Slashdot Mirror
Brain Tumor Vaccine Shows Promising Results
ScienceDaily is reporting that a new vaccine used in the treatment of a cancer found primarliy in the brain is showing promising results after an initial trial at the University of California. "Of the 12 patients being treated, eight can currently be evaluated for overall survival, while four are still receiving treatment. Seven out of the eight patients have exceeded the historical median benchmark of 6.5 months survival from time of recurrence. The investigators will continue to follow the patients for overall survival. Based on these results, a larger, multi-center phase 2 study is planned for late 2007."
had to be said!!!
Maybe each university was in charge of a particular patient in order to see how variations in temperature affected the outcome?
it is imprecise, not necessarily inaccurate. I had that as early as high school chem, and several times in college as well. Unless you are suggesting they can't do anything by themselves... Which I hope you aren't...
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I know they use the word vaccine in TFA, but my understanding of a vaccine (plus a cursory glance at a dictionary) suggests that a vaccine should be something you administer in order to prevent someone from getting a disease, rather than something you use to treat a person who already has the disease.
Any of you bright science boys or girls know what the difference is between a "vaccine" and any other drug you might use to treat a diease? Just wondering.
Life needs more saving throws.
Presumably this is a therapeutic vaccine, since survival data is reported. Don't think you could get this as a prophylactic vaccine in order to ward off future brain tumors.
As for the statistics, the fact that 7/8 have exceeded the historical median survival is fairly meaningless. I'm sure that historical literature could be produced to provide equivalent results in a single small study. Also, at a single site, you have no insight into the selection criteria for the patients enrolled... Were they selected because they were highly likely to survive (e.g., early stage disease)? Is the investigational site vested in the therapy (likely the case, at least for a principal investigator)?
Will be interesting to see what phase 2 studies bring - hopefully it works out as well as they describe here, but if history is any judge, that is probably not going to be the case.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Isn't Cal Berkeley the University of California? That's how it's commonly referenced outside of CA.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
I'm with ya there man, I lost a close friend in high school to a brain tumor. ...to go from worrying about your learning permit to worrying if you'll live to Christmas. It is nothing I'd wish on any one, let alone a child.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
My crude understanding has been that vaccines are intended to amplify the immune response to pathogens. This can happen before or during a disease (prophylactic or therapeutic according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Cal-Berkeley is the flagship of the UC System. As a result, it is known as Cal or UC for athletic events which the others get UCLA or something else. Think of Texas or Tennesse or Michigan or North Carolina as an example.
UCSF is an incredible place that only does medical research. There is no undergrad program. One of the best hospitals in the country. You should check out the amount of NIH funding they get.
No. It's called "UC Berkeley". The "University of California" is a system of Universities handled by one accrediting body.
Referring to any individual UC campus as "The University of California" is simply inaccurate, regardless of what others might say, unless you are explicitly talking about the UC system.
Of course, slashdot "editors" don't actually edit, even if they knew things like this, which I don't think they do (based on their own story submissions.)
So we the people have to notice things like this - but of course I got modded offtopic, even though my comment is about the story (well, actually the story submission.)
Further proof that the slashdot moderation system does not work.
As if we needed any.
Now, if you are in a given town, one colloquially refers to the local college as "the UC" or "UC". I grew up in Santa Cruz, so UC Santa Cruz was simply abbreviated to "UC". But that's not a proper usage, it's shorthand. If I was speaking for the benefit of an audience, I would always refer to it at least as "UCSC".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>
>If you crack a joke about brain cancer, I will PERSONALLY skullfuck you...
>
>
And wait'll you see what his brother'll do to anyone making a joke about the Slashdotter who died from penile cancer!
Cancer?! I barely knew 'er!
Thanks, Rick Emerson!
Because construction (halliburton) and oil (everyone) companies don't profit from curing cancer.
In fact, the latter causes cancer, even directly from refinery emissions.
There's lots of things we don't do because there's no way to make money on them, or because we're making money on the status quo. For example, legalization of drugs. We all know that it would reduce crime. And of course, there's the supposed issue of terrorism - they claim that buying drugs funds terrorism, which is highly likely in fact. Buying imported drugs will necessarily be funding terrorism part of the time, it only makes sense. But the war on some drugs is highly profitable for a wide range of people. It also helps protect the plastics and tree paper industries by preventing large-scale production of hemp fibers and oils.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Thanks, thats very clear. If I could mod you up I would!
Life needs more saving throws.
Yes, but we fund many forms of social welfare (not just corporate welfare). Other than feeding people, what could be a greater social welfare concern than curing a slew of the greatest sicknesses man has ever known?
Really, our society has advanced to the point where we have the resources to do a lot of great things that will benefit everyone. We just seem to lack the will. And while it's nice to think private industry will do it, they're not going to cure cancer, because a cancer cure won't make them rich. They'll lose money. And even if they simply stumble upon some sort of "prolong your life" drug (you know they don't care to CURE it of course), it won't be for decades.
Are you thinking of plain old USC?
The UC system is broken down like the poster said. UCLA, UCSD, etc. They are also frequently described as "UC San Diego, UC Santa Cruz, UC Irvine."
