One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all-tumors.html?ref=hp

by mynd • 13 years ago

64 65 13 years ago

news.sciencemag.org

wwwtyro12• 13 years ago

"Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace those they lost from the treatment"

That's great -- does anyone know if any other cells in the body express CD47? Especially ones that can't be replaced so easily?

viraptor• 13 years ago

No specific answer from me, but I guess digging through some top entries from pubmed can answer that. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%28cd47[gene]%29%20AND... may be a good start.

wwwtyro12• 13 years ago

Some heart-wrenching comments from the page:

"Husband and father of 3, age 31, high grade spindle cell sarcoma, stage 4 with mets- help! nuclearcouple@hotmail.com or find me (spouse) on fb, Heather Cimino in Fort Myers, Fl, willing to travel anywhere, just save my husband!"

"my wife has tumor that are killing her will you hurry up and get this sorted - is there anyway one can volunteer for a trial tim.parry@xtra.co.nz"

There has got to be a way to address this need.

ceejayoz2• 13 years ago

There is, "expanded access" or "compassionate use". http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocat...

maxharris8• 13 years ago

How many months or years does that process take?

Morally speaking, the judgement of a patient (and the physician he has chosen) must not be impeded even for an instant. The FDA renders individual judgement on these matters irrelevant, and the result is often death and slowed medical progress.

maxharris8• 13 years ago

There has got to be a way to address this need.

Yes, there is. Fight for the right of each individual to follow his best judgement in regard to all matters pertaining to his own life. (If someone doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician who can.)

Right now, timely experimental treatments are basically outlawed. What good is it to say that there's an FDA procedure to get around the controls if you're treated too late? What right does anyone have to deprive anyone else of what might be their only shot at life?

wwwtyro12• 13 years ago

Didn't know it was this bad, but couldn't agree more. It should be entirely up to an individual what they put in their body. Monumentally frustrated right now.

roc5• 13 years ago

The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen.

It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance.

DanBC2• 13 years ago

> If someone doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician who can.

Unfortunately that is demonstrably not the case. There are many qualified, experienced, doctors who are happy to peddle nonsense. Even limiting yourself to conventional medicine it's hard to tell the effective medication from the less effective medication.

> What right does anyone have to deprive anyone else of what might be their only shot at life?

What right does anyone have to manipulate desperate dying people out of vast amounts of money on unregulated, useless, gambling?

I'd agree if you're suggesting that people should be able to volunteer for trials - but double blinding means they may not be getting the experimental treatment.

gamblor956• 13 years ago

People who are desperate tend not to be the best test subjects--if there is any indication that the drug isn't work, they're likely to switch to another treatment. This is absolute havok on both safety and efficacy trials, which depend on participants sticking to their regime (whether or not their regime is the tested drug or a placebo). The end result is that the drug ends up taking longer to get to market than it otherwise would, assuming that it can get through the trials.

Yes, it sucks for the people who won't survive until the drug reaches the market, but the overall outcome for society is better.

Also, at the end of the day, taxpayer money is used to pay for most EOL care. The taxpayers have a vested interest in not exposing dying people to expensive and unproven treatments which could make their conditions even worse.

sunnybunny• 13 years ago

Well, the treatment is moving to Stage 1 Human trials, these people should clearly get in touch and volunteer to be a part of the trials.

pcrh3• 13 years ago

Here is a link to a related trial in South Carolina currently recruiting participants to examine a role for CD47 in myeloma. It is not a trial using the antibody cited in the OP's link, but a study to examine if targeting CD47 (and some other potential targets) makes sense in a human context, rather than just in a mouse.

jasallen• 13 years ago

My best friend was just put into hospice for metastasized melanoma. He's 35. Where is this stuff?

Nothing more useful to add to this comment. Sorry

pcrh3• 13 years ago

Sorry for your friend.

This is the original article: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6662

You can actually get the antibody yourself, FTA: "The anti-hCD47 (B6H12) hybridoma was obtained from the ATCC" [http://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/Products/All/HB-9771.aspx]

Purifying it is easy, if you have a lab.

However... you can't use that antibody directly in humans, since it is a mouse antibody, which the human immune system will recognize as foreign. So, even if this treatment were to work, it is necessary is to first "humanize" the antibody so it won't be rejected, and then you can see what effect you get in a clinical trial. I imagine this is what the $20mil funding is for.

You can find clinical trials for new drugs here:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/

wwwtyro12• 13 years ago

Can you use this one directly in humans? Both humans and mice are mentioned, and I do not know how to interpret the nomenclature: http://www.biolegend.com/biotin-anti-human-cd47-antibody-370...

kmtrowbr• 13 years ago

Here is a longer, more recent, (more obscure), article: http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2012summer/article7.html

wwwtyro12• 13 years ago

Thanks for this.

traughber• 13 years ago

It bothers me to continuously see articles with headlines like this. Just look at the comments—it gives false hope to patients and their families. As the author mentioned later in the article, there is a big difference between seeing cancer cells die in a petri dish or reduction in size of a transplanted tumor in mice and it being safe and effective in humans. I hope this succeeds, but it is a long way from a Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

Cancer research is too important to use misleading, link bait headlines to attract attention.

blaabjerg• 13 years ago

This was linked to by The New York Post yesterday, but the article itself is a year old.

johntb86• 13 years ago

I would expect that human tissue put in mice would normally be rejected by the mouse's immune system, so this treatment would just allow that to happen in the special case of cancer tissue (which has mechanisms to prevent that). I'm worried that the human immune system wouldn't be as interested in attacking its own cells that became cancerous, even with this treatment.

ttrreeww• 13 years ago

White blood cell transplant is proven to shrink (cure) cancer. However you won't see it in the USA for the next XX years. Some doctors in China is already doing it though, so if you can travel, that is an option.

See http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jul2010_Life-Extension-F...

Also, I believe there is an organization that helps cancer victims by arranging travels outside of USA for innovative treatments, LEF can refer you to them.

jakubmal• 13 years ago

The article is from 26 March 2012, over a year ago. Would be great to hear on developments that happened over last year.

May this be another 'lost' case, appeared once and never again?

guard-of-terra• 13 years ago

Cancer evolve. In this sense it is like a new species (and it can occasionally become one).

That's why fighting it is so difficult. I highly doubt there ever can be one chemical substance that reliably fights all sorts of cancer.

And you can't really cure cancer anyway.

Our only hope at this point is genetic engineering.

bitwize• 13 years ago

... and in the darkness bind them? Let's hope so.

One Drug to Shrink All Tumors

Related Stories