Slashdot Mirror


Genetic Engineers Working to Reverse Cancer

An anonymous reader writes "Using a patient's own modified white blood cells, a team of researchers at the National Cancer Institute has reversed advanced melanoma in a study of 17 patients. The researchers tweaked the blood to recognize and attack cancer cells, and the head of the National Institutes of Health, Elias Zerhounibut, says there's big hope now that other common cancers, like breast and lung cancer, can be similarly treated. Though only 2 of the 17 patients responded successfully to the treatment, researchers are optimistic that future improvements on the technique will improve that rate of success." From the article: "In the study, Rosenberg and his colleagues took lymphocytes from the blood and inserted into them genes for a receptor capable of 'recognizing' a protein on melanoma cells called MART-1. This would allow the lymphocyte to attach to a tumor cell and kill it. The patients, all of whom had previously undergone surgery and immune-based treatments, got chemotherapy to temporarily wipe out their immune systems. The engineered cells were then reinjected, with the hope they would proliferate as the immune system recovered."

31 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Oh noes, look out! by rmadmin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Better look out, mother nature is going to take you to court for violating the DMCA when you reverse engineer her cancer.

  2. This is an awesome way to treat cancer by IntelliAdmin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is so wonderful about this type of treatment is that it is not invasive. You could have a cancer that is very difficult to reach via surgery and this method would allow your body to bring the cure to the cancer.

    Windows Admin Tools

    1. Re:This is an awesome way to treat cancer by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It may not be invasive, but I bet it takes a hell of a toll on you. Part of the procedure used to implement this test protocol was chemotherapy to disable the immune system--and I'm not an M.D., but I don't think that's very much fun. Now, the payoff may be worth it (well, it IS worth it if the treatment takes), but I still imagine it's nearly as trying as standard modalities, especially for cancer patients who've already had surgery or radiotherapy or the like.

    2. Re:This is an awesome way to treat cancer by darrint · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wiping out the immune system is invasive. It is probably impossible to know when you have avanced melanoma, but how many of the 15 died of a cold?

  3. bbc has more info by legoburner · · Score: 4, Informative
    The BBC also has more info about the procedure.
    For Mark Origer, 53, the treatment completely eliminated his skin cancer and another tumour on his liver shrunk enough that it could be removed surgically. Last week, doctors pronounced him completely clear of cancer cells.
    Another man, aged 39, was able to clear the cancer that had spread to his liver, lymph nodes and lung.

    Always nice to see the light of science burning brighter and any treatments that can get rid of cancer that has spread to the liver are pretty amazing.
    1. Re:bbc has more info by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful
      they were a bit coy about the others on the trial... it didn't work for 15 of them... that means they're dead as the trial was only done on those past hope with other methods.

      So you fifteen unknown others... thanks for volunteering.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:bbc has more info by Xenna · · Score: 3, Informative

      Usually in this type of trials the chances of survival are astronomically against you (practically noone is ever cured). The two that survived are extremely lucky...

      X.

  4. Using the body's immune system by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These days, it seems that some of the more promising cancer treatments involve using the body's own defenses against cancer. The antiangiogenesis stuff didn't pan out as well as hoped (blocking blood vessel growth in tumors). Some of the treatments that fix a particular genetic defect in certain types of cancer are great, but extremely cancer-specific.

    This approch does require a lot of work (tailoring a particular patient's T-cells to a particular cancer), so it's not a cheap fix. It also requires the patient's immune system to cooperate and do it's thing, something that only happened in 2 of the 17 patients. Still, to get complete remission where there was no hope is extremely promising. My guess is that we'll see more of this.

    Basically if the human race can do two things: 1) Regrow organs that have worn out and 2) cure cancer, we'll live for a very long time.

    1. Re:Using the body's immune system by brewer13210 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although only 2 of 17 patients recovered, if this was an initial human trial, then all the scientists were looking for was toxicity effects in people who were otherwise pretty much beyond any other medical treatment. i.e. people with cancer so advanced, that a treatment like this probably wouldn't make them any worse.

      Hopefully when this method of treating cancer is applied to people whose tumors are not so advanced, the results will be far more effective.