USC is not part of this state system.
UCSC = UC Santa Cruz
Does this mean we can use our cell phones again?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
But gliomas are comparatively rare compared to metastatic brain tumors. How about something to treat metastatic cancer, guys?
As someone who has a brain tumor (not a glioma, but still malignant) I keep a sharp eye out for new developments. It seems like every other day a new "cure" is announced, but there is a LOT more work to do. Still, this is a good sign and the more research that goes on the better. Even if this ultimately doesn't prove to be as big a help as it initially appears to be, its one step closer. One thing that these types of treatments DO do, which is often overlooked, is prolong the life (And improve the quality of life) of people with the disease, making it something that is "managed" like say Diabetes as opposed to just being a death sentence. I'm 4 and a half years out of what my doctor told me was a 3-5 year life expectency, and I fully intend to beat that by a wide margin.
This vaccination to treat brain tumors sounds similar to earlier research for treating skin cancer with vaccination.
I am a colon cancer patient myself, having been through surgery, radiation, immunotherapy, and three kinds of chemotherapy over the past three years. Last fall I was contacted by NIH about participating in a new trial to test customized vaccinations for metastatic colon cancer. The protocol is pretty scary. First they extract white cells from your blood stream. Second, they knock out your immune system with some nasty chemotherapy. Meanwhile in the lab they genetically modify the white cells to recognize your tumors. Finally, they reinject you with the modified cells to establish an immune system that will attack the cancer.
Ultimately I was rejected as a participant due to characteristics of my tumors. I was disappointed not to be able to receive a possibly miraculous treatment, but it was also a relief to avoid a nasty ordeal.
I am also watching with interest a different type of vaccination treatment. Researchers are vaccinating subjects against CEA, a common protein involved in colon cancer and other cancers. It's potentially much simpler, since the vaccination is against CEA in general rather than having to be customized for each patient.
AlpineR
Since my wife died of a glioma I happen to know something about it.
1) She lived for 10 years after diagnosis. Her first 5 years were not too bad. The next 5 years were not too good.
The 6.5 months figure is not really correct. Furthermore a surprisingly large percentage of the population which dies of other causes will be found to have a glioma which has not caused any symptoms. Ie. They _can_ be quite benign and very slow growing. They can also be present for a long time before they are recognized. In my wife's case, I suspect it was present when she was 16 and since she died at 36 this would be 20 years.
2) The cancer does not really "re-occur". It never goes away. These cancers can best be described as like a fungal growth in an apple... it tends to have tenticles and goes into areas of the brain where they cannot go.
3) What of the ages of the patients? This makes a rather big difference. My wife was 26 when she had her first operation. Had she been older she would not have likely lived as long.
and I'm getting stronger every day.
Ya. That's normal. Its also meaningless.
I would urge patients to seek out second opinions and investigate clinical trials. I can tell you I am so glad I did."
Sorry to be so heartless but this is just crap. Its good the patient is optimistic. But the patient's opinions are totally irrelevant.
I'll add that in my wife's case one of her doctors declared when she passed five (5) years that she "was cured". It seems they have this 5 year survival thing. She had her second operation within 4 months of him declaring her "cured".
Again, unbridled optimism. The only way a patient survives a glioma is if something else kills them first. Fortunately I didn't listen to that doctor and focused on managing the patient. At the time there were zero reported cures and I suspect nothing much has changed since then.
About the best one can hope for with tumors of this type is that the patient will have a relatively long period of good time followed by an abrupt ending. This minimizes the suffering.
In my wife's case this is partially what happened. She went back to uni, finished her degree. My son was born and yes I had to raise him and my daughter myself. But that was far easier than looking after her. In the end, both kids are doing well and my son has now obtained his degree with great distinction.
One thing I will point out. Patients with a glioma typically need constant supervision and the medical community's prolonging of the survival time in my case resulted in me ending up as an unpaid nurse with no help for 1/2 a decade.
She did well until the second operation. After the second operation she was not the same. Life was a nightmare for me. Her decline period really started then and I would say she was about at 75% which slowly declined to 50% over the next 4.5 years. At this point she took an abrupt turn for the worst and had a 3rd operation, ended up in a nursing home then an auxillary hospital and died. The time frame between the 3rd operation and her death was about 5 months. Mercifully it was short.
The thing I found is there is a considerable degree of incompetence in the medical community. This ranges from the unbridled optimism of her oncologist who declared her cured to the GP who took over her case when she went into the nursing home. The nursing home was NOT appropriate for her. They lost her one day. She was badly burned on another occasion. Then her GP was too stupid to be able to pick up the phone can call the specialist to find out the med levels. I had to phone the specialist (neuro surgeon) and tell him what was happening and get the dosage corrected behind the GP's back! His comment is that he "usually didn't make prescription changes over the phone..." but he did in this case.
Then, the issue of zero help. There was a Psych assigned to the case. She was chain smoking and she burned every piece of furniture in the
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm.
