[HN Gopher] A Universal Cancer Treatment? ___________________________________________________________________ A Universal Cancer Treatment? Author : WithinReason Score : 216 points Date : 2022-10-06 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (nautil.us) (TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us) | wonder_er wrote: | I can't help but mention that there are two dominant schools of | thought regarding cancer treatments: | | 1. The Somatic theory of cancer ('bad genes/out-of-control | cellular replication') | | 2. The metabolic theory of cancer ('cancer cells ferment blood | sugar for energy via an ancient emergency metabolic pathway') | | Both have merit, but a complete occlusion of one would be bad. | | I wrote an open letter, long ago, to a wealthy person who was on | the board of a cancer research center, suggesting they read a | book and fund the key research scientist: | | https://josh.works/mike-clayville-can-have-a-huge-impact-on-... | | I thought of the metabolic theory of cancer as I opened this | page, because all cancers have a similar reliance upon certain | energy generation pathways, which implies a corresponding | vulnerability for treatment. | | Some people find it interesting enough to click through, read the | article, and to read the book. | Animats wrote: | Has this been written up in some respected journal? (No, not | Nature.) | jjtheblunt wrote: | Their research was published in Cancer Cell. | | https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/engeneic-announces-... | | https://engeneic.com/ | qclibre22 wrote: | Othes by Stillman : | https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ANthHuAAAAAJ&hl=en... | lwansbrough wrote: | Did I miss it or was the delivery mechanism not really mentioned? | I suppose that might be the secret sauce? | | What happens once they stop the growth of cancer, say in the case | of a tumour? Will it break down over time or does it need to be | surgically removed? | axus wrote: | I think it was modified yeast bacteria produce a cell of | exactly the right size to slip through the same blood vessels | that the cancer did when it spread; unaffected blood vessels | wouldn't let anything through. | bottombutton wrote: | They genetically engineered a kind of bacteria that divides | into non-living 'nanocells' that can't multiply further. These | cells contain a special kind of RNA and a cell entry mechanism | that lets them enter the cancer cells. The RNA interrupts the | cell's ability to prepare for division. The article kind of | implied that these nanocells follow the bloodstream pathways | that cancer cells open when they metastasize. | | The researchers main concern was whether those nanoncells would | also enter healthy cells, but the tests seem to show healthy | cells were not affected. | nikivi wrote: | I loved Michael Levin's thoughts on solving cancer. Kind of | similar to immunotherapy but on a level of reprogramming the | cells back that got 'lost' from their big purpose in their organ. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3lsYlod5OU&t=8653s | ncmncm wrote: | Michael Levin is an astonishing breath of fresh air. | echelon wrote: | The universal cancer treatment will be full body transplant. | | As long as the cancer isn't in the patient's brain, the patient's | head could be removed and transplanted onto a donor (brain dead) | body. This would render the patient a quadriplegic, but with | repeated study over decades we might be able to repair the | nervous system. | | There isn't a large set of brain dead bodies to draw from, so if | this process proves successful, perhaps we could one day start | growing human bodies in labs from a monoclonal source. If we | remove their ABO and MHC antigens, we might be able to lessen the | need for an ongoing life-altering immunosuppressant regimen. | These lab grown bodies would be headless/brainless from the | outset via gene and surgical deactivation during development to | remove any ethical issues. The bodies could be artificially | innervated and pumped with the hormonal signals they need to grow | until it's time to harvest them. | | Cancer is thousands and thousands of different disease states, | and it will remain a difficult landscape for the foreseeable | future. A non-molecular approach of wholesale cancer tissue | removal (via body replacement) seems like an out of the box | solution that could work. | breck wrote: | https://engeneic.com/intellectual-property/ | | It's a scam. | xchip wrote: | Paper from a peer reviewed repo, not press releases please | sam537 wrote: | Oncologist here. You can think of drug development as an | extremely wide funnel with a minuscule exit hole. At any given | time a medium sized pharmaceutical company has 300-500 drug | candidates. From this group 50 make it to phase 1 trials. 