Slashdot Mirror


Altered Immune Cells Help Girl Beat Leukemia

An anonymous reader writes "For decades, one of cancer's most powerful weapons has been to corrupt the human immune system. Finally, researchers in Philadelphia have developed a way to turn that weapon against certain cancers, and potentially open the door to a whole new generation of therapies for all manner of cancers. From the article: 'It is hard to believe, but last spring Emma, then 6, was near death from leukemia. She had relapsed twice after chemotherapy, and doctors had run out of options. Desperate to save her, her parents sought an experimental treatment at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, one that had never before been tried in a child, or in anyone with the type of leukemia Emma had. The experiment, in April, used a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS to reprogram Emma’s immune system genetically to kill cancer cells.'"

130 comments

  1. Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Art+Popp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really; it sounds wonderful, but if Murphy and Pandora had a child, his/her favorite toy would be using lethal viruses to help us combat lethal cancers.

    Using nuclear weapons to plug oil gushers, using attack polar bears to guard your bunny farm, using a scalpel to pick your nose... these ideas will go right some of the time too.

    A link with more detail:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-cancer-the-cure-thats-waiting-in-the-coldc.html

    1. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by RearNakedChoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.

    2. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      The problem is... our immune systems are a lot better equipped to deal with viruses than with cancer. Think about it, to kill cancer, your symptoms are similar to a cold. If this takes off, remember all those years they spent trying to treat it with drugs? They've made some progress, but it's relatively insignificant in comparison to a cure. Your body's body is it's best friend :)

    3. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      using lethal viruses to help us combat lethal cancers.

      Big deal. Lots of things useful things are lethal. Hell, I was injected with a disabled lethal virus a couple weeks ago. Just in time to keep me from being part of this year's flu season. Pretty much every cancer treatment kills things. That's how they work. The goal is to kill the cancer without killing too much of the person with it.

    4. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by TWX · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it takes a fair amount of effort or some very specific actions to transmit HIV, and while this may well cause problems for this girl's life post-adolescence, she'll live to reach it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new disabled HIV overlords...

    6. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's how I always describe chemotherapy to the layman. It's taking just enough poison and hoping that the cancer dies first.

    7. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At last, someone with a practical solution to bunny farm security! I am deeply interested in attack polar bears; also, sharks with lasers (still).

      .. but you're totally right about Murphy/Pandora; well put. Cheers.

    8. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except with this, the "lethal" part isn't lethal to anything anymore, except cancer cells. Chemo is still just being injected with poison and crossing your fingers.

    9. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your link isn't the same research as what the article is talking about though.

      The article is about removing a patient's stem cells, using neutered HIV to deliver a payload to them that changes the immune system at a genetic level and then reintroducing the stem cells into the patient. The patient's immune system would then be equipped to kill the cancer. Your link discusses infecting patients with a virus that targets cancer cells preferentially, killing a cancer while at the same time giving the patient only mild symptoms.

      On the one had, the article is talking about real, honest to goodness genetic engineering of a living human being which is, quite frankly, science fiction levels of amazing. But it almost universally causes a cytokinetic swarm in the patient as the immune system suddenly knows how to fight massive amounts of what it suddenly sees as infected tissue (actually tumors). The HIV is disabled the same way other viruses are disabled to create vaccines, and even if the patient got HIV somehow that would in fact still be preferable than dying immediately from cancer.

      On the other, your article would indicate a cure that would be essentially zero cost to produce. The side affects are minimal but, and this is the proverbial "but" that is probably killing all research on the topic, you also have a virus that is capable of killing the vast majority of one tissue type (tumor) inside the human body. And that is quite frankly terrifying. Until you can quantify how likely or unlikely the virus is to target a different tissue type and how likely is it that the virus is communicable (or could mutate to become so) you won't be trying it out on anyone.

    10. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by jamesh · · Score: 2

      A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.

      I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A virus is almost pure software.

    11. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Nyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.

      In other words, viruses don't kill people, people kill people.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that... our immune system, when functioning optimally and perfectly, kills off cancer before it even starts to become a problem. That's usually not the same for most viruses until you've built up an immunity to it. Pretty much everyone has both cancer and a virus at some time in their life. All those people who "never had cancer" and are 80+ years old have probably had cancer cells develop in their body, but their immune system destroyed them before they became anything to talk about. Realistically, the immune system is pretty much equally equipped to deal with both.

    13. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by RearNakedChoke · · Score: 1

      A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.

      I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A virus is almost pure software.

      A virus is pure intangible idea/algorithm/concept/instruction? Granted its been a few years since I took biology, but I'm pretty sure all viruses have some sort of outer layer/covering, with their "software" encoded using RNA inside. That's pretty cut and dry hardware and software to me...

    14. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it's HIV reprogrammed, so it's not even like it would be a problem, she might just have sexually transmitted cancer cures or something. :P

    15. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by kwyjibo87 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "[using] a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS"

      While true, this is a poor way to describe a lentiviral vector, meant to invoke the idea of using HIV to kill cancer in the minds of readers not familiar with modern molecular biology. HIV is a type of virus called a lentivirus, which itself is a type of retrovirus, which means that it takes the RNA genetic code it has packaged in the virion, chemically transforms it into DNA, and integrates this DNA into the DNA of the infected cell. Lentiviral vectors are designed such that they do this part of the viral life cycle, but are engineered to lack the genes necessary to make more viruses, so the integrated virus is dead on arrival.

