Drug Turns Immune System Against All Tumor Types

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drug Turns Immune System Against All Tumor Types

Posted by Unknown on Monday March 26, 2012 @07:11PM from the confused-mice-with-foot-tumors dept.

sciencehabit writes, quoting an article in Science: "A single drug can shrink or cure human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice, researchers have found. The treatment, an antibody that blocks a 'do not eat' signal normally displayed on tumor cells, coaxes the immune system to destroy the cancer cells." The abstract and full paper are freely available. It seems fairly promising: "In mice given human bladder cancer tumors, for example, 10 of 10 untreated mice had cancer that spread to their lymph nodes. Only one of 10 mice treated with anti-CD47 had a lymph node with signs of cancer. Moreover, the implanted tumor often got smaller after treatment — colon cancers transplanted into the mice shrank to less than one-third of their original size, on average. And in five mice with breast cancer tumors, anti-CD47 eliminated all signs of the cancer cells, and the animals remained cancer-free 4 months after the treatment stopped."

26 of 330 comments (clear)

It worked even better by phantomfive · 2012-03-26 19:17 · Score: 5, Funny

It worked even better in mice that didn't get cancer transplants!

I kid, I kid.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

What about non-tumor cells, which also display this cell determinant?
1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure, but in the cases where it works you eventually come away neither dead nor wishing you were dead. So your options are
  A. Take the drugs, wish you were dead, then get better, then feel fine
  B. Don't take the drugs. Be actually dead.
  I used to stagger home through the woods after each round of chemo, not quite wishing I was dead, but certainly feeling very sorry for myself, and then in a week's time I'd go do the same thing again. But it worked, so instead of being dead and buried back when Slashdot members with six digit user IDs didn't exist yet I'm still here and feeling fine. Slight elevated risk of solid tumours in old age, and no chance I'll win any records for free diving with what the radiotherapy did to my lungs after we finished chemo, but I'll probably outlive those of my peers who are smoking.
2. Re:But... by Chatsubo · 2012-03-26 20:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The way I understand it, is that our immune system usually waxes cells that have gone rogue, and we get 'cancer' all the time except those cells get killed quickly by our immune system.
  However 'true' cancer has a mutation that prevents this from happening and this drug turns that mechanism on again, so things can work as usual.
  In other words: normal cells should carry on as before.
  (If I understand this correctly, IANAD)
  
  --
  > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your post was possibly the post important message an AC has ever shared with this website. Thanks.
  Indeed. If it has just finished "P.S. first post", it would have been perfect.
4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The authors share your concern. From the paper:
  
  A concern in translating this therapy to human application is the potential for toxicity. CD47 is highly expressed on tumor cells, but also at varying levels on normal (nontumor) cells. However, here we demonstrate that blockade of CD47 in immune competent mice produces an effective antitumor response without unacceptable toxicity, albeit with a temporary anemia.
5. Re:But... by bestalexguy · 2012-03-26 20:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What about non-tumor cells, which also display this cell determinant?
  They will die. But, from TFA: "CD47 is overexpressed on cancer cells". Cancer treatment is about destroying much more cancer cells than healthy ones.
6. Re:But... by priceslasher · 2012-03-26 22:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Already happened, it was called "I am Legend" (the movie). Will Smith saved us but I think the zombies got him in the end.
7. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 22:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There was an AC posting a few days ago in the thread about "steering wheel position" who had lost his wife and young son as a result of a malfunctioning airbag sensor. That's not to take anything away from the insight of AC above, though.
  Just to point out that ACs have a bad rep on slashdot that is increasingly outdated. I personally refused to sign up with /. at 5 digits because I thought I would waste more time here if I had an account. Since then privacy concerns have heightened massively. Anonymity has become something that can actually be praiseworthy.
  While the standard of posts has gone down massively on slashdot in the last 15 years, far more ACs are getted modded into visibility than before. Maybe some ACs are victims of the "slashdot edit wars", or semi-famous nicks that want to make their point in a neutral way, or prolific posters who got fed up of stalkers. ACs don't mind getting routinely bashed on slashdot - but the automatic hatred of ACs seems more dogmatic than based on any recent evidence.
8. Re:But... by andot · 2012-03-26 22:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I understand you. And I agree with you. I got 10 chemos and stem cell transplant 5 years ago. Yes, it was living hell. But seeing my kids grow up now makes it 1000 times worth it.
9. Re:But... by neokushan · 2012-03-27 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Agreed. I come to slashdot for the discussions, not the articles which I tend to find on other sites before /. posts them. The discussions are brilliant here, even amongst the trolls and idiots.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
10. Re:But... by nahdude812 · 2012-03-27 01:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's the nature of drug testing. You test it out in several animals of varying levels of similarity to humans before you start testing in humans. Mice are a common starting point because they're inexpensive and small, and you can run trials with thousands of mice. Also, mice sort of self-destruct if things start going badly in them, they are fairly fragile. So they make good canaries because when things are going badly, the signs are not often subtle.
  Plenty of compounds show promising results in mice that prove to have reduced results in later trials with more complex animals or in humans, or show side effects only later in the drug study regime. Conversely it's almost certain that there are compounds out there which would provide amazing results in humans, but which failed early stage drug studies in animals. It's just not a great idea to be testing drugs for the first time in humans without some idea as to what the outcome would be; the fatality rate in animals is pretty high, and you can purposely infect them to treat for a specific disease. There are drugs that even with this prep work still fail in clinical (human) trials, either because of efficacy problems or because of unexpected or more-severe side effects, or some combination (if it's effective but with bad side effects in animals, then not very effective and with horrible side effects in humans, it will be rejected).
  The study in this article is the very earliest stage. Usually they do tiny studies like this as the very first trial. Many, many drugs produce interesting results at this stage, and fail the very next set of studies (statistically large populations, which 10 mice is not, even with extremely promising results such as this). The chances of such a drug making it to clinical trials is vanishingly small, almost all compounds fail, only a few ever make it.
  
