Killing Cancer With a Virus

just___giver writes "The U.S. National Cancer Institute has just decided to fund multiple human clinical studies to test the reovirus. This naturally occuring virus has a remarkable ability to infect and kill cancer cells, without affecting normal, healthy cells. Here is a before and after picture of a terminal patient with an actively growing neck tumour that had failed to respond to conventional treatments. This tumour was eliminated with only a single injection of the Reovirus. Researchers at Oncolytics Biotech have shown that the Reovirus can kill many types of cancer, including breast, prostate, pancreatic and brain tumours. Human clinical trial results indicate that there are no safety concerns and that the reovirus shrinks and even eliminates tumours injected with this virus. Numerous other third party studies show that the reovirus should be an important discovery in the treatment of 2/3 of all human cancers."

Comments

good...

[mantera]

i find these as very very welcome news, especially so that i have personally seen the effects of conventional therapies; if you're lucky you'll have a tumor they can cut out, if not then too many of those chemotherapies are way too toxic, and quite a few radiotherapies too.

Re:good...

[conteXXt]

Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids.

Blazquez C, Casanova ML, Planas A, Del Pulgar TG, Villanueva C, Fernandez-Acenero MJ, Aragones J, Huffman JW, Jorcano JL, Guzman M.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.

Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their derivatives, induce tumor regression in rodents (8). However, the mechanism of cannabinoid antitumoral action in vivo is as yet unknown. Here we show that local administration of a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid to mice inhibits angiogenesis of malignant gliomas as determined by immunohistochemical analyses and vascular permeability assays. In vitro and in vivo experiments show that at least two mechanisms may be involved in this cannabinoid action: the direct inhibition of vascular endothelial cell migration and survival as well as the decrease of the expression of proangiogenic factors (vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin-2) and matrix metalloproteinase-2 in the tumors. Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis may allow new strategies for the design of cannabinoid-based antitumoral therapies.

PMID: 12514108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Re:good...

[CrackHappy]

I had cancer. Thank God they were able to cut it out. I can't stress enough the importance of getting your ass to the doctor if you even suspect something is wrong. All you young men out there, listen up. Testicular cancer is MOST LIKELY to strike between the ages of 25-35. Also note, 98% of ALL masses detected in testicles are cancerous. In other words, when fondling yourself, if you notice anything weird at all, especially anything hard, get yourself checked by your doctor ASAP. Also note Testicular cancer is one of the fastest spreading cancers, but also the easiest to cure, IF it's caught early enough.

The treatment sucks, but it's better than dying!

Clarify

[forand]

It seems people think that we made this virus, if you go to the link in the overview you will see that:

3. What is the reovirus Reovirus stands for Respiratory Enteric Orphan Virus. The reovirus is a naturally occurring virus to which most of us have been exposed in our lifetime. It is a non-pathogenic virus, meaning that it is not usually associated with any illness. Between 70 and 100 per cent of the population show signs of previous reovirus infection, which is usually confined to the respiratory or gastrointestinal systems in the body.
4. Where does the reovirus come from? Reovirus is found naturally in shallow pools of water, lakes or streams or in the sewage system.

Hope this clarifies things.

Re:But...

[AlaskanUnderachiever]

It "partially" works because you have antibodies to the virus already. Your body recognizes the particles of virus as a "bad guy" and while the virus tends to attack the tumor cells, the body itself is eliminating the virus and any tumor cells infected with it.

However, it appears that the virus itself is fairly effective at killing of tumor cells on it's own which is fairly interesting. As it's not associated with any pathogenesis this is definately an interesting step.

Yes you can get infected more than once, hell you can get reinfected over and over again. If you have antibodies it'll probably be a fairly asymptomatic infection (pardon my spelling).

that's why they have

[The Tyro]

Compassionate use protocols for some drugs... for people who are terminally ill and have nothing to lose by trying risky, untested drugs.

They've been using this in HIV patients for years. The only reason I could see them being more hesitant to treat cancer patients in a like manner is this: there ARE treatments for cancer that are curative... most all the treatments for HIV simply buy time... they do not eliminate the disease. Chemo is extraordinarily unpleasant, but it does have a proven track record...

Re:How do they know?

[sosume]

When you are trying to fight cancer with an adenovirus, like a particularly nasty common cold, you get a mutated adenovirus that seems to copy itself only in cells that lack a functioning copy of a gene called p53 that repairs damaged or mutated DNA. If the DNA is then too smashed up to be repaired, p53 instructs the cell to self-destruct. Since cancer occurs when DNA becomes so badly battered that it stops regulating cell growth and behavior, it is not surprising p53 has stopped working in more than half of human tumors..

Re:How do they know?

[martyros]

In addition, if the virus only responds to the receptors found on cancer cells (which is, I imagine, how it works), then there is next to no chance of it ever infecting normal healthy cells.

Actually, the FAQ linked to by the article has a very simple description of how it works:

6. Why doesn't the reovirus infect normal cells?

It enters normal cells, but when this happens, an anti-viral response mechanism is turned on and the virus is quickly eliminated. Anyone injected with reovirus is usually able to clear it completely from the body in about two weeks.