40 get | slashed due to toxicity, company abandons them, gets bought by | third party and sits in sleepy storage. 10 advance to phase 2 | trials where 5-8 may not end up having enough efficacy/too toxic, | does not improve survival. The remaining 3-5 advance to phase 3 | where they can suffer the above as well. | | Tl:dr: Things usually work in the lab where all ideas start. | Until a compound goes through thorough human experimentation | believe little. | dvirsky wrote: | Sounds like this one is pretty advanced down the funnel, having | successfully passed phase 1 human trials, or am I missing | something? | abcc8 wrote: | Phase 1 trials are used to determine drug toxicity. All that | reault really says is that the new drug won't itself kill the | patients. It still needs to be compared relative to the | standard of care in larger phase 2 and 3 trials. | tempestn wrote: | However, the article also describes patients in the trial | having positive effects. Yes, it's not an efficacy trial, | but if it was specifically used on patients who have | exhausted all other clinical options, there were no | significant adverse side-effects, and there were beneficial | effects for some substantial number of patients, that | sounds pretty hopeful to me. Of course it's possible issues | will still be discovered, but this is a long way from a | top-of-funnel lab result. | nighthawk454 wrote: | Thanks, that's an interesting insight into the dropoff rate for | these ideas. Do you have an opinion on what the bottleneck is? | Volume of ideas, length of testing, or perhaps flawed approach | in general? | pfdietz wrote: | The extreme complexity of biology. There's no substitute to | just trying things and seeing if they work, because you will | never understand what's going on beforehand. | dominotw wrote: | funny how many of blockebuster drugs were discovered by | accident. | pfdietz wrote: | And for some that were designed to hit a specific target, | it was discovered afterwards that they work by a | completely different mechanism. | sam537 wrote: | This is the bottleneck for one company. We have many | companies this size doing the same thing. | | The issue is large companies (novartis/BMS) sometimes sit on | compounds and refuse to develop because they think it may not | be worth it, may think a certain disease (read market) is | saturated, or they may be waiting for the 'right time'. It | can be frustrating. | | Smaller companies have 2-3 compounds which they actively work | to develop but most of them end up getting acquired by the | big fish. | ncmncm wrote: | Thanks. I had read of success infecting tumors with virus, that | the immune system will control only outside the tumor. But I | didn't hear any more about it. What happened with that? | breck wrote: | I ctrl+f for "patent" and got no hits, so forwarded it to someone | on our team to dive in to further. | NetWonk_me wrote: | Someday soon they'll look at our insane chemotherapy with the | same level of utter disbelief as we do about bloodletting and | tapeworm diets | | I mean untargeted chemotherapy kills -the one thing- that | protects us since before we were born from cancer, our immune | system. | | Killing our immune system to kill cancer makes as much sense as | shooting off the leg you lead with so to run faster. | | Its idiotic, stupid and, yeah its basically trying to stop the | copy errors in genes that cancer does, before all the massive | amount of DNA errors kill the cancer victim ... | | It's like a really really bad CRISPR process as I understand it, | like the computer program SED was majorly crapping out and it | made your program an utter mess. | | Anyway, chemotherapy is DAMN foolish, and I for one will be glad | when we're rid of it with better therapies | slyrus wrote: | I'd argue that our future retrospective view of chemotherapy | will be more of how we view hunting with a club rather than, | say, a bow and arrow. Not optimal but, at least in many cases, | proven to be better than nothing by multiple randomized | clinical trials. | sonofaragorn wrote: | If you got cancer and the onclogist recommended chemo, would | you refuse it? | [deleted] | yshrestha wrote: | I may be missing something but the article does not explain how | the bacteria target is actually targeting the cancer cells. Of | course, if you can design an ideal universal cancer targeting | mechanism, the active ingredient itself is beside the point. Did | anyone else catch this? | | Stopping DNA replication across the body will be fatal. This is | what eventually kills with