| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The God Glut | Main | Norway and the Prisoners of Peace »

December 12, 2012

Is it a "game-changing" moment for cancer?

Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon:

Immunology has traditionally been the redheaded stepchild of cancer research. Using the body’s own defenses to fight off tumors has long been considered a dubious proposition – too difficult to execute, too controversial because of the resources required to search for answers. The past few years, however, have brought real results that have translated into a variety of new approaches. The Gardasil vaccine is now routinely used on young men and women to prevent the HPV virus, which in turn can help prevent cervical cancer. Doctors at Roswell Park Cancer Center are now working on a cancer vaccine. And in 2011, the FDA approved Ipilimumab, a drug therapy for melanoma unlike any other that’s come before, one that works with the body’s immune system.

Five months after Ipilimumab went on the market, I was one of those patients who needed it. The malignant cancer that I had undergone surgery for a year before had returned with a vengeance, metastasized into my lungs and under my flesh. At Stage 4, I was facing a diagnosis that generally offers patients only a few months to live. I could do the math. I was looking at my birthday and Thanksgiving and Christmas but maybe not Easter. Summer was definitely a long shot. That’s when my oncologist recommended a clinical trial that was combining Ipilimumab with a new investigational drug. I jumped in as soon as possible, entering the first cohort of the first phase, a place in research where, as a doctor later admitted to me, “We usually expect a lot of losses.” Instead, three months later, I was cancer-free. Just like Emma Whitehead.

More here.  And here is the story by Denise Grady in the New York Times:

Emma Whitehead has been bounding around the house lately, practicing somersaults and rugby-style tumbles that make her parents wince.

It is hard to believe, but last spring Emma, then 6, was near death from leukemia. She had relapsed twice afterchemotherapy, 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.

The treatment very nearly killed her. But she emerged from it cancer-free, and about seven months later is still in complete remission. She is the first child and one of the first humans ever in whom new techniques have achieved a long-sought goal — giving a patient’s own immune system the lasting ability to fight cancer.

More here.  And here is more by Andy Coghlan in New Scientist:

Augmented immune cells have made an impressive impact on the survival of people with leukaemia.

Thirteen people with a form of the cancer called multiple myeloma were treated with genetically engineered T-cells, and all improved. "The fact we got a response in all 13, you can't get better than that," says James Noble, CEO of Adaptimmune in Abingdon, UK, which developed the treatment.

Cancers often develop because T-cells have lost their ability to target tumour cells, which they normally destroy. To retune that targeting, a team led byAaron Rapoport at the University of Maryland in Baltimore engineered T-cell genes that coded for a receptor on the cell's surface. They extracted T-cells from each person, then inserted the engineered genes into these cells and re-injected them.

The souped-up cells were better able to recognise proteins called NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1, found on myeloma cells but not healthy ones. All 13 people also had the standard treatment for multiple myeloma, which boosts white blood cell count.

Three months after the injection, 10 of the 13 were in remission or very close to it – a 77 per cent response rate – and the others showed drastic reduction in their cancer. Standard treatment alone gives a response rate of between 33 and 69 per cent. The work was presented this week at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.

More here.  [Thanks to Margit Oberrauch.]

Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 02:02 PM | Permalink

Comments

The short answer is no. It is never a game changing moment for cancer though you would never know it from reading the papers.

Posted by: Luke Lea | Dec 12, 2012 3:08:12 PM

“We always believed these therapies could have this type of impact,” Jill O’Donnell-Tormey, chief executive officer and director of scientific affairs at the Cancer Research Institute, told me Tuesday.
All those who have toiled in the trenches of cancer immunotherapy for decades must be grateful for the vindication, however limited.

Posted by: Ken Pidcock | Dec 12, 2012 11:03:59 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Abbas Raza on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

X on Race Is Not Biology

Usha Alexander on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

araldo on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Dr. X, Ph.D. on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

omar on Why race as a biological construct matters

Dr. Smith on Race Is Not Biology

Sundar on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Sundar on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Sundar on Why race as a biological construct matters

Sundar on Race Is Not Biology

Joel Grant on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

khaled on Evolution shapes new rules for ant behavior

musafir on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

araldo on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

JM on Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time

SteveRR on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Grace on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Elatia Harris on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Abbas Raza on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Jonathan on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed