Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Cancer Vaccine Produced

Posted by michael on from the cure-for-what-ails-you dept.

notestein writes "Scientists have produced a vaccine that is 100% effective against the virus that causes practically all forms of cervical cancer. In the US Pap smear tests have reduced the 13,000 new cases of cervical cancer each year to only 4,100 deaths. Still, worldwide, 258,000 women died from cervical cancer last year. The same article also mentions that a vaccine that is 75% effective in protecting women against herpes has been tested."

33 comments

  1. Ten years from now... by Cuchullain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many more of these sort of discoveries will we have made?

    I just read that the AD-36 virus and related variants have been shown to be a contributing factor in 30% of the obesity in the world. Now I see this article on Cancer.

    Wild. How many of our daily problems are caused by these little rna splicing machines we call viruses?

    Makes you think. I just hope that this is well tested enough for my daughter to use it in 10 or 15 years.

    Cuchullain

    --
    "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine
    1. Re:Ten years from now... by shaka999 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Wild. How many of our daily problems are caused by these little rna splicing machines we call viruses?"

      The funny thing is they have also been instrumental in our evolution. I recall reading an article about how many virus fragments are in human DNA. It was very interesting. But the long and short of it is many useful mutations have been caused by the critters.

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    2. Re:Ten years from now... by andyt · · Score: 2

      I just read that the AD-36 virus and related variants have been shown to be a contributing factor in 30% of the obesity in the world

      s/AD-36 virus/eating all the pies/g;

  2. I don't mean to be sour -- this is great news by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    But few cancers are caused by viruses, and most cancers are invisible to your immune system, assuming it is working properly (e.g., not HIV, which does pave the way for Karposi's sarcoma). If the cancers themeselves were detectable, the immune system would destroy the tumor. The HPV vaccine primes the immune system to attack the traces of the virus (unless I'm mistaken).

    As an aside, one of the big mysteries about HIV has been why the immune system doesn't simple kill it. It can do so to a certain extent, but HIV has the sinister strategy of infecting the immune system iteself, hiding out in T-cell. Interesting and evil.

    1. Re:I don't mean to be sour -- this is great news by Incongruity · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But few cancers are caused by viruses

      Funny, I didn't think they'd conclusively figured out the cause of all cancers. (They haven't. They've made leaps forward in general oncology and they've figured out the multi-variate nature of the origins of most cancers.) Therefore, I think that you're being a bit heavy handed in your dismissal/minimization of this discovery. In point of fact, there was a time when people said that cervical cancer wasn't caused by a virus either

    2. Re:I don't mean to be sour -- this is great news by MacAndrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      I didn't think they'd conclusively figured out the cause of all cancers

      All cancers? No. You're right that the viral theory for cervical cancer is fairly new, and I think most of the viral research goes back 20 years or so. But so far only a few cancers are known (retro)viral in origin, and it is abundantly clear cancer also results regularly from radiation (from gamma rays to UV), various chemicals (carconigens), smoking, genetic predisposition, and so on. Even the usually benign HPV does not technically cause cervical cancer, it is risk factor for it. The chances that all or most cancers are viral are small; I think the current estimate is something like 1/6, and don't believe the HPV researchers would suggest this is the holy grail -- outside of women concerned about cervical cancer.

      So "cancer vaccine" sounds like more than it is. It is a vaccine aganst one kind of virus that in some women leads to cancer; someday hopefully soon we will have a vaccine against HIV; but these are far from a treatment for cancer or protection against cancer in general. This is a very significant finding if it pans out, but is also easily overstated. Don't stop donating to the Cancer Society it other words...

    3. Re:I don't mean to be sour -- this is great news by Incongruity · · Score: 2
      First, MacAndrew, I want to say that, in my opinion, you make a number of good points in your post above...but (and we all knew this was coming), I need to take issue with a bit of your reasoning/argument.

      Even the usually benign HPV does not technically cause cervical cancer, it is risk factor for it.

      So, what then, is the cause of cervical cancer? There isn't a cause and that was what I was trying to get at. When discussing the "causes" of cancer, all you are left with, in even the best understood cases, are a series of mutations which led to (or allowed) unchecked growth of tissue within the body.

      As for assigning causal responsibility, that's difficult. Was it the first in the requisite six (or three or ten) mutations that caused the cancer...or was it the last? In such a multi-layered causal system where one specific thing does not act as a sufficient anticedent for cancer development, what you're left with is essentially a cascade of problematic events, when taken together, lead to cancer developing but when looked at individually cannot be said to cause cancer.

      So, my point is, when you said that viruses don't cause many cancers, you were, in a lot of ways making an unclear statement. There have been a number of cases where viruses have been clearly linked to an increased rate of cancer development...that's what you could call contributory-causality, if you like, but in all those cases (as you point out in the second post), the virus isn't required for the cancer to develop, and even if the virus is present, it doesn't mean that cancer is sure to follow. Does that mean that, in the cases where a virus is shown to contribute substantially to the chance of developing cancer, that the virus isn't the cause or a cause? I think, rather, it argues for the idea that the virus could be called a cause as much as anything else could be called a cause.

      MacAndrew, you seem to know a bit about this kinda stuff, so please, if you could, what's the difference between a risk factor and a cause, when speaking about cancer? I think it's important to get the terms straight here so that we're making sense to eachother. (I'm honestly curious. My previous post was modded down as being flame-bait and I really didn't intend it to be viewed as such...same goes for this post.

      -tcp

    4. Re:I don't mean to be sour -- this is great news by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

      No, I didn't doubt your sincerity, or that you're mostly right.

      Cancer is a kind of wastebasket term for genetic damage resulting from a variety of cause, some better understood than others. It might be that you need a specific combination of factors to set it off, or more likely that a sufficient number of insults causes the disorder. A variety of things inflict the insults.

      Risk factor -- it is evident that viral infection is not enough, but is it essential? There must be other factors that act in concert to cause cancer, or reasons that some individuals might be more vulnerable. Maybe this works the other way around -- that radiation or carcinogens alone can't cause cancer until a certain virus is present, but I doubt it. For an over-the-top example, I don't think all the vaccines imagined would keep your genes together working unprotected in a nuclear reactor core.

      Viruses as a factor -- I'm just skeptical, and that's based on semi-educated layman's knowledge, that viruses are an essential factor in all or even most cancers. They may be responsible for millions of cancers, which is a big deal, but even figuring out this linkage won't help us to address the millions more of cancers -- thus the note of caution.

      There was for a while the idea that cancerous cells arose all the time and were dealt with efficiently by the immune system, so fixing the immune system might fix the cancer. This was disproved in part by the lack of additional cancers in immunocomprised individuals such as AIDS suffers, outside of some odd viral cancers like Karposi's sarcoma that rarely get traction in a healthy body.

      But I will do some more reading, my information is dated. As with brain research, immunology has been developing at a meteoric pace. (In college I was interested in neurology and behavior; immunology was a side interest. I thought it was intrigued that the nervous system is highly centralized, while the immune system is distributed, with no governing authority; yet both act with a certain intelligence. Pretty cool example of parallel evolution -- different strategies for solving similar problems.)

  3. Hold your horses... by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't a vaccine for cancer, it's a vaccine for the virus that leads to most cases of cervical cancer, HPV. Other cancers, heck even this type of cancer, are not helped by using this vaccine. It's only if you get it before you've contracted the virus, I'm guessing, that it's even effective. This is a long, long way from developing something that can remove/cure cancer 100% effectively.

    --trb

    1. Re:Hold your horses... by dunedan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      that would be why they decided to call it a VACCINE

  4. Still, it's not a vaccine for "cancer" by Guru1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a vaccine for a very specific type of cancer. While this is great, I highly doubt we shall have a vaccine for lung cancer, skin cancer, or the other types that are not necessarily caused by a virus. See, what they're going to do next, is make nano-bots with some great AI built in. They then tell the nanobots exactly what a cancerous cell looks like, how to replicate, how much to replicate, and how to kill the cancerous cell. Now hurry up scientists, I want to live forever today.. I don't have a lot of patience.

  5. Cancer vaccine? Finally! by falzer · · Score: 3, Funny

    First cancer vaccine? No longer can anyone say "you slashdotters are screwing with $NEW_TECH when you should be developing a vaccine for cancer!" Time to get back to screwing around, because someone else did the job.

    1. Re:Cancer vaccine? Finally! by sweetooth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too bad it's a vaccine for HPV not cancer. Untreated HPV infections can potentially lead to cervical cancer, but this is by no means a cancer vaccine at all. Very measleading headline. Then again it is slashdot.

      Anyway! *cracks whip* back to work, no futzing around, a cancer vaccine hasn't been found.

  6. Exactly! by uradu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a VIRUS story, not a CANCER story. It's only incidental that this particular virus causes one type of cancer. If it were a CANCER story, it would mean that further development of the vaccine could someday also prevent other kinds of cancer, but it won't. It might someday prevent other kinds of VIRUS induced diseases, which is of course still a very useful thing, since our expertise with viruses is negligible compared to bacteria.

    1. Re:Exactly! by uradu · · Score: 2

      > since our expertise with viruses is negligible compared to bacteria.

      By that I don't mean that bacteria know more than us about viruses, but that we're better at dealing with bacteria than with viruses. Duh!

  7. not a vaccine for cancer by farnsworth · · Score: 0, Redundant
    just to be clear, this is *not* a vaccine for cancer. this is a vaccine for a virus that is present in something like 99% of women who have this form of cancer.

