Slashdot Mirror
If We Can't Kill Cancer, Can We Control It?
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from The New Yorker:
In April, [Dr. Eytan Stein] presented his findings to a packed auditorium at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, in San Diego. It was the first public airing of the results of AG-221; patients with progressive [acute myelogenous leukemia] had never improved so quickly and definitively. ... The breakthrough is notable in part for the unconventional manner in which the drug attacks its target. There are many kinds of cancer, but treatments have typically combated them in one way only: by attempting to destroy the cancerous cells. Surgery aims to remove the entire growth from the body; chemotherapy drugs are toxic to the cancer cells; radiation generates toxic molecules that break up the cancer cells' DNA and proteins, causing their demise. A more recent approach, immunotherapy, co-opts the body's immune system into attacking and eradicating the tumor. The Agios drug, instead of killing the leukemic cells — immature blood cells gone haywire — coaxes them into maturing into functioning blood cells. Cancerous cells traditionally have been viewed as a lost cause, fit only for destruction. The emerging research on A.M.L. suggests that at least some cancer cells might be redeemable: they still carry their original programming and can be pressed back onto a pathway to health.
Bullshit. I've seen lots of friends die of AIDS in the early 90s. Now HIV/AIDS is under control. It's now a chronical disease that people can live long productive lives with, as long as they take their drugs. When treated early, most infected people will be asymptomatic except for the (relatively mild) side effects of the drugs. I wish we could say that for most cancers.
Of course unlike cancer, HIV is communicable. And unlike Ebola, it killed many rich white men. These factors might have contributed to the success story of its treatment.
Let me give you a brief summary of TFA:
- Some cancers have IDH1, IDH2 mutations that change cellular metabolism
- This drug is the first targeting the IDH2 enzyme that has been tested in humans
- 6 out of 7 patients whose disease (leucemia) had the specific IDH2 mutations had "objective response" to the drug, ie the disease burden was reduced. Note, this does not mean cure.
Now, this is obviously good news, in the same spirit as previous targeted agents like vemurafenib, erlotinib, trastuzumab, crizotinib, especially since it concerns a new aspect of cellular functioning (metabolism). It's too early to say whether the drug will have long lasting impact, but we'll know more after phase II/III trials. It does seem promising.
For patients with AML or MDS and documented IDH2 mutation, the study (NCT01915498) is still recruiting in several centers around the US and in Paris/France (Institut Gustave-Russy). More information can be found in clinicaltrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=NCT01915498&Search=Search).
We are far from general cure for cancer.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
stuff like MRSA is still fairly rare.
No. No, it isn't. You're wrong and are disseminating dangerous disinformation.
I'll go ahead and cite my med school lecture from last week on that, but if you want more feel free to google on your own. I'll throw you a bone from
http://www.mrsasurvivors.org/s...:
MRSA infections and colonization has steadily increased over the years and in 1974. 2% of all staph. aureus infections were MRSA, 22% in 1995 and in 2004 it was 64% with an estimate of over 70% of all staph is now MRSA. In the community, it is estimated that 60% of all skin and soft tissue infections that doctors treat are MRSA infections.
Also, FYI, the current cost to bring a new drug to market is $~1 billion. Plenty of cites trivially available on google for that, too.
These may go undetected for years, at which point it is too well established to be totally eradicated.
Sorry bud. But that is some tiny thinking. There will be time, soon enough, where cancer will be no more dangerous than a simple infection.
Human cells get "cancerous" ALL THE TIME. But it's only some very specific ones that are ignored by the immune system and grow. The key to kill ALL types of cancers is to find a markers that the immune system can be stimulated to clean up. That is all.
These are not easy things to do and definitely require research, but these are not insurmountable problems. The days of broad spectrum chemo cocktails are numbered along with notion that "cancer is deadly".
Early detection is very important, survival is dependant on early detection and the effectiveness of treatment
This depends. One tumor is not like another. For example, with breast cancer today, it has been shown that all the effort spent on early detection do not really increase survival. Routine mammograms do increase false positives though. Another example is most common types of prostate cancer. On the other hand, melanoma is critical to have early detection.
sadly the cost of drugs is high and people are not always able to afford them, even in 1st world countries.
That is not a 1st world problem, except in America. Virtually everywhere else, these costs are socialized, as they should be.
do the right things, loose weight, build fitness, eat better, look out for body changes, get regular check ups. You can't live forever.
That is very true. You may not live longer, but you sure as hell will live better. There is a difference between living your last 10 years sitting in a wheel chair attached to oxygen tank, or being able to walk and run and swim.