• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

New leukemia treatment cures 2, reduces disease 70% in another

Status
Not open for further replies.

Escape Goat

Member
So its a small sample size, but the results were pretty astounding. No doubt everyone here is skeptical and one point doesn't make a pattern. Now where was that link to the misrepresentation in modern science thread?

JCreasy provided a video of the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44097274#44097274

Doctors have treated only three leukemia patients, but the sensational results from a single shot could be one of the most significant advances in cancer research in decades. And it almost never happened.

In the research published Wednesday, doctors at the University of Pennsylvania say the treatment made the most common type of leukemia completely disappear in two of the patients and reduced it by 70 percent in the third. In each of the patients as much as five pounds of cancerous tissue completely melted away in a few weeks, and a year later it is still gone.

The results of the preliminary test “exceeded our wildest expectations,” says immunologist Dr. Carl June a member of the Abramson Cancer Center's research team.

Dr. Edgar Engleman, a cancer immunologist at Stanford University School of Medicine who was not involved in the research calls the results “remarkable ... great stuff.”

The Penn scientists targeted chroniclymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common type of the blood disease. It strikes some 15,000 people in the United States, mostly adults, and kills 4,300 every year. Chemotherapy and radiation can hold this form of leukemia at bay for years, but until now the only cure has been a bone marrow transplant. A bone marrow transplant requires a suitable match, works only about half the time, and often brings on severe, life-threatening side effects such as pain and infection.

In the Penn experiment, the researchers removed certain types of white blood cells that the body uses to fight disease from the patients. Using a modified, harmless version of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, they inserted a series of genes into the white blood cells. These were designed to make to cells target and kill the cancer cells. After growing a large batch of the genetically engineered white blood cells, the doctors injected them back into the patients.

In similar past experimental treatments for several types of cancer the re-injected white cells killed a few cancer cells and then died out. But the Penn researchers inserted a gene that made the white blood cells multiply by a thousand fold inside the body. The result, as researcher June put it, is that the white blood cells became “serial killers” relentlessly tracking down and killing the cancer cells in the blood, bone marrow and lymph tissue.


As the white cells killed the cancer cells, the patients experienced the fevers and aches and pains that one would expect when the body is fighting off an infection, but beyond that the side effects have been minimal.

Doctors had told Bill Ludwig, one of the research volunteers, that he would die from his leukemia within weeks. Then he got the experimental treatment a year ago.

With tears welling up, he told NBC, "I'm more closer to the people I love and I appreciate them more... I'm getting emotional... the grass is greener and flowers smell wonderful."
The other two patients have chosen to remain anonymous but one who happens to be a scientist himself wrote, “I am still trying to grasp the enormity of what I am a part of -- and of what the results will mean to countless others with CLL or other forms of cancer.

When I was a young scientist, like many I’m sure, I dreamed that I might make a discovery that would make a difference to mankind – I never imagined I would be part of the experiment.”

So why has this remarkable treatment been tried so far on only three patients?

Both the National Cancer Institute and several pharmaceutical companies declined to pay for the research. Neither applicants nor funders discuss the reasons an application is turned down. But good guesses are the general shortage of funds and the concept tried in this experiment was too novel and, thus, too risky for consideration.


The researchers did manage to get a grant from the Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy, a charity founded by Barbara and Edward Netter after their child died of cancer. The money was enough to finance the trials on the first three patients.

With results for the three patients published Wednesday simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine and Science Translational Medicine, money for further studies -- not just in this one type of leukemia, but in other cancers -- will likely pour in from both the government and drug companies.

It is important to emphasize that there still have been only three patients. Over the past century, many attempts to harness the body’s immune system to fight cancer have shown initial success and subsequent failure. So much research remains to be done to prove just how good this treatment is. But it should begin soon, with great vigor.
 

Red_Man

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
Yay science, good to hear, hopefully they get to test it more, and it remains successful.
 

tuxor

Neo Member
Teh Hamburglar said:
What is pretty crazy is that they are using HIV to kill cancer. What an amazing idea.

that's pretty much why i wanted to get into science. use retroviruses to fix/change one's genome. oh well time to find a new job.
 

King Boo

Member
i like the idea of using hiv in some way to help defeat this kind of cancer.

i remember me and my friends talking about enslaving hiv and making it a force of good. it was a group project for our biology class.
 

JCreasy

Member
I wish my Dad and mother-in-law were still here to try this. I miss them both.

Lost my Dad in 2002. We lost my mother-in-law in 2007.
 

shira

Member
Both the National Cancer Institute and several pharmaceutical companies declined to pay for the research. Neither applicants nor funders discuss the reasons an application is turned down.
This is so terrible that pharm companies intentionally blocking useful treatments so they can make billions keeping patients barely alive yet able to buy their drugs.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
This treatment was amazing. So amazing I made my own thread on it and didn't see this one lol. I did a search on "leukemia" but all I saw was a bunch of threads about people who got it. Give these peeps more funding this is great work.
 