  --
  Slay a dragon... over lunch!
11. Re:But... by blue+trane · 2012-03-27 01:38 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Your lack of empathy for these fellow-mortals is contemptible, my dear sir. Please repair your relation to Nature's social union.
  To a Mouse
  Wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie,
  O, what panic's in thy breastie!
  Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
  Wi' bickering brattle!
  I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
  Wi' murd'ring pattle!
  I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
  Has broken Nature's social union,
  An' justifies that ill opinion,
  Which makes thee startle,
  At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
  An' fellow-mortal!
  I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;
  What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
  A daimen-icker in a thrave 'S a sma' request:
  I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
  An' never miss't!
  Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
  It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
  An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
  O' foggage green!
  An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
  Baith snell an' keen!
  Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
  An' weary Winter comin fast,
  An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
  Thou thought to dwell,
  Till crash! the cruel coulter past
  Out thro' thy cell.
  That wee-bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
  Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
  Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble,
  But house or hald.
  To thole the Winter's sleety dribble,
  An' cranreuch cauld!
  But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
  In proving foresight may be vain:
  The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
  Gang aft agley,
  An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
  For promis'd joy!
  Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
  The present only toucheth thee:
  But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
  On prospects drear!
  An' forward, tho' I canna see,
  I guess an' fear!
Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by rally2xs · 2012-03-26 19:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

This "The doctors are evil conspirators" crap really, really gets old...
Re:Mouse != Human by zanian · 2012-03-26 19:30 · Score: 5, Informative

While, you have a point

that mice and humans are different enough that most cures don't translate 1:1 to humans.

at least it has been tested on

human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice

, rather than just on mice anatomy.
Re:So a general cure for most cancers is found... by Nursie · 2012-03-26 19:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Or perhaps they don't want to commit to a cure for human cancers when they've just found a prelminary positive result in an animal model?
That couldn't be it, possibly?
No, must be a conspiracy. *facepalm*
Optimisim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 19:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not sure why some people are so sure "big pharma" are disinterested in curing many diseases/conditions. After all, if you can sell a cure for cancer, you just landed in a bucket of money.
Beyond that, the need for a cure is overwhelming. Even corporate greed will often take a backseat because this issue affects us all. If it was a condition associated with a specific population, or with the poor etc then I'm sure the interest would be much less humanitarian.
Every day we get closer to a cure, every piece of research, even if it's only effective on mice takes us when step closer. I for one, appreciate every effort made in this regard.
I do not have cancer and no one close to me has it either. Perhaps just a matter of time.
1. Re:Optimisim by RivenAleem · 2012-03-26 20:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You cannot eradicate cancer, like you would a virus (smallpox). Cancer is an inherent flaw in the design of the human body (living past it's intended lifetime, not dying to wild animals) and we will have to put up with it for a very long time (until our understanding of medicine reaches a point where we can manipulate our genes to prevent cancer ever occurring in the first place).
  If you have a cure for cancer, you will market it immediately, and make a whole lot of money. We will not reach a medical level to eradicate cancer in the patent lifetime of such a drug.
  Believe it or not, there are still some people in big Pharma who are in it for the patients, not the money. And even if cancer was gone tomorrow, there would still be many many other things for big pharma to make money on, if that was all they are interested in.
  Disclaimer: I work in big Pharma, and I see every day, people working hard for patients, not for the money.
2. Re:Optimisim by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-27 01:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  Let's see, we have two choices:
  
  Sell an expensive treatment, patient dies a few months later.
  