radiation toxicity. | asdff wrote: | It does, from the article: ""Normally, our blood vessel walls | are all sealed pipes," Brahmbhatt says. "But around wherever | the cancer is growing, the blood vessels are known to be very | defective. They have got a lot of holes in them." | | Brahmbhatt and his collaborator Jennifer MacDiarmid devised a | clever ploy. They would send a Trojan horse into malignant | cells and turn cancer's own trickery against it. | | The Trojan horse, in this case, is a product of a harmless | bacteria that's been genetically engineered to have specific | qualities. When this genetically engineered bacteria divides, | it yields a tiny non-living cell of 400 nanometers in diameter | --the right size to slip through the damaged vessels and mingle | with the tumors." | yshrestha wrote: | I see. I do wonder how specific that is though. Potentially | it could be toxic to other areas where vasculature could be | "leaky". Like in the filtration mechanisms in the kidney. | | Targeting the cancer's vascular supply is also a known anti- | cancer mechanism of action (anti-angiogenics). How will this | method not have the same toxicity as that one? | asdff wrote: | Presumably that 400nm size is important for specificity as | well | pazimzadeh wrote: | The article is missing lots of detail. They use antibodies to | target receptors which are highly expressed by tumors, such as | Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). | | "Given that the EDV surface is coated with lipopolysaccharide | (LPS), single-chain bispecific antibodies were attached to the | EDV surface where one arm of the antibody is directed to the | O-polysaccharide epitopes and the other arm is directed to a | tumour cell surface receptor for example Epidermal growth | factor receptor (EGFR) which is found on the surface of over | 70% of solid tumours" | | and | | "The EDVs being 400 nm rapidly fall out of these fenestrations | and enter into the tumour microenvironment and since they carry | the bispecific antibody on the EDV surface, the anti-EGFR | component binds to EGFR on the tumour cell surface. This | provokes macropinocytosis and the EDVs are taken into the early | endosomes, followed by lysosomes and broken down in these | organelles releasing the drug PNU-159682. The drug enters into | the tumour cell cytoplasm and the nucleus and intercalates with | the chromosomal DNA resulting in tumour cell apoptosis. In the | event that a tumour type does not express EGFR for example | liver cancer, which expresses asialoglycoprotein, then the | bispecific antibody can be changed to anti-asialoglycoprotein | while the anti-O-polysaccharide component remains constant. | Similarly, HER-2 positive breast cancers can be targeted via | anti-HER2/anti-O-polysaccharide bispecific antibody" | | https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.111... | | I don't think this particular therapeutic automatically homes | to all cancer cells. However, certain bacteria have been found | to home to cancer cells, so maybe that helps too. https://wis- | wander.weizmann.ac.il/life-sciences/cells-inside... | JanSt wrote: | Does anyone know about updates on mRNA treatments for cancer? I | had big hopes after the impressive corona-virus vaccines. I know | BioNTech is investing heavily but not much has changed since | then? | sam537 wrote: | There are a few vaccines that try to 'make' your immune system | recognize an abnormal (read cancerous) protein as foreign | (Sipleucel T for prostate, GMCSF vaccine for melanoma). Minimal | activity. | Lytic42 wrote: | Some quick thoughts. This therapy uses a combination of methods | that are already used in oncology. The usage of bacteria in | oncology as part of immunotherapies has existed for decades via | the use of BCG, although it is notably that these bacteria have | genetic modifications to allow it to create a delivery vehicle as | well. siRNAs have always been an attractive method but lacked | proper delivery methods and initially had issues with | degradation. The knockdown of DNA polymerases is new to me. | Typically chemotherapeutics are anti-metabolites or seek to | arrest mitosis (taxanes for example lock part of the cytoskeleton | [microtubules] needed to move chromosomes). Targeting DNA | polymerase makes fundamentally more sense because you would by | and large avoid disrupting other cellular functions. Hopefully | this represents another tool in the kit in regards to | conjugate/combination therapies like Trastuzumab-deruxtecan. | | Quick question: Based on this statements would these therapy work | particularly well against metastatic disease given its moa for | cell selectivity? | Joel_Mckay wrote: | It is not a single disease, but rather a result of several errant | biological outcomes. The mortality rates have improved a lot with | better treatments, and around 60% of the population will develop | some form of the disease in their lifespan. | | The most disturbing part is most people are unaware they are ill | until relatively late stages of the disease. | | If you live long enough, one will know many good people that go | this way. It is a worthy area of research, as it improves the | lives of many families. =) | heavyset_go wrote: | Screenings allowed my family members to catch cancer early when | they still had chances for good prognoses, so don't skip out on | regular checkups. | dominotw wrote: | liquid biopsy seems promising in early detection. | JanSt wrote: | Yes, my cancer was discovered pretty early by pure chance in a | CT for an unrelated issue. I had zero symptoms, was really fit | and pretty much never sick. | | Who knows how long it would have had time to mutate and grow | otherwise. Early detection is a really important issue for | cancer treatments. | Kalanos wrote: | so this can put the breaks on cancer, but it can't fix cancer? | notdonspaulding wrote: | I'm far from an expert, but my Dad is currently battling a | high-grade glioblastoma multiforme tumor in his brain. So I've | learned a little. | | > so this can put the breaks on cancer, but it can't fix | cancer? | | "Putting the brakes on cancer" is basically equivalent to | "fixing cancer". For my Dad's GBM, he has an MRI from 13 years | before his diagnosis that seems to show the early stages of his | tumor. At the time, his neuro noted that it was mildly | concerning, but then didn't order any follow-up testing. So the | tumor lay "dormant" in my Dad's head for over a decade. Then it | started rapidly growing last year, until he was losing his | balance at work, started getting scans, and eventually found | the brain tumor. | | All of the standard of care around this is focused on | mechanical or electromagnetic removal of large parts of the | tumor, combined with throwing whatever chemotherapies you can | at the body _to stop the tumor from growing_. Eventually, the | tumor grows until it squeezes out all normal brain | functionality. Anything that can arrest the tumor without | killing you is good. | bulbosaur123 wrote: | When could we realistically see this solution for someone with | prostate cancer? | mentos wrote: | Early detection? | | Whats the best way to detect cancer (money is no object) and how | do we get that cost down 10x and get everyone to participate? | chrisamiller wrote: | Money is absolutely an object. People are starting to do trials | of early detection from circulating tumor DNA, and finding that | the hit rate is alarmingly high. A decent portion of the | population has some kind of malignancy, but most of these will | either be cleared by the immune system, or be completely | benign. Another problem is, if we detect this tumor DNA, it | doesn't tell us where in the body the tumor might be. So then | you're talking massive workups including while body CT scans | and such for a problem that isn't going to be a problem for 99% | of people. I'm not joking when I say that if rolled out as is, | this has the potential to bankrupt the entire healthcare system | with unnecessary procedures. | | To be clear, I very much think that early detection of tumors | will someday be an essential part of cancer treatment. We are | not there yet. | asdff wrote: | >Another problem is, if we detect this tumor DNA, it doesn't | tell us where in the body the tumor might be. | | This isn't necessarily the case. A lot of CTCs have markers | that are indicative of certain cancers or tissue types of | origin. Different tissues have specific patterns of gene | expression even if they all have the same underlying DNA, and | there are databases with thousands of samples sequenced | supporting these patterns. | Nathanael_M wrote: | I think the question being asked was "If money were no | object, what is the best cancer detection method?", as | opposed to stating that money wasn't an object. | | Very interesting comment, nonetheless. | sam537 wrote: | Look at GRAIL therapeutics. Cancer sheds DNA that can be | detected and amplified. We use this sometimes to try to tell if | someone will have a recurrence before scans actually show it. | Sequencing is hard, and there are contaminants and difficulties | calling a mutation/sequence cancerous, but I have had patients | self-refer after a positive GRAIL test, no symptoms, and bam, | biopsy from area of interest shows early cancer. | pella wrote: | problems: | | - False-positive results | | - False-negative results | | _" Mammograms are the best breast cancer screening tests we | have at this time. But mammograms have their limits. For | example, they aren't 100% accurate in showing if a woman has | breast cancer. They can miss some cancers, and sometimes they | find things that turn out not to be cancer (but that still need | further testing to be sure)."