    AFAIK, the link between this virus and cancer is not fully understood.

    --

    There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

  8. Virus anti-cancer "bots" by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

    A tidbit I cam across is that researchers have experimented with using viruses such as the one that cause the common cold as seek-and-destroy weapons against cancer. I guess that unlike the immune system, a virus can peer inside the cell and check out the DNA for abnormalities, then destroy it as needed. Our enemy harnessed as our friend.

    Cool -- get a cold, get rid of your tumor.

  9. Relative degrees of research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, I for one am glad to hear about this.
    Once a year having a cold metal rod poked around inside your innermost regions while you lie flat on your back on an uncomfortable table is not fun. Now it's every 2-3 years instead.

    Of course, I can't help but wonder how much money was put into vaccine research by the pharmecutical companies to stop women dying, versus the obscene amount of money and research put into new Viagra analogues.

    Rhenium

    1. Re:Relative degrees of research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic, isn't it? Men design the batteries that power the vibrator you need because you hate men.

    2. Re:Relative degrees of research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cold metal rod poked around inside your innermost regions

      Give me an inanimate cold rod up the snatch anyday! It beats what men have to suffer through... a doctor's warm, wiggling finger up the ass. Snatches are well-designed for inserting things into. Asses, well, it's a bit of a stretch.

    3. Re:Relative degrees of research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you're over a certain age most gyno exams also include a rectal exam.

      How many rectal exams have you had? Bet it's not one a year since you were 16 or 18.

  10. Story Lead and Slashdot blurb both misleading by MarkedMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read the story, you will see the following:
    "Although there are more than 30 types of HPV that can infect human beings, one of them -- type 16 -- is responsible for about half of all cervical cancers. The experimental vaccine, made by Merck Research Laboratories, protected only against that one, although future formulations are likely to also protect against the less common HPV types that can cause cervical cancer" So although it is very good news, it does not protect against "the" virus that causes cervical cancer, it protects against the variant of that virus that causes 50% of virus derived cervical cancer. No small feat and better things to come, but not what it says in the Article lead.

  11. Medical journal article? by toc2 · · Score: 1

    Can somebody point me to the medical journal article where this was published? I can't seem to find it.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:Medical journal article? by diaphanous · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's in the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

      ~Phillip

  12. Herpes vaccine much more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the rate of herpes reaching 20% in the American adult population, something that can cut 75% of the number of infectable women in the future bodes well for the eventual controlling of this disease.

  13. They already live longer! by Arlo19 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Women already have longer life spans, why do they get cancer treatments first? We guys need our stuff figured out too you know!

  14. Its just speculation by Catskul · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have heard some theories that the majority of cancers not already known to be caused by other agents (radiation, smoking etc) are caused by viruses. The fact is that most viruses go undetected because generally you have to develop a test specifically for a particular virus to detect it easily. So its somewhat difficult to prove one way or the other.

    The chances that all or most cancers are viral [is] small; I think the current estimate is something like 1/6
    If I may, this is a bit of an odd stastic: "The chances that all or most are caused by a virus". I am curious as to how that would be determined, and as to whether you are mistaken.

    Some quick reading reveals that quite a few famous cancers are virus related. Leukemia for example is caused by a virus.

    Hepatitis B - liver
    Hepatitis C - liver
    HTLV-1 - leukimia
    HPV - Uterine & cervix
    Epstein-Barr - Burkitt's lymphoma, nasopharynx,
    Hodgkin's disease

    some googleing brings up some interesting pages
    http://archive.mail-list.com/hbv_research/m sg01745 .html
    http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/gen bio/mit osisnot.html

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
  15. Fix one bug, create 100 others by fluor2 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I hate to say this, but wouldn't it be better if we looked intot he science of "living" instead of "cancer". It must be a reason why cancer is developing faster in some parts of our world.

    Western *Cough cough*FATSO-LIFESTYLE*cough*. This is the nature's way of telling us to STFU and RTFM!

    1. Re:Fix one bug, create 100 others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that nature didn't leave us with a FMTR.

  16. Terminology by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    "It's only if you get it before you've contracted the virus, I'm guessing, that it's even effective. This is a long, long way from developing something that can remove/cure cancer 100% effectively."

    By definition, a VACCINE is something you administer prior to exposure. A cure and a vaccine are two different things. You can get vaccinated against Hepatitis B, for instance, but there is still no *cure* for Hep-B. If you catch it, because you aren't immunized, you are still screwed.

    The article, even the SUMMARY clearly said that this is a vaccine for the virus that causes 100% of all cervical cancer cases.... that's fairly accurate.
    I think most of us know there is no single cause of cancer, and hence, no single cure (or vaccine)