      In this case, the researchers kept the normal HIV surface receptors so the virus would efficiently target and "infect" T-cells from the patient; normally, lentiviruses are given a generic non-HIV receptor so they can infect any cell type you might be using in your lab experiments. The lentivirus genome contained not the normal viral genes, but a chimeric T-cell receptor designed to stimulate an immune response against CD-19, a surface protein specific to B-cells. Once this chimeric gene is integrated, the T-cells will express it on their cell surface, and stimulate the immune system to target and destroy cells that have CD-19 on them; this kills all the B-cells in the body, both healthy and cancerous. This last point is a problem brought up by TFA, that the patient now essentially has a limited auto-immune disorder as the altered T-cells persist in her body and continue to point them immune system to targeting B-cells, leaving her partially immuno-compromised (which is the funny part about using the "virus that causes AIDS" to do this).

    16. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Tmann72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just that, but the Virus's physical form is simply a payload mechanism to inject the virus genetic code into healthy cells. The healthy cell that was infected now becomes a virus factory creating tons of new virus cells until it explodes releasing them into your system. There is a very cut and dry hardware to software paradigm here. If we consider that a virus is nothing but a genetic delivery mechanism it instantly becomes the greatest tool humanity has for this type of work. Nothing we can currently create would be even a fraction as effective.

    17. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Tmann72 · · Score: 1

      By that logic human bodies are entirely software as well, but that obviously isn't correct. Our DNA was used to create our entire body inside of our mothers similar to how the RNA in a virus is used to turn a cell into a virus factory. The maturation chamber and injection mechanisms differ, but the RNA, and DNA in both instances completely describes the physical form to be created. However, once formed there is a very distinct permanency to the physical body that makes it hardware and not software. It contains senses, and mechanisms in order to interact with the world directly. In other words very distinctly hardware and not at all software.

    18. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think as a last desperate attempt it makes sense. If the patient is dying then why not try it? Worst case? They die anyway.

    19. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Holy crap. Imagine if they could make sexually-transmitted cancer cures?

      Unfortunately, the population of slashdot will STILL be decimated by cancer. But the rest of the world would have a field day!!

    20. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      At stage 0 you're right, but while we can become fully infected with the flu and still live, not so with cancer, once it gets past a certain point, the immune system can't do much, that's because there's no cancer antibodys, so there's really no tool to fight it if it develops into anything. I don't think we know enough about all the various ways cancer develops to truly understand the early stages however.

    21. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wikipedia's Cancer Immunology article discusses this, going as far as how exactly the immune system goes about dealing with development of cancer cells in the body. It's actually a very interesting read, as Wikipedia puts it in relatively simple terms, if you're not familiar with it at all.

      I am not sure if the goal of this altered immune cells therapy is to activate this process further or equip the immune system to deal with cancer in a whole new way, though. I would imagine it strengthens this existing response, but I'm no expert on it.

    22. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really; it sounds wonderful, but if Murphy and Pandora had a child, his/her favorite toy would be using lethal viruses to help us combat lethal cancers.

      Using nuclear weapons to plug oil gushers, using attack polar bears to guard your bunny farm, using a scalpel to pick your nose... these ideas will go right some of the time too.

      A link with more detail:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-cancer-the-cure-thats-waiting-in-the-coldc.html

      You'd rather watch your 6-year-old child die before your eyes?

      I'm glad you're not my parent.

    23. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by epp_b · · Score: 1

      Huh, I didn't detect even a hint of sarcasm there. It's like you're unaware that chemotherapy is actually poison pumped directly into the bloodstream.

    24. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely, but mostly, correct. More correctly, they are shell + nucleic acid core. But it is not necessarily RNA. Some have a DNA core(some double, some single strand), others have have an RNA core. Outer coatings are proteins, with an optional outer lipid layer.

    25. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by EuNao · · Score: 1

      It would be amazing if they could change this technology so that it was activated by the presence of some environmental activation molecule (maybe a not so common antibotic would be a good choice.) This technique has great promise, if we could only turn it off and on at will. Perhaps the cytokine storm could be alleviated if you could somehow ramp the response up by concentration of the drug, instead of the current 'nuclear' level immune response.

      Very f'ing awesome stuff, as a kid I toyed with the idea of engineering a neutered HIV virus with a payload of a gene with some sort of protein that could block reverse transcriptase. (I was into Genetic engineering then, ended up being a software developer.) Its awesome to see this sort of technology coming to fruition. I have an auto immune disease called Ankylosing Spondylitis, I can totally seeing this sort of technique working for that eventually as well.

      --
      Jeff | MemVance - Memory Advanced | View my blog on memory and study techniques
    26. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Holy crap. Imagine if they could make sexually-transmitted cancer cures?

      Unfortunately, the population of slashdot will STILL be decimated by cancer. But the rest of the world would have a field day!!

      Your cliche is out of date.

      We're now all getting separated or divorced.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    27. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      She's not getting AIDS. It's a disabled virus. Read the damn summary.

      Identical to the flu shot, just a different payload.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    28. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's knowing cancer dies first. It's more worn out by multiplying so fast. You're hoping you get it all.

    29. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's more than a little misleading. The drugs used in chemotherapy are chosen because they preferentially kill fast-growing tissue first, such as hair, the intestinal endothelium (lining), and tumour cells. It's not as simple as taking some arbitrary, nondescript "poison" under the assumption that the cancerous tissue is poorly equipped to handle all toxins; specific mechanisms are chosen to limit the impact that the drugs have on the rest of the body.

