Cancer Therapy with Radioactive Scorpion Venom

BostonBTS writes "Researchers from TransMolecular, Inc. have used chlorotoxin -- a component of giant yellow scorpion venom -- to target radioactive treatments for the deadly brain cancer glioma. From the article: 'In the study, 18 patients first had surgery to remove malignant gliomas, a lethal kind of brain tumor. Then doctors injected their brains with a solution of radioactive iodine and TM-601, the synthetic protein. The solution bound almost exclusively to leftover tumor cells, suggesting that it could be combined with chemotherapy to fight cancer. Furthermore, two study patients were still alive nearly three years after the treatment.' Their paper is slated for publication in the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology."

Comments

Two out of 18...

[A Nun Must Cow Herd]

"Furthermore, two study patients were still alive nearly three years after the treatment"... but what would the expected number of survivors be for a group that wasn't treated with this solution?

They almost make it sound like the patients survived the treatment.

Re:Two out of 18...

[Alfred, Lord Tennyso]

I'm not sure that answers the question. Many die within months, but we're talking about only 2 out of 18 to make it three years. Curves have tails, and knowing that the mean is only a few months doesn't tell us how many would be expected to live for 3 years.

The Journal of Neuroscience (google cache, the site appears to be down) says that "more than half die within 18 months". Presumably that's with standard treatment. If half were to die every 18 months, that would still leave 1/4 of the patients, around 4, after two years.

I'm sure that's not the right curve to draw; Wikipedia says "few patients survive beyond three years". Is "few" more or less than 2 out of 18? Probably less, but I'm still not at all clear on whether this treatment is actually better than the standard treatment.

Re:Two out of 18...

[A Nun Must Cow Herd]

You're probably aware that your quote doesn't answer the question. Not only is "a matter of months" vague enough to be unenlightening, but it also gives no indication of the distribution. Let me rephrase the question to see if that helps:
How unusual would it be for there to be two survivors at three years without using this new treatment?

Re:Two out of 18...

[darkonc]

Granted, with a sample size of 18, it's not absolutely sure that the treatment was responsible, but even with a good sized tail, 2/18 patients lasting 3 years is enough to make it worthwhile funding another study.... At absolute worst this treatment did the patients little, if any harm (statistically speaking).

"So let me get this straight: My choice is to die within months from this aggressive cancer, or let you inject me with scorpion venom?"
"yep".
"this reminds me of a George Carlin joke: '"Well Jim, there's no reason why you shouldn't live another twenty to thirty years. However, you will be bleeding constantly from both eyes'".

Re:Two out of 18...

[fahrbot-bot]

but I'm still not at all clear on whether this treatment is actually better than the standard treatment.

The problem with the "standard treatment" is it usually involves surgery. The Glial cells are the support and structure cells for the actual brain cells. To the naked eye, the cancerous cells (Glioma) are undistinguishable from normal cells (like sugar and salt mixed in a bowl - for multiforme), though an MRI can differentiate.

Any surgery also removes healthy Glial and brain cells (which do not regenerate) and the patient's functionality degrades. All it takes is one remaining Glioma cell and the process starts again.

Some people cannot, or choose not to, have surgery. As I posted earlier, my wife died in January of a GBM, just 7 weeks after diagnosis. She declined as it was next to her brain stem and would have left her completely paralyzed on her left side and blind in the left side of each eye. Surgery may have prolonged her life a bit, but it wouldn't have been the life she loved.

Hopefully, treatments like this will reduce the need for surgery at some point.

Re:Two out of 18...

[darkonc]

OK: let's be blunt.
with an average survival time in months, one person lasting 3 years would be good. 2 people lasting 3 years means either
1) this study group got really lucky or,
2) This method is really, really promising.
with bets on #2.

I think that somebody posted that the 3 year survival rate is something like 3%, so this 10% survival rate is unusually high -- but possibly skewed by the sample size. This also depends on the patient group.... Young patients (rare) have a higher survival rate (up to 20% at 5 years according to this table), while retired people (who make up almost half the sufferers) have a less than 1% chance at surviving 5 years.

Re:Two out of 18...

[bracher]

ummm....

"In the study, 18 patients first had surgery to remove malignant gliomas".

So, they had the standard surgical treatment, and _then_ the radioactive venom. Alfred's question remains unanswered... How does 2/18 at 3 years differ from the survival rate for just the surgical procedure?

Just great.

[fahrbot-bot]

This is just great, sigh. My wife died from Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) in January, just 7 weeks after diagnosis in November. The average life expectancy for GBM (grade IV Glioma) patients is 4 to 18 months. Only a handful of the 14,000 / year live past 24 months. I hope this proves effective and saves many, many lives.

My world, however, will remain dark.
Remember Sue...