_ | | https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-... | selectodude wrote: | Furthermore the detection method used (x-rays) cause cancer | in and of themselves. | Buttons840 wrote: | https://xkcd.com/radiation/ lead me to believe that most | x-rays only expose the person to a few days worth of | background radiation. Is that accurate? And does it really | matter? | asdff wrote: | You can detect tumor cells circulating in blood for certain | cancers. You can get the cost down by having these tests | covered at regular intervals by insurance companies. | throwaway12245 wrote: | Or make it over the counter and pay the $500. | nyx wrote: | It really is remarkable how far cancer treatment has progressed, | even in the last few years. I'm one of the unfortunate people | who, through a close family encounter with cancer, knows more | about this stuff than anyone should have to. The oncologist told | my relative that if they had presented with this particular | cancer just a decade ago, his recommendation would have been to | start hospice care. | | However, in recent years, a very effective checkpoint inhibitor | immunotherapy has been developed for the cancer in question. ~2x | the success rates of traditional chemo, greatly increased overall | survival statistics, and with massively reduced side effects. The | results speak for themselves: this drug has granted my relative | years of extra life in the worst case, and a path to a deep, long | remission in the best case. | | I think that as the technology develops, by 2040 we'll be looking | back at the present state of the art with the same incredulity | that we currently have for, like, bloodletting with leeches in | the Middle Ages. I think they've been saying this for a long time | now, but it's truer than ever that a real cure for cancer is | right around the corner. | bongoman37 wrote: | This. A close friend of mine was diagnosed with stage III | stomach cancer. He lost massive amounts of weight and I almost | thought he was not going to make it. And a year later he is | back at work and doing pretty well. | dominotw wrote: | > in recent years, a very effective checkpoint inhibitor | immunotherapy has been developed for the cancer in question. | ~2x the success rates of traditional chemo | | > I think they've been saying this for a long time now, but | it's truer than ever that a real cure for cancer is right | around the corner. | | I think thats quite a leap. For prostate cancer( most common | cancer among men), top line therapies are still androgen | blockage that was discover 70 yrs ago, chemo and radiation. | Keytruda failed to deliver any significant survival | benefits[1]. | | Yes we've gotten better at slash, burn , poison methods. | Radiation is more trageted and sophisticated. Diagnostics are | more precise. Chemo drugs have better safety profiles. | | But these are all marginal improvements. None of which indicate | anything that we are close to a cure. | | Only hope we still have is to catch it earlier and go ham on | it. Most of the slash,burn, poison methods are being FDA | approved for earlier use. | | The other two things(one of which you've mentioned) are immune | checkpoint blockade if you have MSI-hi/dMMR or PARP inhibition | if you have BRCA2+. Even if you are lucky to have these | mutations these drugs are a hit or miss[1]. | | I don't feel optimistic about a cure at all. | | 1. | https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220803005334/en/Mer... | 01100011 wrote: | Prostate cancer is, from what I understand, one of the | cancers with the least amount of genetic differences from | normal tissue. That makes it harder to target. It also | explains the general failure of checkpoint inhibitors. | nyx wrote: | I agree that my original comment is very optimistic--for what | it's worth, Keytruda has thus far been very effective in the | case I'm talking about, so I have some bias here. I concede | that even in my "double the effectiveness" example, we're | talking about doubling something like a 20% 5-year OS. | | By "around the corner" I'm really talking about, like, 20-30 | years out, which I think is fairly soon in terms of cancer | treatment progress. You're right that it reads like a leap in | the context of my comment. | bnjemian wrote: | Not to be too pessimistic, but 600,000 people died of | cancer in 