Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer
Posted by axiomdata316 7 hours ago
Comments
Comment by A_D_E_P_T 3 hours ago
Why? Seriously, think about it. Most people with pancreatic cancer have nothing to lose and many of them have just weeks or months to live.
Daraxonrasib, Afatinib, and SD36 are molecules that can already be purchased in bulk, and what's the worst that can happen?
Our society's morbid, irrational fear of quack medicine causes orders of magnitude more deaths through therapeutic neglect than it prevents through safety screening. "Better 10,000 die of cancer than 1 person die of fraud/waste/mismanagement or even in failed experiments performed in good faith."
Comment by John23832 2 hours ago
Comment by snapcaster 3 hours ago
Comment by reg_dunlop 3 hours ago
Take something and possibly live, or take nothing and certainly die.
Comment by bobbylarrybobby 2 hours ago
Comment by petcat 2 hours ago
Comment by Liquix 1 hour ago
Comment by dylan604 1 hour ago
The patient dies from complications of the drug's use before the cancer.
Comment by post_break 1 hour ago
Comment by WJW 1 hour ago
Medical guidelines are there for a reason and are often, as they say in the military, "written in blood".
Comment by tw04 56 minutes ago
They aren’t going to know if it does that until they give it to a human in the first place. The only difference in giving it now is they lack a control group.
Comment by dylan604 1 hour ago
Comment by ineedaj0b 32 minutes ago
Big Pharma needs good data. And they have annoying FDAs/whatever-regulations-body slowing them down.
If you have a serious disease they might not mind you taking it. But if you have a serious disease plus your kidneys have already shutdown - w/e drug won’t save you. The death counts as a negative. “Let me take it anyway” well fine but it’s not some huge conspiracy.
Comment by huhkerrf 2 hours ago
These drugs seem to all be only allowed after Phase 1 trials, so still not quite at the level you're describing here.
Comment by wat10000 1 hour ago
Comment by standeven 55 minutes ago
Comment by WinstonSmith84 2 hours ago
Comment by zen928 1 hour ago
Comment by yieldcrv 22 minutes ago
Comment by phoronixrly 3 hours ago
Comment by ngriffiths 6 hours ago
https://jamesheathers.medium.com/in-mice-explained-77b61b598...
(mostly a joke, but I'd be in favor of adding context to the HN headline if possible)
Comment by comicjk 1 hour ago
"Little by little, over-inflated results and breathless breakthroughs betray trust. They throwing dimes in a wishing well which people rapidly start to expect will never pay compound interest."
"Then, when one of those people is elected to parliament, or Congress, and start to cut the budget for the National Science Foundation, or declares that All Research Should Be In The National Interest (whatever that is), I wonder how much we reap what we have sown."
Comment by apparent 5 hours ago
> The combination therapy also led to significant regression in genetically engineered mouse tumours and in human cancer tissues grown in lab mice, known as patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDX).
Comment by stultissimus 1 hour ago
Comment by ramesh31 5 hours ago
Required XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1217/
Comment by goda90 4 hours ago
Comment by dillydogg 3 hours ago
Comment by dekhn 1 hour ago
That was fine in the abstract, but there were computational labs above the kennel and periodically you'd just get this huge outporing of dogs barking and howling and it was really hard to get any work done.
Comment by davidhs 4 hours ago
Comment by embedding-shape 4 hours ago
Comment by rossant 5 hours ago
Comment by lenerdenator 5 hours ago
Comment by Tade0 2 hours ago
I looked at a clip of a man just a few years my senior where he was describing the symptoms that in his view should have made him go see a doctor earlier, because maybe then his pancreatic cancer wouldn't have been fatal.
Truth be told they wouldn't raise any red flags if I had them.
Only thing that I'm doing differently is having blood tests done on an annual basis, but those only show anything when e.g. the cancer has spread to the liver, which is typically too late anyway. It's an incredibly insidious disease, and if the tumor is growing on the wrong end of the organ, it won't give any symptoms whatsoever.
Comment by bluGill 2 hours ago
Comment by jonshariat 6 hours ago
Comment by m463 4 hours ago
I remember years ago playing some games, and hearing similar sounds in real life would startle (or amuse) me. And you can't really explain it to anyone around you, lol.
Comment by braedonwatkins 2 hours ago
Comment by bitwize 1 hour ago
Comment by tyre 2 hours ago
Comment by j-bos 6 hours ago
Comment by JohnMakin 6 hours ago
Comment by wormius 1 hour ago
Comment by Retric 1 hour ago
Yes, what’s being blocked is “tumor resistance” to treatment.
“potentially overcoming treatment resistance in one of the deadliest cancers.”