  Sell a cure, patient lives for 20-30 more years, suffers from a large number of minor ailments and a few major ones, keeps earning money for 20-30 years and spending some proportion of it on drugs, becomes a long-term revenue stream.
  
  Which one will the evil profit-driven capitalists pick? In fact, there's a third option:
  
  Competitor sells a cure, we don't make any money from selling the treatment.
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Won't happen by azalin · 2012-03-26 19:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

It won't fly, as antibodies are cheap and not complicated to do. Seriously, do you really believe Big Pharma is going to let it happen ? A treatment simple like this would jeopardize their business, risking billions of dollar. They'll do something to stop this treatment in its tracks. They always do. Sound paranoid ? I wish. It's more like realistic. Their purpose is not really to cure cancer, but getting a maximum profit from it.
I call bullshit. First of all you don't risk anything by finding such a "simple cure". There are a lot of people and a lot of them will get cancer at one time so there is a very large customer base and no shortage thereof in the long term. For the length of the patent you could sell this stuff at almost any price. Do you really think one company would keep an invention locked up (and risk loosing it to someone else) that would bring them truckloads of money?
Not to mention all the free PR you'd get.
Also I don't really believe in conspiracies that rely on large groups of people to keep quiet, make no mistakes and act against their own private interests.
Re:Mouse != Human by reboot246 · 2012-03-26 20:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Then let's test it on lawyers! They're almost human,
Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, but what if it doesn't kill them?
Re:Mouse != Human by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 20:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Then it's not a cure for cancer.
Re:How long it will take to turn it into medicamen by jimicus · 2012-03-26 20:59 · Score: 5, Informative
I'm no expert in these things, but AFAIK the process goes something like this:
1. Test your idea in a petri dish. If it works, continue.
2. Test your idea in an animal. If it works, continue.
3. Test your idea in another type of animal. If it works, continue.
4. Test your idea in a small handful of healthy humans at very small doses. If it doesn't cause them any harm, continue.
5. Test your idea in a larger number of healthy humans at slightly higher doses. If it doesn't cause them any harm, continue.
6. Test your idea in a handful of sick humans. If it works better than existing treatments, continue. (This is going to be awkward. Ethical clearance is an important part of any medical testing; there's little chance of getting ethical clearance of using this in place of existing treatments for cancer patients because if it doesn't work, you've delayed them treatment that could have worked. You could possibly use it in conjunction with, or in patients for whom existing treatments haven't worked, but then there's the question of is the treatment more/less effective when the cancer's progressed that far? Or if it's given in conjunction with existing treatments? Sure you can devise tests to deal with these issues, but they won't be as simple as "administer drug, keep a list of who's had it and what the results were".)
7. Test your idea in a large number of sick humans. If it works better than existing treatments, continue.
8. Release your treatment into the market.
Each of these steps can take months. Some of it's political and administrative wrangling, some of it's just that the test itself will take some time before you can be sure of the results. A drug can fail at any one of these stages and it's back to the drawing board (or maybe the test tube).
The whole process takes years. Yet newspapers often start reporting about "miracle cure" drugs that have only just completed the first round of live animal trials. Which is why you hear about all sorts of miracle cures that never see the light of day.
Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 21:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Expressed in other terms:
How may drug company execs will let their children, their spouses, or their friends die of cancer for better shareholder returns? Not all of them. It only takes one whistle blower, or potential whistle blower, to louse up plans like this.
One drug company supposedly had a drug for an inherited, fatal condition, but was going to can development of it, as there probably wasn't enough profit. A board member, who had a friend who's child had that condition basically said, "if you can this drug, I'm going to the press with it." Fearing the backlash, the company introduced the drug and now boasts about how good they are to bring drugs for smaller markets to market.
Re:Mouse != Human by CubicleView · 2012-03-26 22:37 · Score: 5, Funny

I have a theory that with enough research we’ll eventually be able cure any disease that mice are afflicted with.