Slashdot Mirror


Training an Immune System To Kill Cancer: a Universal Strategy

New submitter Guppy writes "A previous story reported widely in the media, and appearing both on Slashdot and XKCD, described a novel cancer treatment, in which a patient's own T-cells were modified using an HIV-derived vector to recognize and kill leukemia cells. In a follow-up publication (PDF), a further development is described which allows for a nearly unlimited choice of target antigens, broadening the types of malignancies potentially treatable with the technique (abstract)."

27 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Mad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it works, biatches.

    1. Re:Mad science by Anrego · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All joking aside, even if it actually worked like that... with modern AIDS treatment that might actually be preferable to cancer, especially some of the nastier varieties of leukemia.

  2. Not convinced... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not convinced.

    What if this turns man into a race of zombies? We can't count on Will Smith always being around to save us.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Not convinced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sigh. Slashdot puts up a cutting-edge medical story and OMG ZOMBIES comments come up.

    2. Re:Not convinced... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      The United State's CDC takes Zombie Apocalypse seriously. I'm just heeding the warning that my government is giving me. It's part of being a responsible citizen.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Not convinced... by ae1294 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Service guaranties citizenship. Would you like to know more?

    4. Re:Not convinced... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd rather count on Milla Jovovich.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:Not convinced... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd rather do something else on Milla Jovovich. But whatever gets you math freaks off, I suppose.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Not convinced... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      then we will finally have a world where Brains are a valued resource.b

      Boo-YAH!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Not convinced... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have small children that have been in daycare and public school for seven years. I've been exposed to every cold, flu, and communicable disease going around.

      I bike to work. Road spray.

      I dive in the ocean. Our sewage treatment is screening + dilution.

      I work out at the Y.

      I get exposed to so many germs and bugs that I get sick less often than the veterans here who got the military-grade boosters.

      My estimation is that I'll be bitten on day four but it won't take.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  3. Wow by JasoninKS · · Score: 3

    Simply incredible stuff. Kudos to these scientists!! We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

  4. Hurrah for science! by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone that has any kind of issue with this, please pack your things and get out of the civilised world. You don't deserve to live past 30 in a heated home with running water, electrical appliances and the ability to communicate with someone more than 20 feet away.

    Science, people - it's the shizzle.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:Hurrah for science! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remaining issues are

      Hasn't yet been show statistically effective to treat cancer in humans
      Hasn't yet been shown safe in humans
      Requires use of a potentially unsafe HIV variant that could mutate back to a virulent strain. Extreme care would be required to ensure that the modified virus can be contained.

    2. Re:Hurrah for science! by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Informative

      First point: doctors are not scientists. Not remotely. Some doctors happen to be scientists. But this is a separate career, and they frequently are unprepared for it. This is the subject of a separate debate.

      Second point: this is of course unrelated to the fact that scientists are mostly atheists. Even in the US. It is irrelevant that there are theists doctors and theists scientists: there is variation in any population. It just happens that when you say that, you obscure the greater truth that overwhelming odds are they don't believe in gods. source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

    3. Re:Hurrah for science! by Tsingi · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are apparently almost completely ignorant about Christianity.

      You're probably right. I've read the bible.

    4. Re:Hurrah for science! by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're probably right. I've read the bible.

      Contrary to what protestants in general, and American ones in particular, want to believe, this isn't usually enough by any means. You see, any major literary author or work, such as Shakespeare, requires a ton of research to be properly understood, so much so you have entire academic departments dedicated to properly analyzing them. Sure, you can just take a "complete works of [author name]", read it once cover to cover, and think you understood it, but it's almost certain you didn't. Now, given major religious texts are way more complicated than "simple" literary works, the complexity expands geometrically. This is the reason why older branches of those religions usually recommend you don't directly read said texts without at least some previous preparation. It's better to first read some introductory ones to get an overall idea on the techniques used to approached the major work as well as the proper contexts, and only then dwell into it.

      Please note this way to deal with such works is valid independently of whether you actually believe or not on its attached religion. Academic comparative religious studies are usually as much atheistic as everything else in academy nowadays, and yet they follow proper study patterns when dealing with such works. This is so because otherwise the results at which you'll arrive will be quite random to say the least, and overly colored by your own cultural background, always a poor way to go about analyzing anything located outside it.

      By the way, please also note, for whatever it's worth, that I'm not a Christian, so this isn't preaching.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  5. Pneumonia Wins Again by BoRegardless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If we can commercialize the treatment AT LOW COST, it will bring about a major new medical treatment industry, and it will allow millions of people to remain productive. That is the good part.

    Hopefully it doesn't make the various worldwide retirement systems go bankrupt (though some will anyway because citizens allow governments to erect Ponzi schemes).

    With fewer cancer deaths Pneumonia will take the lives of even more people, not that we will be able to do anything about that.

    In other words, we are still guaranteed to die of something.

    1. Re:Pneumonia Wins Again by Defenestrar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cardiopulmonary will still top the list (including your pneumonia), accidents will probably move from third to second (If you count strokes in the first category by including the vascular system). It's tough to decide if people surviving cancer will be taken out by the ticker or a bug in the lungs. A reasonable assumption will be an even distribution among remaining causes.