    2. Re:Using the body's immune system by bwcarty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I went through chemo and radiation for a T-cell lymphoma about 2.5 years ago. I'm curious about what the possibilities for this type of treatment are when the T-cells themselves are the cancer.

    3. Re:Using the body's immune system by LiberalApplication · · Score: 4, Funny
      Basically if the human race can do two things: 1) Regrow organs that have worn out and 2) cure cancer, we'll live for a very long time.

      Meaninglessly, unless we can determine the mechanisms of senility and treat/prevent them. Personally, I'd love to live forever, but only if I can be guaranteed to not become a crazy old coot who thinks his toothbrush is stealing money from his wallet while he sleeps.

    4. Re:Using the body's immune system by shawb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually what you are describing happens, except that neurons don't appear in "random" locations but certain locations of the brain (see neurogenesis.) Neurons also naturally migrate naturally in the brain. An individual neuron in the brain really doesn't have much control over thought processes, it's the network of connections that are important, and there is a lot of redundancy built in to deal with damage and cell death. The brain is also pretty decent at routing around some types of damage, sometimes with people missing the majority of the cortex of an entire hemisphere functioning fairly normally.) Sure, some patterns can be lost (I.E. you forget facts and lose skills after time if they are not reinforced) but I sincerely believe that it is possible for Medicine to come up with treatments that A)delay or moderate brain cell death, B)increase adult neurogenesis and C)increase uptake of these new neurons into the thought pathways within the brain. I believe it's also been shown that a good proportion of senility can be prevented or at least moderated by keeping the person mentally active and stimulated. Any other part of the body will atrophy if not used in order to conserve energy. It would make sense that the brain (one of the highest energy demand organs in the body) will atrophy to some extent if not exercised.

      Physical ability seems to decline far earlier than mental ability, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that physical aging leaves people in such a situation where they simply don't have the ability to do the things that allow for mental stimulation, such as diminished strength precludes sports, diminished eyesight begins to preclude reading, diminished hearing precludes conversational skills, etc etc. I don't doubt that there is a physical neurological component to senility, but I believe keeping the body healthy would allow a person to keep their brain healthier and "younger." This makes the job of finding a pill or other treatment to keep the brain healthy much less troublesome, although it would make effecacy testing far more difficult as various stages of physical sensecence and condition should also be compared in order to fully understand the effect of novel treatments.

      So yes, as we get better at 1)fighting cancer and 2)replacing/repairing failing organs (including the brain) through medical advances and lifestyle changes/improvements we will be able to put off death further and further. Medical treatments to stave off senility shouldn't be viewed as strictly unnatural: the brain (along with the rest of the body) is constantly replacing dead, dying and malfunctioning cells. Even the cells that do survive for a long period of time will have their various structures repaired and replaced. I heard somewhere that in five years an average person will have none of the same atoms making up their body (Although I can't find a source for that five years "fact" so take it for what it's worth. And with a grain of salt while you're at it.)

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  5. It's a tightrope walk by Veetox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Scientists have been working on this for years and it's exciting to see that it's finally showing some promise. However, training a patient's immune system to recognize cancer related proteins can be dangerous. The cancer related proteins are often mutated forms of proteins on normal cells and sometimes just normal proteins that are much more prevalent on cancer cells. A mistake could lead to autoimmunity.

  6. Abstract by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the absctract for the original article. Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to see the whole thing.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/112 9003v1

    I thought it was interesting how the lymphocytes stuck around for about a year. I thought they would have either died or kicked the gene out by then...

  7. Elias Zerhouni by blakestah · · Score: 4, Funny

    Elias Zerhouni may be a little miffed at being called Zerhounibut!