7. Why does the reovirus kill cancer cells?

Scientific studies have demonstrated that approximately two-thirds of all human cancer cells have an activated Ras pathway, one of the most common set of mutations leading to cancer. An activated Ras pathway leads to a constant barrage of growth signals to the cell, causing uncontrolled growth. In cells with an activated Ras pathway, the anti-viral response appears to be turned off. When reovirus infects one of these cancer cells, it is able to replicate and eventually kill the cancer cell. Up to 5,000 progeny virus organisms can then infect and kill surrounding cancer cells. Theoretically, the cycle of infection, replication and cell death will continue until there are no longer any cancer cells accessible.

So in fact, it can and does infect normal cells; but it's so weak that it never causes any problem. Elsewhere on the FAQ it says that most humans show evidence of having been infected by it at some time (it's a naturally occuring virus).

Re:How do they know?

[SmokeSerpent]

RTA

3. What is the reovirus
Reovirus stands for Respiratory Enteric Orphan Virus. The reovirus is a naturally occurring virus to which most of us have been exposed in our lifetime. It is a non-pathogenic virus, meaning that it is not usually associated with any illness. Between 70 and 100 per cent of the population show signs of previous reovirus infection, which is usually confined to the respiratory or gastrointestinal systems in the body.

6. Why doesn't the reovirus infect normal cells?
It enters normal cells, but when this happens, an anti-viral response mechanism is turned on and the virus is quickly eliminated. Anyone injected with reovirus is usually able to clear it completely from the body in about two weeks.
Back To Top

7. Why does the reovirus kill cancer cells?
Scientific studies have demonstrated that approximately two-thirds of all human cancer cells have an activated Ras pathway, one of the most common set of mutations leading to cancer. An activated Ras pathway leads to a constant barrage of growth signals to the cell, causing uncontrolled growth. In cells with an activated Ras pathway, the anti-viral response appears to be turned off. When reovirus infects one of these cancer cells, it is able to replicate and eventually kill the cancer cell. Up to 5,000 progeny virus organisms can then infect and kill surrounding cancer cells. Theoretically, the cycle of infection, replication and cell death will continue until there are no longer any cancer cells accessible.

Slashdot editors: still asleep at the wheel.

[Doktor Memory]

Blatant astroturfing: this article is hyping a completely unproven treatment, and was written by an employee of the company. This is news? Every biotech company has a "promising" anti-cancer treatment in development.

Re:Slashdot editors: still asleep at the wheel.

[Dave21212]

You hit that one on the head... It's a company PR release no less. Interesting, but definitely astroturf.

From the ONCY Yahoo Stock message board...

slashdot submission ??? need help
by: just_9_giver
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 11/03/03 06:12 pm
Msg: 5822 of 5871
(response to RJC's question)
I'm thinking its time to submit a summary with good links to http://www.slashdot.org

With luck, it'll get 15 minute of fame in geekdome. Every news writer of any substance reads this site. It might even show up on Google's news page right away.

The trick is to get a good story submission. It should have one link that points to a recent article. I was thinking the NCI article would be appropriate

Any tips for links and a couple of paragraph summary? Probably easier to collaborate on this rather than try to come up with it all by myself.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 5817 by rjc2827

Re:Okay, lets try it then...

[Walter Wart]

There are many other concerns among them are:

1. How much of the experimental agent do you have? These things are often expensive, rare and certainly not covered by insurance
   
2. You have to pick your subjects carefully if you want to get useful results. The point of a study is to study.
   
3. There are compassionate exemptions. Later posts by "The Tyro" go into these in great detail.
   
4. Liability. How do you guard against lawsuits if the treatment has unforseen side effects? Waivers can be fought.
   
5. By the time a person is terminal he or she is often not a good candidate for a haircut much less an experimental drug or procedure. Getting back to the limited supplies and "do no harm" principles someone has to decide whether the experimental substance is better given to someone who has a better chance of survival.
   

Speaking personally, I just underwent surgery and am awaiting radiation for a tumor. I would have much prefer to have gotten an injection, a severe cold, no tumor, and the continued use of an important body part. But I was not selected for such a study and couldn't have paid for the drug anyway. Such is life. I am just glad that my prognosis is good and hope that the virus will be approved as soon as is scientifically appropriate.

It's only Phase II, not ready for prime time

[nbauman]

This work is scientifically very interesting but it's a long way from curing cancer.

On the Oncolytics web site, they only list Phase I and Phase II trials. That's just to evaluate safety and dosing. In Phase III, they finally get around to testing for effectiveness, and they haven't done that yet.

I've seen lots of drugs that did this well in Phase II trials but flunked Phase III. I remember seeing Fortune magazine with the headline on the cover, "Cure for Cancer!" 20 years ago. Unfortunately not. (They got over-enthusiastic about cancer vaccines.)

Phase III is a randomized controlled trial. They randomly assign half the patients to the drug, and half the patients to a placebo. If it really works, you should see the difference. A lot of times it doesn't work and you know the drug is useless. Until the RCT you don't know anything for sure.

Another distinction you have to make is the end point. It's one thing to shrink a tumor, but the main thing most cancer patients are interested in is whether they're going to die. There are a lot of drugs that shrink tumors, but have no effect on how long they live.

Here's a discussion, "Levels of Clinical Evidence in the Primary Literature" which describes the different levels of evidence. Or look at BMJ Or if you want to search Google look for "Evidence-based medicine."

I hope this will encourage investors to throw lots of money at basic research and give us a better understanding of why cells become cancerous. It makes the New England Journal of Medicine more fun to read. Who knows? Maybe they'll come up with something useful some day. But not today.