      The GP also made a bad comparison since, as the AC also said, inactivated viruses in this form have no replicative ability whatsoever. They're just gene syringes. These same misconceptions arose the last time we discussed retroviral leukaemia treatments.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    30. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      No, the key component of what makes AIDS harmful is a product of its habit of reproducing once it is inside of the cell. The two aspects cannot be separated. If the girl suffers from any long-term side-effects, it will be a reduced susceptibility to HIV, because her immune system is getting a chance to see the HIV coating layer without any payload. (Very much like a weak vaccine.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    31. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...that is, other than having a significant portion of her immune system amputated.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    32. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The DNA/RNA that a lethal virus injects into cells kills people. That DNA/RNA doesn't need to be lethal, though, for it to be a virus. It will reprogram the cell, in this case to help the person.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    33. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      That definition is misleading. In general medical usage, 'virus' actually describes a collection of several different aspects: the software, hardware, and the behaviour of the software when run. The term 'virus particle' or 'virion' is closer to what you intend, although due to synecdoche the summary is not mistaken when it uses the term "reprogrammed virus" to refer to engineered viral particles.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    34. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think this research is amazing and also really dangerous!

      Okay, so let's make a "virus" that reprograms our T-cells to destroy our B-cells. Kills the leukemia, no more cancer of the blood. Sounds great?
      Only problem is you have to get B cell infusions now from other healthy humans because you need B cells for your immune system to work. Not a problem so long as there are donors with healthy B cells.

      So how long before this modified "HIV" virus escapes the little girl (virii have a way of finding novel ways of doing unexpected things) and spreads to others?

    35. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Art+Popp · · Score: 1

      Thank you MozeeToby. I thought the difference in these solutions was more confined to the delivery mechanism, but they appear to be more distinct. Yes, it's the "selective tissue killer virus" version that seems far more problem-ready to me too.

      If the only place the T-cells get modified is in a test tube, and the only modified T-cells the patient gets are from the doctor, and the patients are not the test-tube in which this combining takes place.... Then I find it much less forboding.

    36. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Pav · · Score: 1

      Thanks for a clear explanation which helped me understand both the mechanism and side effects of chemotherapy and their relationship. Somehow years of medical and science articles failed to do this for me.

    37. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I said explaining to the layman. They don't care about those details anyway. Certainly they're not going to just grab some rat poison and self-treat based on what I say. It gets to the point and there's few enough details that they can follow the thought process.

    38. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Nyder · · Score: 1

      The DNA/RNA that a lethal virus injects into cells kills people. That DNA/RNA doesn't need to be lethal, though, for it to be a virus. It will reprogram the cell, in this case to help the person.

      I was just making a joke.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    39. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      So how long before this modified "HIV" virus escapes the little girl (virii have a way of finding novel ways of doing unexpected things) and spreads to others?

      hmm... I'd guess the next time someone does a T-Cell extraction?

      You do realize that there's no HIV "virus" in her bloodstream, but that they're using the retrovirus to reprogram the T-Cells to fight cancer in the lab and then re-injecting her modified T-cells, right?

    40. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make these virus non-replicating what they do is remove the gene's within the virus genome for encoding the coat proteins. Basically the virus can infect a cell and deliver the target DNA, BUT it cannot replicate.

    41. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem of course is when it inserts it's DNA into the wrong place in the human genome and causes more (perhaps worse) problems.

    42. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once this chimeric gene is integrated, the T-cells will express it on their cell surface, and stimulate the immune system to target and destroy cells that have CD-19 on them; this kills all the B-cells in the body, both healthy and cancerous. This last point is a problem brought up by TFA, that the patient now essentially has a limited auto-immune disorder as the altered T-cells persist in her body and continue to point them immune system to targeting B-cells, leaving her partially immuno-compromised (which is the funny part about using the "virus that causes AIDS" to do this).

      So you might almost think about this like amputation: Leaves you without an important body part, but better than the alternative.

    43. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You under estimate the ability of American, high function idiots. We have numerous people in high places that could do things as stupid as swallowing rat poison to cure cancer. Matter of fact they are right. A big dose of rat poison will certainly kill cancer. Using that logic if we elected a right winger to the presidency that could cure all social issues as it would cause so much horror and death there would be no society left behind at all just as rat poison will leave no living cancer cells in a corpse.

    44. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you people take these stupid, nerd arguments way too far here. Get a life.

    45. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

      Well, its at that point where we send them to Xavier's School for Gifted and hope for the best :)

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    46. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment of, "if the patient got HIV somehow that would in fact be preferable than dying immediately from cancer." is misleading. This would suggest that the patient, would then die of HIV/AIDS. With modern therapies HIV patients are living normal human lifespans, and dying of other age-related diseases. This drugs are expensive and come with side-effectcs, but I don't believe you should be an ass and perpetuate the myth that HIV carries a death-sentence.

    47. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by budgenator · · Score: 2

      HIV doesn't have DNA, it's a retrovirus so it's genetic information is carried by RNA instead. Because Human cells understand DNA, the HIV needs to use reverse transcriptase to convert the RNA into single strand DNA

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    48. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself... THIS geek has never been married. I've given up!
      I just look forward to playing Assassins Creed 3 when I get home from work...

    49. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At stage 0 you're right, but while we can become fully infected with the flu and still live, not so with cancer, once it gets past a certain point, the immune system can't do much, that's because there's no cancer antibodys, so there's really no tool to fight it if it develops into anything. I don't think we know enough about all the various ways cancer develops to truly understand the early stages however.

      Your immune system doesn't need cancer "antibodies" to respond to cancer, it needs to recognise the MHC complex of your healthy cells so it can ignore them, and then destroy everything else.

    50. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Well, it looks like the sex cured *that* cancer... Brilliant!