  8. My heart goes out to them. by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The description of the patients is very dry, so I wanted to say something on behalf of the people receiving this treatment. What's happened is that each one started getting symptoms, probably a growth on the skin. They went to a doctor and were told that they had the most malignant of the three forms of skin cancer. Treatment options were presented to them, and they chose to undergo surgery. Either a few days after the surgery they were told that the margins weren't clean, or immediately after the surgery they were told that portions of cancer were inoperable, or some weeks later they were told that the cancer had returned. Then they underwent immune therapy. I don't know anything about that. Finally, they were told that they were terminal patients and to get their affairs in order, but that there was a new therapy the surgeons wanted to try. The chances of success were unknown. I don't know how much chemotherapy was necessary to destroy their immune systems, but a very good friend of mine, now dead, described it as getting flu one day a week for weeks on end. I count at least six events that had to be completely emotionally devastating to the patients and their families.

    -Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.
  9. NCI has even more by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/Mel anomaGeneTherapy


    This is the interesting part, I thought: "The researchers also have isolated TCRs that recognize common cancers other than melanoma."

  10. Yea.... by StressGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having watched my mother die of Leukemia after a two year struggle, my cousin loose his stomach to cancer, and another relative (by marriage) currently facing a rare brain cancer with essentially no hope of survival (with a wife and two kids just a little older than mine), I'd say, let these guys play whatever cards they have.

    I'm going to be trying to get better contact info for the people doing this research and forward it to my cousin and the family facing brain cancer.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  11. Re:Great news. by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    RTFA. The immune system has to be completely wiped out at the beginning so that the modified cells have a chance to become prevalent in the body after being injected.

  12. Interferon by Orcish_Rodent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    High dose interferon has less than a 5% chance of remmisson. So if the 2/17 ratio is realistic this more than doubles the odds of recovering from advanced melanoma. High dose interferon is the leading (read: only) non-trial treatment for advanced melanoma.

    My father had/has stage 4 Melanoma. He went into remmision from high dose interferon and dmx clinical and NIH. BTW the study found no statisical improvement over just high dose interferon.

    quick wiki link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma

  13. Treatment will get better by dunelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On ABC World News yesterday, they interviewed the lead scientist behind all of this. He said that since they set up the original protocol, they've found genes that are more than 100 times more effective on the cancers. Even though only a percentage of the patients will probably respond to these new anti-cancer genes, this method has enormous potential to improve greatly with more clinical trials and more research. This treatment is still cancer-specific, but it's much easier to find a gene to target a cancer than it is to come up with a new synthetic anti-cancer medication. In 10 years, I would bet that this stuff will have had amazing results.

  14. Re:Aids? by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It does not look like this technique will be useful against AIDS. Though the article is sparse on details, it says the treatment targets specific antigens that appear in about half of cancer types. The problem with AIDS is that it mutates rapidly, and this means that the antigens on its surface change with time. As a result, even if we could modify one patient's cells to kill Alice's AIDS, we would need a different set of modifications to kill Bob's AIDS.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  15. Statistical confidence by denoir · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The result, 2 of 17 does not strike me as a very statistically reliable.

    With a simple confidence interval calculation we get that with a sample size of 17 from a population of 1000 we get that with 95% confidence the results are 2+-2.6 of 17. Obviously 0 is within the error margin, so it is quite possible the results are just by chance.

    I have been trying to locate some information on what the motivation was for releasing such a weak result - in case I had missed something. I have failed to find any mention at all of a confidence interval or any statistical justification. At best the results are naive, at worst dishonest. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    1. Re:Statistical confidence by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are right the 2 in 17 figure the news media picked up on is not important. But the real news here is that 17 in 17 did not die of the treatment which very well could have happened. Also I'm not sure of your method. In the cases studied it is very well known that all of them would have died. I'm not sure if 17 is the correct sample size. There are _many_ more known cases of cancer and these might be conciderd part of a control group.

    2. Re:Statistical confidence by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Informative
      Suppose only 0.1% cancers of this type go into remission spontaneously. Then 2 out of 17 doing so is statistically significant because it's fairly unlikely. I've no idea what the spontaneous remission rates are, but neither do you.

      With a simple confidence interval calculation...
      You don't have the information required to make this computation. Without knowing spontaneous remission rates you don't have any kind of probability distribution to start working from. There is no "simple confidence interval computation". I think you're just blindly grabbing at any figures you can and fitting a completely meaningless normal distribution (or something) to then.

