5 ms·
“almost half the patients were cancer-free a year later.”
by tiahura 1y ago
“almost half the patients were cancer-free a year later.”
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y agoThat's one way of looking at the glass half empty. If half of people get rid of cancer for 1 year that is still outstanding - ESPECIALLY if the majority of those remain cancer free for quite some time after.
- apwell23 1y ago> remain cancer free for quite some time after. OS is more relevant than PFS
- codr7 1y agoIf we wanted patients to survive long term, then maybe we could try a treatment that doesn't destroy their immune system in the process.
- tptacek 1y agoInvent it and your grandchildren will retire rich.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoThe most obvious, naive approach is banking blood & marrow prior to treatment. However, there's a need to clear metastatic cells (CTCs) or train the immune system to find and kill them so that it doesn't reintroduce CTCs upon retransfusion.
- chiph 1y agoOne of the things I learned going through my own treatment (prostate) was that everyone's cancer is different. Which makes sense if you think about the variability in malignant cell growth. So something that cures half the patients and only requires an office or outpatient visit every few weeks (no surgery, no radiation) is astounding. This result will likely lead to further research using this approach.
- mcswell 1y agoMore than half would be nice, but: these tests were run on "individuals with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer whose cancer had previously resisted treatment." One could expect that it would be even more effective on patients whose cancers were not resistant to treatment.