      --
      -
    51. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Biotech_is_Godzilla · · Score: 1

      Nope, the treatment does the opposite. There are two main types of lymphocyte involved here, antibody-producing B-cells, and 'killler' T-cells that can directly kill cells. The cancer is formed of B-cells that are proliferating out of control (though there are also normal B-cells about). Researchers remove T-cells from the body, 'arm' the T-cells against B-cells by introducing a new receptor which latches onto a protein on the cell surface of ALL B-cells, then stick them back in the body. They then kill ALL the patient's B-cells, the leukaemia and the normal cells.

      It kills the cancer, but also one whole branch of the immune system. The patient is then dependent on getting antibodies injected for the rest of their lives, or they are susceptible to all sorts of disease.

      This is a breakthrough, but the cure comes at a large cost as the loss of your B-cells could be permanent (the T-cells may persist in your body forever, continually killing new B-cells). Right now the treatment is a bit like swallowing a spider to catch a fly, but I'm sure they'll find a way to program these T-cells so that they can be treated with a drug and they will self-destruct. The technology exists, and I'm frankly amazed they haven't used it, it's a very small step that could make a huge difference for their patients.

    52. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm..... the girl in the story was 6 so I don't think that would have helped her either.....

    53. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, think about it. Who develops the cancer cure through STC (Sexually Transmitted Cure)? Geeks. If this gets developed, people will line up to sleep with the first geek they find in order to inoculate themselves.

    54. Re:Balancing potential deaths with real-today ones by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      So the new altered T cells can reproduce themselves? How hard would it be to have nerfed ones with limited lifespans and no ability to reproduce?

  2. Are you sure you're a doctor? by kc9jud · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am not a doctor, but I am a med student. :)

      Historically, our techniques for treating cancer can be categorized into three categories: chemotherapeutics/radiation which attack rapidly dividing cells indiscriminately; "magic bullet" chemotherapeutics which exploit specific quirks of a cancer's biology -- a feature that differentiates it from normal cells (the perfect solution, but far too few such exploits are known); and immuno-therapeutics that utilize the body's own defenses. In practice, many techniques combine some aspects from the different approaches.

      The immuno-therapeutic approach has a long history, beginning with Coley's Toxins, and there are a few cases where a cancer is naturally immunogenic enough for it to work (for instance, using BCG to evoke a response to certain kinds of bladder cancer). It has been hypothesized that the immune system eliminates most abnormal cells before they become cancerous, but the flip-side of this hypothesis, is that abnormal lineages which do become cancers, would only be able to do so because they gained mutations allowing them to evade or suppress that normal defense. In addition, while certain types of cancer increase in frequency in populations with long-term immune suppression (due to AIDS, organ transplant drugs, or some other acquired or congenital condition), many other types of cancer do not -- suggesting that in those cancer types, the immune system's normal tendency to avoid attacking the self, may alone be sufficient to shield them.

      Anyway, what is particularly impressive about this CAR-T (Chimeric Antigen Receptors T-Cell) technique, that has been generating a lot of excitement, is its ability to completely and permanently break immune tolerance -- to the point where it does not need to target some identifiable abnormal feature of the cancer, but can target a completely normal feature of that cancer cell's lineage. In this case, the normal CD-19 receptor is targeted, and results in the entire population of B-Cells being wiped out. The leukemia is a sub-set of this cell population, so it is eliminated as well, with the bonus of a persistent immune response that continually suppresses any survivors. The downside is that the patient is left with no B-Cells to produce antibodies, and thus relies on periodic infusions of IVIG (Intravenous Immunoglobulin, consisting of antibodies pooled from donors) to protect against infection.

    2. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You know that classifies as FUD, right?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by kc9jud · · Score: 1

      You know this is classified as a *joke*, right?

    4. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You may want to tell some of the people who voted you up about that, just to be on the safe side.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for this. They don't mention the flip side in the headlines, do they?

    6. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by fsterman · · Score: 1

      What's the end game for this type of treatment; we always balance wiping out an entire class of genes or...?

      Also, what do they call the nanobot swarm treatment? :)

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    7. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      , with the bonus of a persistent immune response that continually suppresses any survivors. The downside is that the patient is left with no B-Cells to produce antibodies, and thus relies on periodic infusions of IVIG

      Is there some thought that the patient's marrow is going to continue to produce cancerous B-cells? It seems that way because otherwise they'd produce a killer-T-cell with a terminator gene, right?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Guppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's the end game for this type of treatment

      It's hard to say, but there's much potential here. Next antigen targets on their list include MAGE-A3 (melanomas, and some lung and other cancers), NY-ESO-1 (some testicular and other cancers), and Mesothelin (mesothelioma, and some ovarian and pancreatic cancers).

      It may also be possible to apply this technique to some diseases other than cancer -- AIDS is on the list as well. While HIV normally generates a robust (but ultimately futile) immune response, it may be possible to enhance that normal defense, by using this technique to direct it into a more cell-mediated (as opposed to humoral) response, and also engineering the modfied T-cells to be resistant to HIV infection.

    9. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Guppy · · Score: 2

      Is there some thought that the patient's marrow is going to continue to produce cancerous B-cells? It seems that way because otherwise they'd produce a killer-T-cell with a terminator gene, right?

      The research group involved has stated they would like to try including a self-destruct mechanism in their modified cells, but they're taking it one step at a time. And, it may very well be that the leukemia is being produced by a "cancer stem cell" that escapes targeting by this approach, or that there are surviving leukemia cells present at a low level. We don't know yet.

    10. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you Randall. And fuck the cancer you rode in on.

    11. Re:Are you sure you're a doctor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His wife has stage IV breast cancer. So you can go fuck yourself, asshole.