2019, so 20-30 years is hardly "round the corner" | when you extrapolate to the, let's say conservatively, 10 | million families in the US losing loved ones in that time | period. | | The history of cancer (The Emperor of All Maladies is a | good book covering the history) is full of promising | adjuvants, drugs, protocols that fail to generalize well. | There are a lot of reasons for this. With drugs, one is | that Phase 3 clinical trials often have patients who are | selected on the basis of them being likely to be among the | best responders. But once the drug is approved and made | available to all patients within a given indication - a | fundamentally different population - an overwhelming | positive response may be significantly more modest. In many | cases, this has to do with a patient's tolerance of the | side effects or the interaction of the drug with known or | underlying comorbidities. | | While I'm encouraged by the research in this article and | could see the drug being part of a combination protocol, | I'm hesitant that it will be "universal". And the | mechanism, candidly, is downright scary - if I were running | a Phase 3 for this (seems the trial cited was a Phase 2 | demonstrating baseline safety in humans), I would want a | very detailed articulation of how the technology ensures | with a high margin of safety that the drug delivery is | targeted to the tumor and no other tissues. The | permeability of blood vessels in tumors would not be | sufficient (and also does not seem "universal"). | | On a more personal note, I'm actually a computational | biologist and have done quite a bit of work in cancer | research (masters thesis, portion of my dissertation). My | Mother was also diagnosed with a highly aggressive cancer | of unknown primary (CUP) origin in her lung late last year | (estimated stage IIIb for NSCLC, stage 4 for CUP/melanoma). | Its location and heart involvement made it inoperable. | Turned out is was a melanoma, which to be frank I quickly | recognized down to the subtype upon reviewing the pathology | reports. The lung oncologists were much more conservative; | given the location, they weren't especially well-versed in | melanoma, and presumed it was an adenocarcinoma with a rare | presentation despite the staining for carcinomas being | negative across the board. Luckily, we managed to convince | them to split the difference on the standard of care - | CarboTaxol (carboplatin + taxol) combination and | immunotherapy (nivolumab and ipilimumab), all at once. The | immunotherapy surely saved her life; unlike with | carcinomas, chemo is roughly 5% effective (as in, any | response whatsoever) for melanomas. About 70% of melanoma | diagnoses respond to combination immunotherapy with about | 15% going into full remission (memory is shaky on that last | number, may be slightly higher). With >95 PDL-1 expression, | she was one of the lucky ones - she had a full response on | both imaging and pathological endpoints. That also made her | tumor (or what was left of it) operable. She's two lobes | and a chunk of heart lighter, but she's alive, healthy, and | recovering well. And while I cringed when he did it, one of | her oncologists dropped the "c word" after surgery in | discussing her case. Knowing the foe, I'm much more | cautious in contemplating whether any of this represents a | cure. Psychologically, the uncertainty around the future | maintains a heavy burden over her and our family. A 70% | response rate sounds really good, but it's a very different | calculus when you're living it. | | But as you said, her path towards a cure wouldn't have been | possible not too long ago - in her case, 10-15 years; | ipilimumab was approved in 2011 and nivolumab in 2014. But | 30% of people with melanoma are still non-responders to | combination immunotherapy. And, while a handful of other | (generally less effective) options exist, non-responses in | melanoma are deadly, often within a year or two of | diagnosis, and for most all cancers have an incredibly high | opportunity cost. | notdonspaulding wrote: | My Dad is currently battling a GBM. Do you have any | advice for a web dev who wants to get his toe in the door | of understanding the computational biology of gliomas? | | I don't expect I'll be able to do much, but all of the | treatments we've undertaken so far seem very dated (not | able to resect, one round of radiation, temodar+avastin | for the last year, just switched to CCNU+avastin). I'd | love to know where the state of the art is at and know | how to nudge/prompt his oncologists to be looking at it | through that lens. | | My email is in my profile, feel free to reach out | privately. | Retric wrote: | Part of this is because prostate cancer has such a high | success rate. With treatment, the 5 year survival rate for | early prostate cancer is over 99%, and is was close to 98% 20 | years ago. | | The current approach of regular prostate exams + treatment | isn't perfect but it's extremely effective. | asdff wrote: | As others have mentioned it depends. For instance the initial | trials with pembrolizumab weren't the silver bullet the media | makes them out to be today, until they identified what features | might common among patients that did see a response, e.g. | mismatch repair deficient cancers, because the tumor needs to | be spitting out enough of these tumor-specific neoantigens to | be targted by the immune system. That generally happens with | highly mutated tumors such as those found in mismatch repair | deficient tumors. The reason why the immune system was not | targeting the tumors like it should have given the neoantigens | until you take the drug is because the tumor cells presents the | correct receptors that the immune system expects from healthy | cells, which prevents the immune response. When you block that | receptor as these drugs do, and also have many of these tumor | specific neoantigens being expressed, then the immune system is | able to target the tumor cells for death and the drug works | well. | borbulon wrote: | As a person who currently has stage IV NSCLC, I can add some | context to this: | | YMMV. | | One thing to remember is that "Lung Cancer" is not just one | thing. There are mutations of different genes, there are | overexpressions of different genes. Each one has its own new | medicines. Also, some peoples' cancers are more aggressive than | others, and while for many they can find the right drug, for | some nothing works. | | Keytruda works wonders for some. It did not for me. I had 4 | treatments of the CPP (carboplatin, pemetrexed, and | pembrolizumab) triad, which had some success. They then put you | on "maintenance," which is the PP without the carboplatin | (which is the really old school platinum-based chemo). | Maintenance did nothing for me. My main tumor grew more than | 50% in 2 months. | | Last summer I started 9 months on a chemo/immuno that was | geared towards my specific mutation. It actually did wonders. | It resulted in a 98% shrinkage of my main tumor before I ended | up with pneumonitis from it and had to stop. But I've been able | to be off treatment for the entire summer. I know there are | others who have tried this, and it didn't work. | | So yeah, I'm really, really glad your relative was able to get | some relief from the Keytruda. But I also wish it were the | wonder cure for everyone that it was for them. | nyx wrote: | Thanks for sharing your story and treatment details. I should | add that my relative's cancer has no particularly interesting | mutations, but does have a high PD-L1 expression, which from | what I can tell is the reason Keytruda was more likely to | work for their situation. | | > that was geared towards my specific mutation | | This is actually one of the things that gives me hope for the | future: genetic testing on a tissue sample of the patient's | cancer is standard, and for many of the specific oncogenes | that we know about, there exist therapies targeted to those | specific mutations: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung- | cancer/treating-non-small... | | One thing I've learned is that even in the face of good news, | cancer is a horrible time, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. | But I'm likewise glad to hear about your results from the | latest treatment, and hope things stay as positive as they | can for you. | ghjnut wrote: | I was diagnosed with stage III NSCLC February '21. Radiation, | chemo, and a bilobectomy. I had the ALK+ morphology which | meant I wasn't a candidate for immunotherapy but I've been on | alectinib since my surgery in June '21 with no signs of | recurrence so far. | | The process is grueling in hindsight, but I'm glad to hear | you're getting results. At first I would have said "if this | is going to kill me, make it sooner rather than later" to | avoid a drawn-out painful experience, but I'm starting to | appreciate what the buying time really means. It's hard with | all that's going on but get your head straight and make sure | you enjoy it. | | Keep on keeping on. | tomcam wrote: | Shit. My best to you and yours. Thanks for sharing. | harmmonica wrote: | Would you be willing to share the type of cancer? Also, was the | person you're referring to (can't tell if it was a relative) | able to bypass traditional chemotherapy and go straight to the | immunotherapy given the prognosis? Or