[HN Gopher] Researchers identify 'switch' to activate cancer cel... ___________________________________________________________________ Researchers identify 'switch' to activate cancer cell death Author : DocFeind Score : 62 points Date : 2023-11-13 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (health.ucdavis.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (health.ucdavis.edu) | paulpauper wrote: | It seems like every week there is a new story about some strategy | or breakthrough that holds promise to treat or cure cancer, yet | we're still stuck with the same treatments, mainly chemo, | surgery, and radiation, and generally low survival rates for | advanced cancers. Immunotherapy has been hyped for decades yet | far from being a cure. Maybe one day it will happen. | SoftTalker wrote: | Look at the incentives. To get funding for research, it's | easier if you have prior research that supports your proposal. | Hence a lot of stuff gets written up in very optimistic terms, | to help get more funding to continue the research. It doesn't | seem to matter that none of it really works in the end. It's | also the reason people don't publish failed projects, even | though from a science perspective those might be helpful to | identify dead ends. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Anecdata, but I personally know three people who've been given | an extra 5+ years each due to recent developments in cancer | treatments (better chemo, to be fair), and I'm not exactly a | social butterfly. | | Not a miracle, but not nothing. | snakeyjake wrote: | >yet we're still stuck with the same treatments, mainly chemo, | surgery, and radiation, and generally low survival rates for | advanced cancers | | Survival rates have been increasing for almost all forms of | cancers so fast that it is astounding. Amazing. Stupendous. | Heartening. | | We've gone from an overall 50% five year survival rate to over | 70% in just a couple of decades. | | The pancreatic cancer five-year survival rate is very low, but | has tripled since 1999. | | When I was born you had a 33% chance of living for five more | years if you were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Today you | have a ~90% chance. | | I don't know why people think nothing is changing. | m463 wrote: | I think it's like voice recognition, which was overhyped in | the 90's, then quietly made its way into phone trees, and | cars, and now phones so it quietly works everywhere now. I | think it used to miss a lot of stuff in the beginning, and | that is conflated with missing words occasionally nowadays | even though the field has advanced tremendously. which might | be analogous to fighting cancer. | | I personally know many people who have gotten and then gotten | over cancer. | wpasc wrote: | I agree that much is changing in cancer therapy, most | promisingly around immunotherapies and other immune related | strategies, but the 5 year survival rate change over decades | is often attributed to earlier detection as opposed to | improved treatments. | elromulous wrote: | > I don't know why people think nothing is changing. | | It's because people expect a cure the likes of a vaccine, | with >95% efficacy. | | But it's not entirely their fault, the media all but says | "they've cured cancer!" every other day. | | When you expect a cure, increasing five year survival rate by | 10% falls short. | ekianjo wrote: | Maybe mentioning vaccines efficacy is not very on point | with the past few years track record | cnasc wrote: | How much of this is due to better detection of cancer? If we | discover cancers earlier but still don't have effective | treatment I'd expect the 5-year survival rate to go up even | though the actual death day never changed. | yieldcrv wrote: | which is still fine. | | its part of the stack. earlier detection and improved | treatments is a very important area. | | we still are absolutely failing in _preventing_ those same | cancers from reoccuring because we don 't know the sequence | of triggers or how to prevent them. like, we might know the | trigger, but we don't know why one body really becomes more | susceptible to them aside from sometimes behavioral or | genetic probabilities. hence why we still focus on | remission instead of cured, since the body still remains in | a state of susceptibility to the same thing and is exposed | to the same unknown things, and doesn't revert back to a | baseline of not being so. | tiahura wrote: | Except we're spending $50k+ on many of these treatments. | arcticbull wrote: | > its part of the stack. earlier detection and improved | treatments is a very important area. | | Earlier detection is important but mortality is a better | metric than 5-year survival. People tend to conflate the | two. If earlier detection doesn't decrease mortality then | it's just goosing the 5-year numbers. | | This is especially true in geriatric cancers, | particularly for example prostate cancers, where most of | them are slow growing and not particularly dangerous. | You'll outlive the cancer, so knowing about it doesn't | mean, well, anything, other than exposing you to risky | tests with serious side-effects. Prostate biopsy is | really not great. | | No-treatment is a great choice in these cases, so really, | the detection is all downside, no upside for asymptomatic | cases. [1] | | [1] https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/older-prostate- | cancer-pat... | ekianjo wrote: | > had a 33% chance of living for five more years if you were | diagnosed with prostate cancer. | | This is patently false. Only late stage prostate cancers are | killers. In most cases you catch them early on. | golergka wrote: | > Only late stage prostate cancers are killers. In most | cases you catch them early on. | | That doesn't contradict the claim you're replying to. | bluGill wrote: | Those things are happening. However it is a decade at best from | something in a lab to something in general use. That is at | best, quite often things work in a lab, but don't work in the | real world. sometimes not work means it works, but the side | effects are worse than current treatments (or even worse than | doing nothing!) Sometimes it works on a sub group of people and | we need more time to figure out who/why it works on and then | target those people. | | if you look at day to day or even year to year it looks like | things are not moving. However if you look at decades things | have gotten much better. | murphyslab wrote: | One aspect of the problem in talking about "cancer" is that | we're talking about a large collection of diseases, not a | singular disease or phenomenon: | | > cancer is actually an umbrella term for scores of different | diseases--each with its own unique characteristics and, often, | unique treatment needs | | https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2023/10/cancer-i... | | So every time I read a headline about a new cancer treatment, I | think of it as chipping away at one small rock in a giant field | of rocks that we're trying to turn into dust. The university | "public affairs" (PR) department may talk about about that | small rock as if it were all rocks or all one big rock, and as | if the chip was a giant blow. PR people talk like that because | their job isn't to convey truth; the PR job is to generate news | buzz for the university. So unless you have the time and energy | to read those papers, it's best to ignore what the PR people | say and just to imagine that picture. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I think this is aggressively wrong. First, chemo, surgery, and | radiation have advanced dramatically over the years. Chemo is | an umbrella term for quite a lot of treatments and isn't some | single drug like Tylenol. | | CAR-T has been effective in treating advanced cancers of | certain types and solid tumor CAR-T is advancing fast. | | Cancer is probably one of the most complex problems we've ever | tackled with expectation of success. I think it's considerably | harder than quantum computing or other nascent technologies. | Further I think we are building fundamental understandings of | life itself that leads to enormous adjacent benefits, most | especially in aging and longevity. | | It's also not a single disease. It's a description of a | behavior of cells in the body that leads to certain outcomes. | The causes, mechanisms, etc, are all specific to the cell | types, of which there are many, the individual, and random | chance. That makes the problem domain almost infinitely | complex, so finding a way through it is hard already. But add | onto it that cancer cells _are you_ eliminating them without | eliminating you is absurdly hard, and leaving even a small | number behind risks a relapse that is resistant to the prior | treatments because a few cells happened to have a random | mutation that protected them. | | All this said, I think cancer treatment will be a domino effect | discovery. We will slog along reading these elusive yet | promising articles until one day, we have done enough of the | discovery and exploration, and things will be very different | very quickly. Similar to AI - I wouldn't have predicted | generative AI would have effectively solved NLP two years ago, | despite tons of promising headlines and articles for the last | 50 years. | paulirwin wrote: | > we're still stuck with the same treatments | | Take a look at CAR T-cell therapy, used for Leukemia and blood | cancers (and mentioned in this article). The first trials were | happening around 2011, and now there are several FDA-approved | therapies using this breakthrough. LLS notes [1]: "In some | studies, up to 90 percent of children and adults with B-ALL | whose disease had either relapsed multiple times, or failed to | respond to standard therapies, achieved remission after | receiving CAR T-cell therapy." These are people that would have | died 10+ years ago. | | My younger brother passed away from ALL in 2012 after a | clinical trial for one of these treatments didn't work. His | participation in the trial, even with the unsuccessful result, | helped further the research that is now saving lives that | weren't saved before. | | CAR T-cell therapy is perhaps the most powerful breakthrough | against blood cancer in history. Now, it might be able to | tackle other cancers as well. We're making progress. Of course | we all want it to go faster, but it's happening. | | 1: https://www.lls.org/treatment/types- | treatment/immunotherapy/... | philjohn wrote: | Immunotherapy has come along and shown promise - I know someone | who is still alive almost 15 years later who initially | presented with metastatic melanoma. | oooyay wrote: | > yet we're still stuck with the same treatments, mainly chemo, | surgery, and radiation, and generally low survival rates for | advanced cancers. | | I disagree. Growing up in my teens that was certainly true, but | my fathers been battling stage 4 prostate cancer for a little | over a decade and had few if any side effects from the | treatments. There is a whole line of targeted chemotherapies | you can take one after another after another when one stops | being effective. On the other hand this can be perceived as a | slow march to death from the flu eventually. It was stated to | him ten years ago that he likely won't die from cancer. He's | now on the last medication he will likely take, which addresses | pancreatic cancer that is derived from prostate cancer. | | What I will argue is archaic is how long his doctor ignored | rising PSA levels due to some magical number that the insurance | company would not act before. At that time, the only route he | had was removal of his entire prostate which causes _a lot_ of | quality of life issues. Since then they 've developed more | targeted treatments but I don't know that they're training | family practitioners adequately yet still. | SmoothBrain12 wrote: | Click bait with this 1 easy switch! | sp0rk wrote: | Is the content of the article not exactly what the headline | says? | jquery wrote: | So have cancer cells... in fact I believe that's the problem. | verdverm wrote: | Cell division is imperfect, pretty much impossible to avoid | mutation and loss over the lifetime of an organism. This | compounds over time and is the reason most cancers are later in | life | postalrat wrote: | Many animals seem resistance to cancer. Including big animals | like whales where you'd think if was simply statistics on | cell division they would be more likely to get cancer. | esturk wrote: | But size/height does play a role in humans. For example, | shorter people tend to live longer average lifespans.[1] | | [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12586217/ | rindalir wrote: | I know that these kind of write-ups by universities tend to | overstate the importance of research. However, it's nice to see a | write up that at least on the surface goes into some fairly | interesting detail and actually does NOT seem to overstate the | significance or imply this will result in a single cure for | cancer in just a few easy steps. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-13 23:00 UTC)