  3. Let's all be honest... by kc67 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Pharmaceutical companies make too much money from cancer for there to be a cure for cancer on the market.

    1. Re:Let's all be honest... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      You really don't understand capitalism do you? Lets all be honest.

      Your point is only valid if there are only very few drug companies and no new ones are allowed to form.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Let's all be honest... by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

      We will have to wait for the next Jonas Salk.

    3. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh Haa I caught you. You're the one whose been buying up all the tinfoil at the supermarket aren't you! My shake and bake just wasn't the same thanks to you.

    4. Re:Let's all be honest... by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Do they really? I mean, people with incurable cancer tend to die. That is a customer lost right there. A single, expensive and mostly permanent treatment at least means that some of the patients will relapse and need another treatment.

    5. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention potentially purchase other products for new ailments their live bodies can attract

    6. Re:Let's all be honest... by tragedy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While there are problems with the GP's theory, you may not completely be understanding capitalism yourself, at least as it seems to apply to the pharmaceutical industry. For example, there have been many instances of sweetheart deals between drug manufacturers with expiring patents and manufacturers of generics where the original manufacturer has paid the generic manufacturers _not_ to produce generics. As long as the profit margin is high enough on the original and would be low enough on the generics, it's viable. At least, it's viable enough for long enough that, even if you can't say that the industry outright blocks things, it does have a certain... inertia about it.

    7. Re:Let's all be honest... by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      When have you been? Retroviral medications are dirt cheap now. Treating HIV nowadays is a single daily pill of Atripla (or Indian generics if you are poor).

      It is easier to treat than hypertension.

    8. Re:Let's all be honest... by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize that it costs insurance companies about half a million dollars to treat a cancer patient? And most of that money goes to all kinds of different companies many of them struggling on low margins making an assortment of drugs, medical services, and other stuff. Now let's say a company comes out with a cure for cancer .. They can charge $100,000 for it as pure profit .. Insurance companies would gladly pay. 10 million people a year get cancer .. That means the profit will be an absolutely insane $1 trillion dollars a year.

      Or forget that .. Steve jobs had cancer and died of it .. All a company that had the cure had to do was call him up and charge him $5 billion cash plus 50% ownership of Apple for the cure.

    9. Re:Let's all be honest... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      They can charge $100,000 for it as pure profit

      There are already therapies that cost that much just to keep the patient alive for another year. I think they could get away with a substantially higher price for a one-time course of treatment that would actually cure cancer - probably with discounts for those who couldn't afford it.

      Of course, the value of the free advertising and public goodwill for being the company that cured cancer would count for an awful lot too. (Probably also a Nobel prize in it for someone - the creators of Gleevec won the Lasker award, and that drug needs to be taken continually.)

    10. Re:Let's all be honest... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Go back to Economics 101. Drug company A who depends on cancer management drug B can be put out of business by drug company C who makes cancer cure D. For every company A, there exists a large number of companies who want to make cure D. To say nothing of the PR that it would cause! Just because one company doesn't want to lose their cash flow doesn't mean others will let them. This happens all the time in incremental improvements in e.g. blood pressure medication, and finding a cure is really just taking the limit of that process of iterative refinement.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    11. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what the patent system exists for.

    12. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tin foil hat remark. How original. Still wearing a single glove as a fashion statement and caring for your pet rock?

    13. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or forget that .. Steve jobs had cancer and died of it .. All a company that had the cure had to do was call him up and charge him $5 billion cash plus 50% ownership of Apple for the cure.

      Steve Jobs did not go into traditional medicine-based therapies for quite a while after he got cancer. It is not known conclusively either way, but he may have lived longer had he gone in for traditional therapy much sooner.

    14. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the type of remark that I shoot back at the lower types who swear that "they can cure cancer" but they don't want to. I ask them if they really believe that a doctor will allow himself to rot away in agony, his wife to rot away, his parents to rot away and even his children to perish just to keep the profits up for other doctors and the corporations involved. They have a lot of trouble answering that. Although we can bet that if a cheap and easy fix for all cancers would appear that some bankruptcies would surely follow.
                          A cheap and easy fix for the funeral industry would also raise some dust. Imagine a $100 home cremation kit that was safe and did a great job of taking care of our dead. A bit of powdered bone is probably good for the lawns. But think of the money and the jobs that would be lost.

    15. Re:Let's all be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a point. The great thing about capitalism is that it raises prices to their maximum profitability.

  4. AIDS vs. Cancer by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If it turns out that the AIDS virus took 50 years off of the timeline to finding a cure for cancer, I wonder if the AIDS epidemic was worth it.

    1. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by NEDHead · · Score: 1

      It was to me, but I didn't die from aids, nor did anyone I knew.

    2. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch.....

      Take your foot out of your mouth.

    3. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was to me, but I didn't die from aids, nor did anyone I knew.

      My neighbor, who had AIDS, died a week ago.

      While this doesn't matter to you (it's cool.), it does show that AIDS still affects people and others around people with AIDS.

      He ended up with cancer in his bone marrow, was given kemo, but when told he wasn't going to be able to go home again (would require 24 care which he couldn't afford), he chose to stop taking treatments, and died a couple days later. And I don't blame him.

      So even it AIDS virus took 50 years off the timeline to finding a cure for cancer, it doesn't matter to my neighbor, because he's dead regardless. But I think he'd be happy to know that even while AIDS was bad for him, it might be doing some good for others.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    4. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been wodering about AIDS and some cancers. I took a "chemotherapy" that wasn't poison but boosted the immune system to an unhealthy level and depend on the immune system to kill the cancer. If I had AIDS, or a transplant, or any of the immunity diseases, I wouldn't have been able for that treatment. Bad thing is that is the only type of effective treatment for my type of cancer.