did the oncologists | require chemo first and only then your contact was able to | receive the immunotherapy? | | Thanks for sharing anything you can. If more comfortable | sharing in private, I can be reached at asuela1 at yahoo's | email service (it's my spam account, but I'll check it if you | tell me you wrote back there). | nyx wrote: | Stage IIIC NSCLC, specifically a superior sulcus tumor, | advanced enough to be considered inoperable. Standard of care | in this case was induction radiotherapy, followed by a single | course of combination chemotherapy consisting of carboplatin, | pemetrexed, and pembrolizumab (the last of which is the | cutting-edge immunotherapy I'm talking about; brand name | Keytruda.) After that, patients are prescribed the pemetrexed | and immunotherapy alone for a long 2-year "maintenance" | course, at which point treatment options will be reassessed. | | Surgery was not an option here because of the size and | location of the mass, but after the initial course of chemo a | PET-CT showed an 80% reduction in size. After some time on | pembrolizumab, symptoms continue to improve and surgery may | be back on the table soon. | | (edited for a more accurate picture of maintenance treatment; | thanks to borbulon for refreshing my memory) | harmmonica wrote: | Thank you for pointing out the standard of care in this | case, given inability to resect, was the immunotherapy from | the start. Obviously very specific for that type of lung | cancer and the state of your contact's tumor, but I've been | learning more and more about this and have been told by | multiple oncologists that immunotherapy is typically only | given after more conventional treatments are first | attempted and fail to stop progression or shrink the | mass(es). Needless to say that's far from categorical so in | my next conversations I can be a bit more educated in my | questioning. | | And 80% reduction after that first course... Amazing. How | long after the first course did they do the scan that | showed that reduction? | | Btw, very happy for you (and even moreso for your contact). | Great news. | nyx wrote: | The scan that indicated the 80% reduction was after just | a couple of weeks, if I recall correctly. | | Since you're talking about immunotherapy not typically | being a first-line treatment, I'll share a morbidly | interesting fact that underscores some of the, er... | quirks of the US medical system. The oncologist treating | my relative initially staged my relative's cancer in the | electronic health records as stage IV, despite no | evidence of metastasis (the usual criterion)--he | explained that he did this specifically in order to | pursue first-line Keytruda (which is indicated for stage | IV but not stage IIIC) and have it be covered by | insurance. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | I don't understand how medical insurance companies can | choose what treatments can be applicable to what patients | and yet not be as liable as a doctor for medical | malpractice. | xyzzyz wrote: | It's not that they _choose_ the treatment, you can get | whatever treatment you want. They just say that they | won't pay for treatment other than X. This is | unavoidable, really: if you look at countries with public | healthcare system, like eg. UK, the (state) insurer there | also makes decisions as to which treatments are covered, | and which patients are eligible to get them. If anything, | they are more conservative than private insurers in US: | due to public nature, typically they do not offer higher | range of treatments to customers who pay higher premiums. | Instead, the coverage is "one size fits all", and to | limit costs, covered treatments options are seriously | limited compared to what private insurers offer in US, | especially in countries other than the wealthiest ones: | in Poland, for example, cancer treatments available to | patients on government healthcare are at least a decade | or two behind the state of the art. Of course, the flip | side is that you then get to see how cheap health care | per capita is in Poland, and gripe about outrageous costs | in US. | harmmonica wrote: | Thanks for the info on the timing. And that's my kind of | oncologist. Risk in doing that on multiple levels, of | course, but reassuring that some physicians are willing | to do what's right vs what fits into into an insurance | company's flow chart. | mcbain wrote: | Of course it varies by cancer. Look up "adjuvant | immunotherapy". | | It is now standard of care for melanoma, for one, but it | isn't successful for all cancers, (or even all melanoma | mutations). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-06 23:00 UTC)