can actually hurt people!) Just for a few extra pennies from twitter's creator fund?
- hereforcomments 3y agoIf it passes all the tests, how long will it take to get it to the market/hopsitals? I know there are multiple phases but if it works, is there fast track or something?
- zer8k 3y agoGiven the importance of this medication and it's promising initial data I have no idea why it's not given "warp speed" clearance. We cleared mRNA technology almost overnight in response to the pandemic. I feel like society as a whole has collective amnesia on how this happened. A relatively novel strategy to rapidly produce a vaccine in response to a pandemic was trialed essentially on a global scale. The phase 1/2/3 trials may as well have not existed. It seems strange to me that we can't give such an important novel drug the same treatment. The population size is smaller than global and the effect would be huge. I would seriously doubt anyone stricken with cancer would hesitate to agree to the same "experimental treatment" paperwork we all got when we were vaccinated.
- danielvaughn 3y agoAgreed; it should at least match the energy devoted to superconductivity.
- sp332 3y agoWell if that's what you're looking for, Martin Shkrelli is spitefully publishing a bunch of related molecules to deny prior art claims. https://twitter.com/wagieeacc/status/1687137621699436552 https://twitter.com/wagieeacc/status/1687137621699436552
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe reason is that the PR department of most bio labs say they have cured cancer every other week. We have MOUNTAINS of things that stop cancer in mice and sometimes other animals, that don't or won't pan out. The superconducting results are much closer to if this paper was a small scale human study. Then you would likely see the same kind of "open all the floodgates" ramp up of effort.
- Octokiddie 3y agoIt seems to be getting more popular here to link to a twitter blurb, which links to the actual article. In this case, the blurb adds zero to the discussion, if anything adding blatant misinformation. This is the actual article: https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended/S2451-9456(23)00221-0 https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended/S2451... I recommend replacing the link and the title with what appears on the Cell website.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- metadat 3y agoRelated recent discussions: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 - Aug 2023 (205 comments) New targeted chemotherapy able to kill all solid tumors in preclinical research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978199 - Aug 2023 (32 comments) 'Cancer-killing pill' is now being tested on humans - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36969500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36969500 - Aug 2023 (33 comments) Cancer pill AOH1996 shows promise in annihilating all solid tumours - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36960895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36960895 - Aug 2023 (19 comments) Cancer pill AOH1996 shows promise in annihilating all solid tumours - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36960292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36960292 - Aug 2023 (16 comments) Edit: @dang: Thanks, incorporated your addition.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elamje 3y agoIf you are unfamiliar with biotech or FDA, Phase 1 announcement is like OpenAI announcing their mission in 2016. Ambitious, but very low probability of success and will take 5+ years, if not 10.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe]
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoYou really think this twitter rando is the first source on this topic? Bunch more discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 One of a number of posts over last few days
- jjulius 3y agoThis comment is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37004911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37004911
- pastor_bob 3y agoThe patent appears to belong to City of Hope[0], a non-profit cancer hospital. Conspiracy idea: such a simple drug is not what Big Pharma wants, thus was never investigated. Hopefully, if effective, it's affordable for people worldwide. [0]https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017049206A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017049206A1/en
- mrguyorama 3y agoThat kind of conspiracy has never held water. Pharma makes bank off of cheap and simple drugs.
- adamredwoods 3y agoPlease don't rely on a x-twitter headline for a de-facto statement on this. Please see other threads posted here on HN. Or read Derek Lowe's response on AOH1996: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-treatment https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-tr... Or read about the drug that came before it, but didn't metabolize well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279569/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279569/ Or read about other new, interesting anti-cancer drugs: https://med.stanford.edu/cancer/about/news/rewiring-cancer-cells-to-self-destruct.html https://med.stanford.edu/cancer/about/news/rewiring-cancer-c... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06348-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06348-2
- mabbo 3y agoDerek Lowe's take is, as usual, reasonable and factual. And even he is really optimistic and happy about this result! We need some good news these days.