Vector treatments are amazing yet very scary things. With the viruses possibly mutating back into their viral form and becoming something possibly unstoppable.

They discussed genetic therapy for Cystic Fibrosis using a vector treatment that combined the cell penetrating power of ebola and the genetic rewriting power of HIV to correct the defective CF gene.
 
CF_Fighter said:
Vector treatments are amazing yet very scary things. With the viruses possibly mutating back into their viral form and becoming something possibly unstoppable.

They discussed genetic therapy for Cystic Fibrosis using a vector treatment that combined the cell penetrating power of ebola and the genetic rewriting power of HIV to correct the defective CF gene.

Not to mention that retrovirus gene insertion is random and not site specific, which means that there's a chance you can insert the target gene into the middle of a coding region of a tumor suppressor leading to a different type of cancer. So yeah, these genetically altered cells have a chance to become cancerous themselves.
 

Orayn

Member
Sounds promising, but this will need to undergo a lot of scrutiny before it makes it any farther.
shira said:
This is so terrible that pharm companies intentionally blocking useful treatments so they can make billions keeping patients barely alive yet able to buy their drugs.
A treatment being turned down early does not a big pharma conspiracy make.
 

mingus

Member
Here is the actual paper if anyone cares to read: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103849

Side effects included lymphopenia in one patient and kidney damage in another. Although definitely promising results, I'm always concerned about the side effects. When I did lab work for a siRNA group, the delivery vehicles would absolutely wreck subjects' liver, spleen and kidneys.
 

ikkemenx

Member
JCreasy said:
I wish my Dad and mother-in-law were still here to try this. I miss them both.

Lost my Dad in 2002. We lost my mother-in-law in 2007.

So sorry for your loss :(. Hopefully the development of this "cure" will advance to a point where stories like yours will become few and far between. Here's to science!
 

delirium

Member
shira said:
This is so terrible that pharm companies intentionally blocking useful treatments so they can make billions keeping patients barely alive yet able to buy their drugs.
Probably because it cost billions of dollars to get a drug through FDA testing and this treatment has just worked on 3 people. What sane company invests billions of dollars base on a trial of 3 people?
 

InertiaXr

Member
shira said:
This is so terrible that pharm companies intentionally blocking useful treatments so they can make billions keeping patients barely alive yet able to buy their drugs.
They declined to pay for this before the charity gave the grant big enough to try this treatment on THREE people, which still means effectively nothing about the cure/treatment as a whole.

If you are a company and somebody comes to you asking to give them a lot of money for something that has never been done before and nobody has any idea what it will do, would you do it?

But all corporations are evil right you've got this all figured out

delirium said:
Probably because it cost billions of dollars to get a drug through FDA testing and this treatment has just worked on 3 people. What sane company invests billions of dollars base on a trial of 3 people?

Nah bro companies aren't suppose to generate profit it's about helping citizens out I guess you don't understand capitalism!
 

The Lamp

Member
shira said:
This is so terrible that pharm companies intentionally blocking useful treatments so they can make billions keeping patients barely alive yet able to buy their drugs.

People forget that the medical industry is a business.
Most people would be surprised how many cures and treatments are not being properly invested and researched in because they would actually...oh...cure a patient instead of forcing them to take a temporarily-effective medicine every day for the rest of their life.
 
Volimar said:
How did they even think of doing this. That's some outside of the box thinking right there...

A very similar procedure has been done for years at the NIH with a lot success against melanoma. It gets improved every year and this is just a new iteration of it. For whatever reason, the MSM keeps saying this is new everytime they report on it.
 

Orayn

Member
The Lamp said:
People forget that the medical industry is a business.
Most people would be surprised how many cures and treatments are not being properly invested and researched in because they would actually...oh...cure a patient instead of forcing them to take a temporarily-effective medicine every day for the rest of their life.
This line of reasoning tends to ignore the fact that the company who developed said cures would still make a killing selling them directly. Well, that and the fact that indispensable medicine is already sold at either minimal profit or a loss. See: Vaccines. Even the bigger ones don't make the drug companies much money at all.
 

The Lamp

Member
Orayn said:
This line of reasoning tends to ignore the fact that the company who developed said cures would still make a killing selling them directly. Well, that and the fact that indispensable medicine is already sold at either minimal profit or a loss. See: Vaccines. Even the bigger ones don't make the drug companies much money at all.

But vaccines are routinely given to new humans...which are always being made...so there's always a market for them.
 