If this drug pans out, we all know what phase 3 is! ;)
Of the 12 patients being treated, eight can currently be evaluated for overall survival
That's the politest way of saying "They're dead" that I've ever heard.>Yes, but we fund many forms of social welfare (not just corporate welfare). Other than feeding people, what could be a greater social welfare concern than curing a slew of the greatest sicknesses man has ever known?
>Really, our society has advanced to the point where we have the resources to do a lot of great things that will benefit everyone. We just seem to lack the will. And while it's nice to think private industry will do it, they're not going to cure cancer, because a cancer cure won't make them rich. They'll lose money. And even if they simply stumble upon some sort of "prolong your life" drug (you know they don't care to CURE it of course), it won't be for decades.
O RLY?
For the record, the US federal government spends $28 billion on medical grants through the National Institutes of Health. Per year. According to Wikipedia, the NIH through the National Cancer Institute sponsored the research of two-thirds of the available cancer drugs we have. And that's not counting state-funded research, or private grants.
Just like all the celebrities who made it their mission in the 1990s to preach, "let's throw more money at curing AIDS!", more money (or more "will", as you like) will not always equal a better solution, simply because the basic research is not there yet. Contrary to your opinion, there are hundreds of thousands of doctors and doctors-in-training who would love to be known as the one who cured a particular type of cancer. Even the ones that work for Big Pharm. The basic scientific problem is that many cancers are the body's own cells, with a few restrictions on growth removed (see Nowell's Law). How do you target and kill that without killing your patient? And that's the conundrum.
There have been many advances in cancer research, despite what laypeople will tell you. Many cancers caught in Stage I or even Stage II are curable with multimodality therapy (surgery, chemo, radiation). Which is why cancer screening is such a hot topic in medical literature now. Gardasil and other anti-HPV vaccines in the works have the potential to cure all or most cervical, penile, and scrotal cancers (all have an etiology that starts with HPV). Five years from now, I predict we'll be talking about Epstein-Barr Virus-associated cancers in the same way. The majority of juvenile cancers, like Wilm's tumor or ALL, can be cured. Society could cure 90%+ of future lung cancer by throwing away their damn cancer sticks.
But you would never know the amazing progress being made, because tens of thousands of anonymous researchers and doctors working in labs around the world to find the cure for "cancer" (that's like saying, find the "cure for sports injuries" or the "cure for autoimmune diseases") isn't sexy. What they say doesn't fit in a convenient seven-second sound-bite. Haven't people been working on cancer for centuries, where's the damn cure already?!? And wouldn't you rather know about the latest on Paris Hilton, or watch the latest Grey's Anatomy, or go play some more World of Warcraft instead?
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Nonsense. As a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, the University of California refers to the campus located at Berkeley. As the first and most prestigious campus in the system, it can accurately be called the University of California. All attempts to force a distinction is just a result of the other campuses trying to improve standing by appearing to be on equal footing. It is not uncommon for this naming practice (where the first and best campus takes the name of the entire system) throughout public state schools (see: the Ohio State University, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan ...).
Nice post Oski. Must be hard to type with that pole up your ass... :)
A brain and a cancer walk into a bar. The cancer says, "You don't have any brains!"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Butt fucker
when you elect a conservative. They'll always sell their soul to the highest bidder. The RIAA have the deeper pockets, since logic and truth are always their own reward. Guess which one little Stevie and friends are interested in?
UC Berkeley is referred to as 'The University of California,' or 'Cal' because it was the first of the 10 UC campuses. It is not a typo.
This is the type of tumor I had. If you read the article you'll notice that it says the recurrence is always fatal. My tumor was treated with chemo two years ago. I've readjusted my 401K plan because I don't know how much longer I'll be around. Forgive me if I don't share your opinion.
I'm assuming that metastatic cancer is already high on the priority list anyways.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
These statistics mean a great deal to me. Even if it's 7/8 out of 100, that's still better than 0 out of 100. If it turns out to be a 60% chance, I'll take that over 0% any day, month or year. I was diagnosed with a glioma after my wife found me at midnight having multiple seizures on the living room floor. My kidneys shut down and the doctors were talking transplant. Fortunately they started back up again, but I think I would rather die than go through chemo again. It was furtunate(God), also, that my tumor was low grade. I'm hoping that when it comes back it will still be low grade. I'm due for an MRI. The first couple MRIs after I stopped chemo were very stressful(scary).
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
"Of the 12 patients being treated, eight can currently be evaluated for overall survival, while four are still receiving treatment. Seven out of the eight patients have exceeded the historical median benchmark of 6.5 months survival from time of recurrence. The investigators will continue to follow the patients for overall survival. Based on these results, a larger, multi-center phase 2 study is planned for late 2007."
What I get from that is that they can't include 4 of them in the results yet. I don't see anywhere in the article anything that suggests any patients in the study passing. I would think that they would want to be clear on that in a study. You can get sued for giving people false hope.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
... on low-grade astrocytomas ? I and the one in my spinal cord have been getting along somewhat well for the last 30 years (it hasn't killed me or rendered me paraplegic, and I haven't had it removed completely, mainly because that would to one of the two former things), but I'd really appreciate a way to get rid of the thing that doesn't involve removing parts of my spinal cord along with it.