      So they used the AIDS virus to help the girl, but if she actually had AIDS before treatment it wouldn't have worked.

      I'm also kind of curious about your neighbor. Most traditional chemos are taken for one day a month and sometimes you need help a couple of days, but not the full month. There was probably more to the story. Mine was every day for nearly a year, but wasn't what you would traditionally call chemo and I was able to continue working through all of it.

    5. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by reverseengineer · · Score: 2
      HIV isn't the only retrovirus or the only virus that targets T-cells. I will admit that the crisis that AIDS has posed has greatly accelerated research into retroviruses, but the development of retroviruses as gene therapy vectors is only tangentially connected to research on AIDS as a disease.

      AIDS as a pandemic has from the start been as much or more about public health measures as it has virology, and if we had been far more fortunate, HIV would have remained a fearsome but rare curiosity. Research on it might have remained a backwater of the academic world, and yes, the pace of treatments like this might have been slowed, though I strongly doubt by 50 years. When you ask if success against cancer means AIDS could have been "worth it," I believe that we would have had ample opportunity to obtain this knowledge without the cost of thirty million lives.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    6. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal Chemo decimates the immune system. When you combine that with AIDS I imagine they want to keep you in as close to a hermetically sealed environment as possible.

    7. Re:AIDS vs. Cancer by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Hold up, I know that AIDS can result in cancer .. but in his case did he really die of AIDS or did he die of a bone marrow cancer that originated regardless of his HIV infection? I mean it's possible that the cancer progressed due to a low immune cell count .. but if he was on his meds that shouldn't have happened .. unless of course he found out he had HIV after or around the time he got cancer due to a low T-cell count. Or, his HIV was resistant to all drugs .. which is not unheard of but rare.

  5. The world is not changed by timid men. by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I understand your concerns, every medical breakthrough has involved risk.

    The polio vaccine could have backfired, but it didn't. You and I have grown up without the fear of a disease that plagued every generation up to our parents.

    1. Re:The world is not changed by timid men. by Art+Popp · · Score: 1

      A fair point. There is a very real price to be paid, in the lives of innocent kids, by not boldly exploring this terrain.

      My primary worry is that people are so desperate for this cure, so desperate to focus on something hopeful, that it will become a primary technique before it's long term consequences are well understood. Thalidomide is a great drug for a very narrow range of problems. When applied to morning sickness an estimated 10,000 children in 46 countries got to live with deformities.

      My hope is that the companies who stand to profit from this test very thoroughly on a large batch of patients for many years. It's not like it won't pay for itself, most of us will end up fighting some kinds of cancers in our final years. I'd like to know if I'm trading ear-cancer for nose-rot. I prefer to wear a hat to a hockey mask.

    2. Re:The world is not changed by timid men. by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      I also hope ethic medical testing is conducted. That said, most of us know (or have known) someone with a terminal illness. If that person were given a chance to alter a certain outcome by using cutting edge medicine most would jump on it.

    3. Re:The world is not changed by timid men. by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      My hope is that the companies who stand to profit from this test very thoroughly on a large batch of patients for many years.

      They're called "Phase III clinical trials" in the US, and they are absolutely mandatory for obtaining FDA approval to market the product, and effectively mandatory if you want insurance companies to reimburse, without which the market would be prohibitively small. But even the best-run large-scale clinical trial, where every adverse effect is cataloged and reported, won't always catch every potential complication, especially those that may take years to manifest.

    4. Re:The world is not changed by timid men. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Yes, ethical testing would include people who are desperate and willing to try it. A frayed rope is better than nothing if you're falling.
      My best friend is in that position, and would certainly jump at the opportunity to aid research by either staying alive himself, or helping someone else in his position down the track.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    5. Re:The world is not changed by timid men. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However there is no reason to not give it to people on their last few days of life. FDA takes too long on a lot of this stuff.

    6. Re:The world is not changed by timid men. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy is that true. When i was a tiny boy, my relative and next door neighbor, who kept a very formal home suddenly had white sheets flying in the sun on her front porch which was a shock in itself. My mom explained that I could no longer get near that house as a child there was very ill with a disease that is easily caught by young boys and that the young boy would probably die soon. Sure enough the child passed. Some of my school mates wore braces on legs twisted by polio and suffered other medical issues after the attack had passed that lasted for the rest of their lives. Between that and the returning military from WWII and Korea starting up the numbers of families in mourning or living with ongoing tragedy was overwhelming. The poor mother across the street went out of her mind when her son went down in his jet and had to be taken away by the white coat guys. Candles in windows and fervent prayer and a pat on the back for the disabled soldiers was all just too damn much.

  6. Some day by jameshofo · · Score: 1

    Jared: "I lost weight because I got aids, and I want to give everyone Aids too!"

    But seriously its extremely cool to see the sci-fi like ideas that you watch and just think "yea right" come to life. One could almost argue that the vision of art helps drive the dream of science. Maybe what the US Government needs to invest in rather than a huge boondoggle bill is a new Star Trek trilogy!

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
  7. seen this movie before by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    Will Smith thinks this is a bad idea.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:seen this movie before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but Will Smith thinks Scientology's Applied Scholastics in its Delphi Academy is such a good idea he started his own school based on it

  8. Can it spread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it a cure for the disease, for the individual, or a fix that makes us able to fight multiple types of cancer? Does the cure spread like AIDs? Can I take some of her blood and infect 50 people with cancer? And then infect more with those? Cheapest medication ever?

  9. Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cars are dangerous, but it's extremely difficult to run somebody over with a car that has no axles. Just as axles are required to move a car under its own power parts of HIV have been removed so that it cannot replicate (and then cause and transmit AIDS) on its own.

  10. Knee Jerk by headhot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow there are a lot of people freaking out they are using HIV for this.

    Um, relax, they didn't give the girl HIV, they re-engineered the virus into something new. The virus doesn't replicate in the to host. T-cells removed from the host are exposed to the engineered HIV. The engineered HIV then changes the DNA in the T-cells to allow it to attack cancerous B-cells. The T-cells are then re-injected and do their work. The T-cells continue to replicate, but the engineered HIV is not actually introduced into the body.

    1. Re:Knee Jerk by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would mod you up to 11. The drawback, aside the initial cytokine storm is the complete loss of B-cells. I suppose that they could store unaltered T-cells and return the unaltered T-cells after they confirmed cancer remission, in a tick-tock strategy to let the patient recover their healthy B-cells. HIV is only a vehicle, in the same vein a pill is a vehicle for medicine, nothing else.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    2. Re:Knee Jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt they could be returned...the patient is effectively vaccinated against her own cells. I suppose one could make other immune cells (NK cells?) that target just the B-cell-targetting Tcells...but that sounds a bit complicated.

    3. Re:Knee Jerk by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly and thankyou. It's like amputating the B-cells. Not a risk free procedure, the cytokine storm can kill and then the resultant immune deficiency effects must be managed. But a susceptibility to colds is a lot better than leukemia. The treatment targets all B-cells, whether cancerous or not. We are still not identifying and destroying cancerous cells only. That is when words like "cure" might get to be used.

      --
      You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
    4. Re:Knee Jerk by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I suppose one could make other immune cells (NK cells?) that target just the B-cell-targetting Tcells.

      It would be better to insert genes that would trigger apoptosis in the programmed T-cells. Better to require therapeutic doses of T-cells for the treatment period than to require maintenance therapies for life.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. My mother almost had a similar treatment by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My mother was diagnosed with acute myelodysplastic syndrome in 2006, and the doctors she spoke with talked about this type of treatment. At the time it was not ready for use in humans, however. We did talk for awhile with the doctors about the nature of cancer and this type of treatment.

    Many people are aware that cancer is present in almost all people at several times in their lives. The vast majority of cancers are from genetic defects that the body detects as an alien, and it will attack and destroy the mutated cells just as foreign bacteria or a transplanted organ are. Now, the types of cancer that we talk about and that result in terminal illness is from a mutation that is different enough to be deadly and parasitic to the human body, but not different enough to be detected as different.

    All cells contain markers that act as identification badges. Last I was aware, there were 10 known genetic markers for humans that determine this identity (only six were known in the 1990's, so this is pretty new stuff). Its these markers that are used to find organ and tissue donors. However, even a perfect 10 out of 10 match is not enough to guarantee that foreign tissue will be detected as alien, so we know that our known list of 10 markers is incomplete. This is why perfect matches still face rejection risks.

    The problem then, from a leukemia perspective, is that donor bone marrow will produce white blood cells that see the recipient body as alien, and attack it. That's kind of what you want, since the idea is to kill the cancerous bone marrow, but it's not exactly discriminate about what it will attack. So for leukemia treatment, you don't even want a perfect 10 out of 10 match since that would be counterproductive. Perfect donor bone marrow wouldn't identify the cancer either, and the cancer would relapse.

    What this treatment does is gives doctors a way to tell your body that certain cells are aliens by forcefully altering their DNA. Then the body can just fix itself. That's really what medicine does best: allows the body time to fix itself.

    "How can this possibly work?" you think. "Aren't all cancers different?" Well, it turns out the answer is "sort of". We categorize cancers based on the kind of tissue that is affected, but that's really not accurate. We should categorize it based on exactly what genetic sequence mutated and in exactly what way. Cancer, then, is literally a family of thousands of diseases with very similar symptoms. Many cancer types are, in fact, mutations of the same segment in the same way. However, now that we are able to sequence the DNA of a human, we ought to be able to accurately categorize each person's individual cancer by sequencing healthy and cancerous cells. We can then design a DNA segment which will only work in the DNA sequence of cancerous cells and that will identify the cells as alien to the body. The body will then attack the cancer, and destroy it. We will, literally, paint a target on the cancer cells for the human body to destroy. The mechanism for delivery of this kind of genetic manipulation is already supplied to us by nature in the form of a retrovirus. In this girl's case, the retrovirus that seeks out her cancerous cell type is HIV, which attacks white blood cells.

    This, then, is the most promising path to the cure for cancer. It will not be cured with a single treatment like polio or smallpox, but the method can be applied over and over against every type of cancer.

    My mother was given more traditional treatment with a bone marrow transplant. The best match that could be identified was an 8 out of 10 match. Even so she successfully underwent the transplant and survived a year longer than she was given when diagnosed. She then relapsed, and was beginning her second treatment when she died from a massive stroke caused by all the medications required to treat the disease and the anti-rejection drugs and the side effects of the medications. If she had had this kind of option where doctors could reprogram her immune system to seek and destroy the cancerous bone marrow like it's supposed to instead of having to rely on grafted bone marrow that would attack her healthy tissue as well, she might still be alive today.

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    1. Re:My mother almost had a similar treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So for leukemia treatment, you don't even want a perfect 10 out of 10 match since that would be counterproductive. Perfect donor bone marrow wouldn't identify the cancer either, and the cancer would relapse.

      Actually, that's not automatically true.

      My youngest son developed Acute Myelogenous Leukemia when he was 18 months. He underwent chemo for six months and went into remission. Eight months later he relapsed, so the doctors told us that the next step was a bone marrow transplant. To have peace of mind that we were doing all we could to save him, my wife insisted that she and I get tested for donor compatibility even though the odds of a parent being an acceptable donor are infinitesimal. The donor and patient must match on seven of those ten DNA alleles to be a viable match and since a child only gets 50% of his/her DNA from either parent, the chance of matching on seven points is very small. The best chances for matches come from siblings and any one sibling only has a 25% of matching. Our son and his brother weren't an acceptable match so the doctors started a search through the National Bone Marrow registry.

      Until my wife came back as a ten-point match.

      The doctors swore that they must have sent in two vials of my son's blood for testing on accident and insisted on a re-test. She came back a ten-point match again. Blew everyone's mind. It turns out that my wife and I share 5 of those critical DNA alleles and those are the five that I gave to our son. He got the other five that my wife and I don't share from her. The odds against that happening are astronomical. Somewhere in the ancient dim past, a common ancestor sent his/her DNA out into the world and somehow, despite generations of separation, those 5 alleles manifested in both me and my wife. We checked the genealogy and can't find any ancestor closer than one who came over on the Mayflower in the 17th century. So we're talking something like 20 generations of separation minimum.

      Think of it this way--at 20 generations of separation, my wife would only share those five alleles with one man in a million. Imagine that she walked into a stadium full of a million potential mates tied to that common ancestor, and still manages to pick me out of the crowd. Then, the odds of me giving our those five alleles that my wife and I share and her matching him on the other five are 250,000:1. After picking me out of a crowd of a million men, my wife and I would then have to have 250,000 children to guarantee one would manifest those ten alleles. We would have a far better chance of winning the Powerball lottery.

      Long story short--she was the donor. My son has been leukemia-free for three years now and the doctors have no expectation that it will recur. He suffers from minor graft-vs-host disease and has to take cyclosporin to keep his immune system from attacking his own body--so, yes, there are clearly some other clearly critical but as yet unidentified alleles they don't share--but he is otherwise normal. And here's the kicker. Because my wife's immune system is now his immune system, the doctors tell us that she could donate him an organ and he would suffer no rejection issues because his immune system would recognize her tissue as being native and accept it.

      Genetics is a freaking cool science.

    2. Re:My mother almost had a similar treatment by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      In this girl's case, the retrovirus that seeks out her cancerous cell type is HIV, which attacks white blood cells.

      Not to detract from your post, but I have to be picky about this.

      This girl had T-cells removed from her body. Then reprogrammed HIV cells were used to patch the T-cell code so that it would target B-cells. Then the patched T-cells were injected back into her. At no point in time was she exposed to the virus.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:My mother almost had a similar treatment by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Targeting a single DNA segment is unlikely to work in most cases if the cancer has reached stage IV. The problem is the mutation rate in most cancers especially if the oncogene wasn't specifically inherited is scary high ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19931353 ) .. cancers contain cells with not just SNP mutations but all kinds of copy variants .. frame shifts etc.. To get a high confidence of eradicating the tumor .. honestly after looking at the myriad of different mutations and amount of cell to cell variation in a tumor .. my calculation is (and I hope I am off by an order of magnitude) you would need to target about ~30 different areas with simultaneous combination therapy. And then ur going to need mad FDA rule changes to allow small scale rapid clinical trial on a primate to test for safety issues.

  12. Wampas are better than polar bears by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    If you really care about your bunnies invest in the best.

  13. Let's try not to be so stupid. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Pharmaceutical companies make too much money from cancer for there to be a cure for cancer on the market.

    The "cure for cancer" implies a level of competence so high that every product you bring to market will show the benefits. You just might learn enough along the way to begin treating aging itself as a chronic disease.

  14. Why this matters... by njvack · · Score: 1

    In case you're thinking "yeah, cancer, big deal. People die every day" I welcome you to watch Anthony Griffith on The Moth describe his personal experience with leukemia.

    WARNING: NSFW -- both for (IIRC) some rather strong language and the uncontrollable weeping that will consume you for the rest of the day.

    1. Re:Why this matters... by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 1

      Or just read the summary. That's a real little girl that we've still got.

      --
      You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
  15. Thank you science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lost my brother to Leukemia when he was 7, to think that maybe soon no other family goes through that is amazing. Thank you science.

  16. ...open the door to a whole new generation by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    of Zombie kids....

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  17. Sounds Great Now... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    But when we're all huddled into a dark building hoping Dr. Carl "Legend" June doesn't drag us off for use in bizarre medical experiments to cure the plague he ended up accidentally creating, will you still think this is a good idea?

  18. Handi-capable HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sayin'

  19. Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science: Turning AIDS into medicine.

  20. "used a disabled form of the virus that causes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "used a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS"

    LOL. Are they incapable of writing 'HIV'?

    HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and 99% of Slashdotters don't even know what 'AIDS' is.

  21. Re:This is the type of research that will suffer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As opposed to all the cures they didn't invest in before?

    Oh right, fixing your limp dick was top priority.

  22. Let's all be honest... Jobs Refused Treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/21/steve-jobs-refused-cancer-treatment-biography

  23. For decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For decades, one of cancer's most powerful weapons has been to corrupt the human immune system.

    So how many decades ago did cancers acquire this capability? Must have been quite a few.

  24. Re:This is the type of research that will suffer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extending the patent life of drugs will discourage investment?