      Please correct me if I am wrong.
      My pleasure.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    3. Re:Statistical confidence by denoir · · Score: 2, Informative
      Good work. Now I can start computing
      No you can't. You need the variance to compute significance levels, which we don't have. Either way we don't need it as we can't reject the null hypothesis anyway due to the too small number of samples.

      It most certainly is not. If the probability of spontaneous remission were zero then it'd be impossible to get 2 out of 17 spontaneous remissions so we'd be 100% sure that the two remissions were not spontaneous.
      No, I didn't say that the probability of spontaneous remission would be zero, but that the probability for the medicine could be it, given the margin of error. That the positive hits had some completely different cause and were only included because of a too small sample size - which in turn resulted that by chance a far more improbable cause dominated the results of the sample.

      You're saying something completely bizarre. After you've collected 1000 sample posts you'll either catch my posts or not. If you do, then you'll be able to reject the hypothesis as clearly false.

      With mathematical logic, yes, with statistics, no. With 1 out of 1000 samples being true we would with 99% certainty not be able to reject the hypothesis (that no such signatures exist). c = +-sqrt(2.58^2 * (1/1000)*(1-1/1000)/1000) = 2.6/1000. With one positive sample the confidence interval would be 1+-2.6 of 1000. This encompasses zero probability (e.g the null hypothesis) hence we can't reject it at a 99% confidence level.

      Had we found 2 posts of 1000, then we would still confirm the hypothesis at a 95% level (z=1.96), but we would reject it at a 80% level (z=1.28) You have to understand that confirming or rejecting a hypothesis at a confidence level (statistics) has very little to do with confirming or rejecting a hypothesis using deductive logic.

      Statistics deals with probabilities and is never absolute. You don't say that a hypothesis is true or false, but that it is true or false at a certain confidence level. And that's what's great about it as real-world science deals with real-world measurements which are always associated with various forms of errors and weird correlations that you don't want influencing your results. Sampling to obtain a probability estimate is a very convenient tool, but if you take too few samples, the margin of error will be to great, and if it encompasses zero, then it is worthless. An estimate that doesn't reject the null hypothesis means that the estimate is no better than a random guess.

  16. Re:Great news. by hcob$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's it in geek terms:

    Just think of it as a hard reboot for your immune system. Then the newly developed anti-badthingys can go after what has infested your system

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  17. Take a look at Bone Marrow Transplants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    (sidenote: my wife had a BMT....she died October 2nd, 2005)

    Bone Marrow Transplants knock out the immune system with a combo of chemo and radiation. It's not a fun process (although it is scarily simple).

    Some people feel few ill effect. Most have vomiting, nausa and their hair falling out. My wife went into grade-4 Muciousitious (sp?) and had her mouth peeling. (Others have died from merely having their immune system knocked out)

    The survival rates for BMT patents was something like 50-60% iirc (5 year survival rates).

  18. This is just a technique, expect more later by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seriously, I was at a few seminars here at the UW by one of the Cambridge scholars who had an actual real cure for 50 percent of all cancers, which involves a literal heating of the interior of cells, triggering an apotosis chain that causes cell death in 99.99 percent of all cancer cells (of that type) while only killing less than 1 percent of normal cells. It's in trials in the UK and elsewhere and won't be available before probably 2016.

    The method mentioned is a technique - it increases the rate, and is a great discovery, but is not a "cure" for "cancers". It's just better than what we have now.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. Great news by Washizu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The current treatments for advanced melanoma (Dartmouth protocol or Interleukin 2) are extremely difficult to take and they only have a 5-10% chance of a full recovery. Granted, this new treatment only worked for 11% of the patients but typically the people in these studies are in them as a last resort. We tried to get my Dad into one after his chemo stopped responding.

    It was too late for him, but hopefully not for the thousands who die from melanoma every year.

    --
    OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
  20. My father... by Sargondai · · Score: 2

    My father was diagnosed with Melanoma 3 weeks ago. He underwent surgery but it came back less than a week later. It's now inoperable. I don't know what his next steps are (I don't think he wants to talk to me about this).

    Does anyone know how you can go about 'applying' to be in this test? I'm going to send him the article, but I was hoping to have more info.