      Heart disease: 599,413

      Cancer: 567,628

      Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353

      Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842

      Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021

      Alzheimer's disease: 79,003

      Diabetes: 68,705

      Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692

      Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935

      Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

      Data from the CDC

  6. Or in other words... by tchernobog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So (study of) HIV may make curing cancer possible.

    If it were to work, thanks to HIV for existing? If an incurable, but avoidable, illness is useful for curing an incurable, unpredictable, unavoidable and much more common one, wow!

    --
    42.
  7. Re:Mutation? by biodata · · Score: 3, Funny

    They heard you liked cancer so...

    --
    Korma: Good
  8. I'll take HIV over terminal cancer any day by sirwired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If somebody said: "SirWired, we can cure your otherwise-hopeless terminal cancer, but at the cost of being infected with HIV", I'd take the HIV any day of the week. Treatments for advanced cancer are often considered breakthroughs if they extend life by a few months. HIV, on the other hand, is getting very close to being a chronic long-term condition not much more serious than Type-I diabetes. (As in, if you have the treatments available and use them, you'll live a pretty normal, albeit likely shorter, life.)

  9. As opposed to "safe" cancer? by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Requires use of a potentially unsafe HIV variant that could mutate back to a virulent strain. Extreme care would be required to ensure that the modified virus can be contained."

    Given that virulent cancer is far more dangerous than even the nastiest strains of HIV, the HIV would be pretty much always preferable. As long as they start with a strain that is easily controlled via existing drugs, I'd say we'll be fine. Heck, maybe they can dig some out of the vault that even AZT can control long-term.

    Being afraid of this treatment because it starts with HIV makes little sense. Yes, more precautions need to be taken than working with, say, E.Coli, but frankly a syringe full of HIV isn't any more dangerous than some of the drugs we use as cancer treatments. (Some chemo formulations are downright scary...)

  10. Why to involve T-cells? There are better ways... by Zdzicho00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dr Zheng Cui (Wake Forest University of Medicine in North Carolina) discovered that human innate immune system is very effective at killing a wide range of cancer cells. About 15-40% of human population is naturally cancer resistant. Granulocytes kill 97% of injected cancer cells within 24 hours.
    The most important discovery is that such cancer resistance can be transferred via simple blood transfusion. Here are some articles:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7003019.stm
    http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/12/granulocyte-infusion-therapy-spreading-into-clinics-beyond-the-us.php

    Few human patient clinical trials are in progress right now:
    http://www.bmscti.org/cancerpatients.htm
    http://liftcancertreatmenttrial.com/scientific-background/previous-studies-in-humans
    http://www.novacellsinstitute.com/

    And there are some exciting news about patients with 'cancer in full remission':
    http://www.novacellsinstitute.com/articles/Beating%20Cancer%20-%20New%20Form%20of%20Immune%20Therapy%20is%20Working%20-%20for%20NOVA%20CELLS%20website.pdf

  11. Re:Good news by jonadab · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > Smoking takes about 50 years to give you cancer

    On average, maybe, but the standard deviation is rather high, which makes the probabilities you discuss difficult to calculate with (any meaningful precision and) much accuracy.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  12. Medicine often rejects real science. by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    William Coley, the father of immunology, cured fully metastasized cancers in the early 1900s. Look it up - Dr. William Bradford Coley. We had a cancer cure, and this article is about a similar potential cure. Coley mixed up highly individualized brews of dangerous disease organisms and shot them into cancer tumors, and trained the patient's immune system to recognize cancer cells as something to be destroyed. You want to know why we outlawed Coley's system and are just now rediscovering it?

    Because nuke shills. That's why. Nuke shills, like the fission-obsessed irrational numptys who reauthorized Price-Anderson and are unwilling to fund LENR or clean fusion research. Science is no match for politics and propaganda - if it was, we'd have progressed past fossil fuels and corporate nuclear fission decades ago.

    1. Re:Medicine often rejects real science. by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like how vocal you are, but completely bereft of an actual point except being anti-nuke.

      You want to know why we outlawed Coley's system and are just now rediscovering it?

      Outlawed? I don't see that in anything you've cited. If you mean, rather, that it isn't FDA approved, I think you need to blame Coley himself.

      Although Coley claimed successful treatment of hundreds of patients, the absence of proven benefit or reproducibility

      A lack of reproducibility is FATAL to a scientific claim and any sort of study. You might as well claim you saw a unicorn in the forest.

      Coley's studies were not well controlled and factors such as length of treatment and fever level were not adequately documented. Many of his patients had also received radiation and sometimes surgery.

      Unless you're going to now claim the article has been surreptitiously changed by "nuke shills" to discredit him. Chances are he was on to something, but failed to appropriately document it in a way that was useful. Then, unsurprisingly, an effective solution came along and overshadowed his work.

      But you didn't post this to highlight his work. You came to scream OOGA BOOGA NUKULAR.

  13. You do know... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You do know that they are not actually infecting people with HIV, right? Instead, they're extracting T-cells from a human, then reprogramming them with a modified strain of HIV, letting them replicate, and then inserting the T-cells back into the body.

    Granted, there are different problems for each type of vector that is used for modifying cells...but the whole HIV thing is pretty much overblown, from what I have read.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };: