Slashdot Mirror
Mayo Clinic Reports Dramatic Outcomes In Prostate Cancer Treatment
Zorglub writes "Two prostate cancer patients who had been told their condition was inoperable are now cancer-free as the result of an experimental therapy, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester announced Friday. 'Cancer has a propensity for turning off T cells. Dr. Allison hypothesized that if you block the off-switch, T cells will stay turned on and create a prolonged immune response. Dr. Kwon, then at NIH, demonstrated that CTLA-4 blockage could be used to treat aggressive forms of prostate cancer in mice. There was one limitation to that concept — the worry that by simply leaving all the T cells on there may not be enough response aimed at the tumor. Dr. Kwon called Dr. Allison and designed the trial together. The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach — a pilot light — and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.' After the treatment, the patients' tumors shrunk to such a degree that they could be successfully removed."
So the immune system will actually fight cancer, but the cancer negates this by turning off the T-cells. This is fascinating. The problem, from what I understand, is that cancer cells reproduce indefinitely as their DNA does not slowly break down. It seems like this could be a real breakthrough for lots of cancer patients.
zosxavius photography
If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it, I would have laughed in your face.
There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers. If this therapy really works, it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse.
It isn`t the androgen therapy that is doing it, it is the anti-ctla4 antibody that is doing the work.
If anything the androgen therapy should be causing the prostate cancer to grow
narf.
Fry: Usually on the show, they came up with a complicated plan, then explained it with a simple analogy.
Leela: Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.
Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!
Fry: Of course! It's all so simple!
Photos.
The Miracle Whip Clinic announced a similar breakthrough last year and they did it with much more tang.
It's anti androgen (TFA uses the term "androgen ablation") therapy. Knock out the actions of testosterone since prostate growth (and often prostate cancer growth) is in part testosterone dependent.
These are not the steroids that you are looking for.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This is great news, but I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end. Recently I've read stories about how doctors are reconsidering the need of surgical treatment of prostate cancer in benign cases, due to the bad side effects involved. In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence. It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.
even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer
Every source I've ever seen on this subject says that although ex-smokers have a higher chance of developing lung cancer than do lifelong nonsmokers, they're still less likely to develop lung cancer than are current smokers (of the same age and smoking history, of course.) If you have a citation to the contrary, please give it.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.
The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted.
Our bodies are not static and unchanging. After you quit smoking it's not like your lungs never change from that state. They may never be as healthy as if you had never smoked, but healthy habits will certainly have an affect on your chances of getting lung cancer.
Under the health care plan currently circulating Washington and mentioned on slashdot earlier, a treatment like this still wouldn't be availible to people under the proposed coverage. It only allows standardized accepted treatments. This means that off label applications wouldn't be covered and you couldn't participate in a program like this until such time it becomes a standard treatment.
It sounds like this treatment, if it remains competent, has the potential to be a cheaper treatment then surgery as well as being effective in earlier detections and perhaps other cancers as well.
Regardless of what I like or dislike about the health care plan, exceptions or provisions in any plan need to be in place so normal people can get treatments like this when they become availible- even if they are still experimental and turn out to be a hail marry pass with the hopes of doing something other then the alternative of death.
That's not true.
While it is true that previous smokers will always have (if only slightly) a higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers, the relationship is dose-dependent based upon the additive amount of tobacco exposure over time. So, those who quit smoking (particularly those who quit smoking earlier), are less likely to get lung cancer. In fact, one major study found that those who quit smoking before the age of 30 had a lung cancer risk close to the non-smoker group. Those who quit smoking before the age of 50 had about half the risk of those who didn't.
-Grym
There were 54 patients and only 3 had dramatic response.
They are hoping that by adjusting the dosage that this
will improve.
http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2009/06/19/9659
Ipilimumab failed a prior clinical trial for prostate cancer.
http://pmid.us/17363537
and failed a prior clinical trial for skin cancer. Also its
side effects can include rashes, diarrhea and hepatitis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipilimumab
It would be great if it worked but this is more likely
one of the numerous "breakthroughs" that never
pan out.
Do you stop increasing them?
I haven't looked closely at such a thing, but I don't have the nicotine itch either.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted.
I smoke and I've researched this issue into the ground. Its pretty accurate.
Good, then it's going to be easy to provide some data.
There's a reason why the "smoking benefits" timeline doesn't have a reduced cancer risk on it. It takes too long for lungs to clean themselves after you quit.