Orayn

Member
The Lamp said:
But vaccines are routinely given to new humans...which are always being made...so there's always a market for them.
What about the fact that they're still not making money on lots of vaccines? A clever ruse to distract from the grander conspiracy to keep us sick and dependent on them forever?
 
The Lamp said:
People forget that the medical industry is a business.
Most people would be surprised how many cures and treatments are not being properly invested and researched in because they would actually...oh...cure a patient instead of forcing them to take a temporarily-effective medicine every day for the rest of their life.

This conspiracy theory is crap and based on complete ignorance. If someone had the cure for cancer, they would make a fucking shit-ton of money. A cure for cancer won't stop people from getting it and with our aging population....

Even if there was a prophylactic "vaccine" for cancer, vaccinating every individual in the world sounds pretty damn lucrative.
 

Orayn

Member
AlteredBeast said:
Excellent, I am so excited for this to be completely buried by Big Pharma immediately extremely soon!
I'd rather it not, but some parties might insist on it. Returning to the topic at hand...
happyfunball said:
A very similar procedure has been done for years at the NIH with a lot success against melanoma. It gets improved every year and this is just a new iteration of it. For whatever reason, the MSM keeps saying this is new everytime they report on it.
This is one part of the funding cycles that bothers me. There's always a mad dash to spin one's research as being new and making rapid progress, whether they're business as usual or actually promising like this one.
 

The Lamp

Member
Orayn said:
What about the fact that they're still not making money on lots of vaccines? A clever ruse to distract from the grander conspiracy to keep us sick and dependent on them forever?

I don't know much about vaccine profit so I suppose you're right. But wouldn't it probably be more profitable for a team of doctors and specialists and pharmaceutical companies for a cancer patient to go through waves of radiation, surgery, chemotherapy, physical therapy, possible transplant, and other costly procedures, than for one drug to eradicate leukemia altogether?

And this would be different than a vaccine, since vaccines prevent, but this apparently just treats.
 
AlteredBeast said:
Excellent, I am so excited for this to be completely buried by Big Pharma immediately extremely soon!

This will not be done by big pharma, it's not a drug. It's an expansion of your own T cells to select for or give them specificity for the cancer cells. It's not something you can put in a vial and freeze until use which is what pharma specializes in.

It's highly involved and not easily applicable. Dendreon is having a difficult time making money with a somewhat similar approach to prostate cancer.
 

~Kinggi~

Banned
AlteredBeast said:
Excellent, I am so excited for this to be completely buried by Big Pharma immediately extremely soon!
Yeah, god knows how many cures have been snuffed in favor of sustaining suffering patients paying out their ass for a slow death.
 

Orayn

Member
The Lamp said:
I don't know much about vaccine profit so I suppose you're right. But wouldn't it probably be more profitable for a team of doctors and specialists and pharmaceutical companies for a cancer patient to go through waves of radiation, surgery, chemotherapy, physical therapy, possible transplant, and other costly procedures, than for one drug to eradicate leukemia altogether?

And this would be different than a vaccine, since vaccines prevent, but this apparently just treats.
Not necessarily. This makes the assumption those individual, specialized treatments are profitable for the people carrying them out just because of their expense, which I doubt they all are. Even then, the single magical drug you're talking about would still be incredibly valuable, and new cases of leukemia still occur.
~Kinggi~ said:
Yeah, god knows how many cures have been snuffed in favor of sustaining suffering patients paying out their ass for a slow death.
Are we really going to go down this rabbit hole?
 
~Kinggi~ said:
Yeah, god knows how many cures have been snuffed in favor of sustaining suffering patients paying out their ass for a slow death.

I hate to be the defender of pharma, because I am certainly not a fan of their business practices but the conspiracy theories about them are just insane.

You really give current science too much credit for how far we've come in understanding cancer or other disease.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
You know being that Europe has completely socialized healthcare, you would think that any medical advances that American Pharma companies were covering would be exposed by them in the interest of keeping costs down. So I don't really buy the conspiracy theories.
 

NZNova

Member
Teh Hamburglar said:
So its a small sample size, but the results were pretty astounding. No doubt everyone here is skeptical and one point doesn't make a pattern. Now where was that link to the misrepresentation in modern science thread?

It's very promising but "cures two" is a bit misleading. It's too early to say if the cancer is actually gone gone.

"It worked great. We were surprised it worked as well as it did,'' said Dr. Carl June, a gene therapy expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "We're just a year out now. We need to find out how long these remissions last."
He led the study, published by two journals, New England Journal of Medicine and Science Translational Medicine.
 

Fuzzery

Member
The science behind this article is really fucking amazing..simply ingenious concept of chimeric antigen receptors with a build in costimulatory domain in T cells
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom