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!!!
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!
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.'"
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.'"
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.
Does this mean we can use our cell phones again?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
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
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm.
>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.
"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.