I basically know nothing about this but a quick internet search turned up this:
Stopping smoking can reduce your risk A large number of studies have shown that stopping smoking can greatly reduce the risk of smoking-related cancers.2 And the earlier you stop, the better. The last results from the Doctorsâ(TM) Study show that stopping smoking at 50 halved the excess risk of cancer overall, while stopping at 30 avoided almost all of it.10 However, itâ(TM)s never too late to quit. One study found that even people who quit in their sixties can experience health benefits and gain valuable years of life.30 The effects of stopping vary depending on the cancer. For example, ten years after stopping, a personâ(TM)s risk of lung cancer falls to about half that of a smoker.31 And the increased oral and laryngeal cancer risks practically disappear within ten years of stopping.2 But the risks of bladder cancer are still higher than normal 20 years after stopping.20 Cutting down the number of cigarettes you smoke slightly reduces your risk of lung cancer,32 but youâ(TM)ll only experience the full health benefits if you stop altogether. One study found that even smokers who halved the number of cigarettes they smoked had similar risks of dying from heart disease and only slightly lower risks of dying from cancer.33
From http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/ You can actually follow some of the links and the abstracts of the cited studies do say that stopping smoking leads to decreased cancer risk down the line (though usually still higher than non-smokers)
They don't publicize this, because of course, people will get the idea that you may as well keep smoking because you are going to get cancer no matter what you do, which is pretty true, but, they overlook the heart attacks, COPds and other bad things that can happen.
How many men would choose between impotence and a, say, 1/1000 (no idea if that is the actual chance) of dying earlier?
You'd need to have the whole picture before you could make an educated choice.
I lost my father to prostate cancer a couple of years ago. When it got bad he wanted to die at home. We arranged that for him. I was with him during his last day. I watched him die.
I can tell you this. It's a life changing event watching someone die from cancer. Most people happily have no idea what it's like. I know though. Tumors up and down your spine, eyedroppers full of synthetic morphine to deal with the pain...it's absolutely unreal. Honestly.
Believe me, if it came down to it and someone told me today that they'd have to remove everything from my balls to my bellybutton to avoid that fate, I'd go to the table with a smile. I'd happily sit to pee if it meant I could dodge that bullet. Anyone would if they knew what I know.
Oh yeah, on an unrelated note - people who smoke are bat shit insane. They have absolutely no idea what's at the end of a losing roll of the dice.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Hey guys...get your ass checked!
Seriously. Not joking here, if you think that this shit won't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check. Get it young, you're probably going to die. Get it when you're older, probably going to live.
Om, nomnomnom...
The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted.
I smoke and I've researched this issue into the ground. Its pretty accurate.
You were asked to produce a citation and failed to do so; citing your own research doesn't count for squat.
Here's a citation I just pulled from the National Cancer Institute's website:
"Quitting smoking substantially reduces the risk of developing and dying from cancer, and this benefit increases the longer a person remains smoke free. However, even after many years of not smoking, the risk of lung cancer in former smokers remains higher than in people who have never smoked"
Emphasis placed there by me.
So, unless you can produce a contrary citation, I think it's pretty safe to say you're a pathetic troll spreading misinformation.
Actually, our immune system changed a lot once we started living in cities. I don't know how good it is compared to other creatures, but it's improved a lot recently.
I smoke and I've researched this issue into the ground. Its pretty accurate.
No you haven't! This is a classic case of data dredging and selective presentation of data. For starters, amongst smokers with small primary lung cancers, smoking cessation is associated with an almost 3-fold reduction in cancer recurrence.
(annals of internal medicine http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/5/383)
Not only that, but sustained quitters (14.5 years in this study ... data in the pdf and you'll need a subscription to access it... http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/4/233) had a 2.2 fold reduced incidence of lung cancer if they stayed cigarette free for that duration. Granted, that the risk never came back to baseline but its a far cry from declaring that smoking cessation doesn't reduce cancer mortality.
Also, smoking cessation dramatically reduces heart disease and stroke mortality. The number one killer of smokers (surprise, surprise!) is not cancer but in fact heart disease. Heart disease is also the leading cause of death in the US with 1 in 3 people dying of heart trouble. Hence, even if the benefits in terms of cancer reduction are modest, smoking cessation considerably reduces the number of people dying.
Get your facts right!
The treatment of humans was mostly done all at Mayo. I personally work with Dr. Kwon and referred many of my patients for this therapy.
Good god. Could you please propagate any more myths? Lyle Alzado did not die from steroids, first of all.
I was actually kind. Your second sentence is just an outright fabrication, and a laughable one. Checked out of Mexican hospitals for various cancers, huh? Right... Cancer isn't really something you need to worry about with steroids, there are other health complications though.
I am saddened if this treatment is found to be a breakthrough that it has come too late for us who have lost a loved one
Rejoice. For two reasons.
1) Other people will be spared our experience.
2) We're both genetically predisposed to prostate cancer, which means that this cure may help us someday. We might dodge the bullet. As a father myself I know I'd rather get cancer than my son. Easy decision. Maybe our Dads would feel the same way. "At least my son doesn't have to have this."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What? Cancer and flatulence? No, I just read an interesting summary about somehow fighting cancer with gasoline and pilot lights.
I like articles I can understand:
The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach â" a pilot light â" and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.'
So they're burning cancer with gasoline and pilot lights. I'd expect this to get more refined, like maybe they'll use lighter fluid and a zippo?
This is good, because, even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.
Maybe it could mean what you are saying but it certainly wouldn't be my first interpretation.
http://www.uromed.gr/ Prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the United States. Worldwide, prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, with incidence and mortality rates that vary markedly among and within different countries. Since the early 1990s, new screening tests and improved treatments have been associated with dramatic shifts in the incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality of this disease. Major advances in molecular biology and epidemiology have provided new insights into the etiology and biology of prostate cancer. These developments promise to transform our understanding of this disease and will likely lead to new and better ways to prevent and treat prostate cancer in the foreseeable future. Worldwide Prostate cancer is the fourth most common male malignancy worldwide. Incidence and mortality rates vary tremendously among countries, similar to the variations seen among distinct ethnic groups in the United States. Incidence and mortality rates are generally higher in Western countries than in developing countries. Scandinavian countries have a particularly high rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and death compared with southern European countries. Prostate cancer mortality, for example, is twice as high in Norway as in Spain (24 per 100,000 compared with 13 per 100,000) (Landis et al, 1998; 1999). Asian countries, notably Japan and China, have some of the lowest prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the world. Prostate cancer mortality in Japan between 1992 and 1995 was 4 per 100,000 (Landis et al, 1998; 1999). There are multiple complex causes for the worldwide and ethnic variations in prostate cancer incidence. The two major factors are genetics and environment. Epidemiologic studies show that men of African heritage have a high incidence of prostate cancer across the Americas. The prostate cancer incidence in Jamaica, for example, is estimated at 305 per 100,000 (Glover et al, 1998a; 1998b). Although it is possible that this increased incidence can be attributed to shared environmental risks across nations, it is more likely that Africans have a genetic predisposition to developing clinical prostate cancer. This hypothesis is also supported by a report showing that prostate cancer incidence in Nigerian men is similar to that seen in African American men (Osegbe, 1997). The putative genetic causes for this increased susceptibility to prostate cancer are described later in this chapter. Environment also plays an important role in modulating prostate cancer risk around the world. Japanese and Chinese men in the United States have a higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer than do their relatives in Japan and China (Muir et al, 1991; Shimizu et al, 1991). Likewise, prostate cancer incidence and mortality have increased in Japan as the country has become more Westernized (Landis et al, 1998). It is important to note, however, that Asian-American men have a lower prostate cancer incidence than white or African-American men, indicating that genetics still plays an important role in determining prostate cancer predisposition. As in the United States, prostate cancer incidence has increased in many countries since the early 1990s. Although much of this increase, as discussed later, can be correlated with the introduction of widespread PSA testing, some of the increase predates prostate cancer screening. In the southeastern Netherlands, prostate cancer incidence increased from 36 per 100,000 in 1971 to 55 per 100,000 in 1989 (Post et al, 1998; 1999). After PSA was introduced in 1990, incidence increased further to 80 per 100,000. Similar increases were reported in Denmark despite the absence of extensive prostate cancer screening. Incidence increased from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1943 to 30.9 per 100,000 (Brasso et al, 1998; Brasso & Iverson, 1999). These findings suggest that some of the worldwide increase in prostate cancer incidence reflects a true increase in the number of patients with clinical prostate cancer, rather than a simple result of increased detection. http://www.uromed.gr/