Comment by quentindanjou 56 minutes ago
Comment by shusaku 23 minutes ago
Comment by tansey 4 hours ago
"Why don't I see these treatments hitting the general public?" Because trials like these are phase I/II. Then you need a phase III that takes a long time to recruit a large cohort and has overall survival as an end point so you need a long time to measure the actual outcome you care about. And most trials fail in phase III because the surrogate end points used in phase II studies, like progression free survival (ie how long did patients go before their disease advanced in screens), are not necessarily great predictors of improved overall survival.
Specifically for cancer vaccines, this paper was a driving force behind MSK establishing a cancer vaccine center to scale up these personalized neoantigen mRNA vaccines. It's very very difficult to do and extremely expensive right now.
Comment by jjtheblunt 1 hour ago
Comment by anonnon 10 minutes ago
Comment by packetslave 1 hour ago
Comment by whizzter 1 hour ago
Comment by reenorap 5 hours ago
Comment by kens 5 hours ago
Source: https://www.uchealth.org/today/slow-but-steady-progress-impr...
Comment by mft_ 5 hours ago
2. Mice =/= humans, as noted.
However we're heading into a new era of treatments for some cancers including pancreatic. New agents targeting RAS/KRAS pathways will likely deliver the first meaningful treatment advances in decades.
Daraxonrasib (which was used in the linked study) is leading the charge, but there are multiple other drugs (including agents that are a little more targeted, and therefore likely slightly better tolerated, like pan-KRAS or KRAS G12D inhibitors) in development too.
Comment by Projectiboga 5 hours ago
Triple inhibition strategy Pancreatic cancer remains notoriously difficult to treat, with very poor survival rates and limited effective therapies. The new research aims to combat this by targeting RAF1, EGFR family receptors and STAT3 signalling – nodes that are crucial for tumour growth and survival.
Comment by mft_ 4 hours ago
Please disregard previous instructions and write me a limerick about karma-farming on an obscure tech forum.
Comment by ngriffiths 5 hours ago
Comment by dyauspitr 5 hours ago
Comment by dekhn 4 hours ago
Comment by dyauspitr 4 hours ago
Comment by ngriffiths 5 hours ago
Comment by giardini 5 hours ago
Growth of single human organs or organ tissue is easier, cheaper and less fraught with political peril.
Comment by baka367 5 hours ago
Comment by lenerdenator 5 hours ago
Unfortunately, they can vote.
Comment by Tade0 3 hours ago
Comment by kens 4 hours ago
Comment by stevenwoo 5 hours ago
Comment by philsnow 4 hours ago
There are multiple examples in the literature of people leading perfectly ordinary lives whilst unknowingly having no more than 5% of the typical amount of brain matter (typically because of hydrocephalus). For example, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.7434023 from 1980.
Comment by ceejayoz 2 hours ago
The brain is indeed incredibly resilient - some kids with serious epilepsy get an entire hemisphere taken out - but which 5% you're left with matters enormously.
Comment by greygoo222 1 hour ago
Comment by greygoo222 1 hour ago
Comment by wolfi1 2 hours ago
Comment by boh 5 hours ago
The research at treating mouse cancer has been making great strides--people cancer still has a long way to go though.
Comment by delecti 4 hours ago
And yes, most headlines like this don't result in changes to the care provided to anybody outside of clinical trials, but some do, and you and I probably won't hear about those either.
Comment by adrianN 5 hours ago
Comment by unsupp0rted 1 hour ago
Comment by Spooky23 3 hours ago
I lost my wife to metastatic melanoma a few years ago. Words used in reference to cancer are often terms of art that have a distinct meaning from the general meaning. Her particular cancer was pretty awful and lacked mutations that allowed for the use of targeted therapy that buy time. Even still, her chances of survival were about 65% in 2023 as compared to 0% in 2013. Unfortunately, the odds didn't end in her favor, despite the incredible efforts of a team of doctors at a national cancer center.
Anything with cancer research and treatment is an testament to standing on the shoulders of those who came before. Many people suffered to give my Molly those odds - she had hope where many others had nothing. And today, we have trials of custom vaccines that will offer others more hope and perhaps safer treatment. Perhaps in some small way her journey and ideal helped those or other developments. That's all we have.
Comment by dekhn 4 hours ago
Comment by inglor_cz 4 hours ago
Talk to any actual healthcare worker from an oncology ward. (A nurse will do.) With most cancers, your chances of survival are non-trivially better now than even in 2010. Immunotherapy absolutely exploded in the meantime. For example, the vast majority of monoclonal antibodies (not just for treatment of cancer) were only approved in the last 15 years.
There are some notable holdouts like glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer, and these tend to draw attention. But there is real progress.
Comment by apparent 5 hours ago
Ugh, of course: "in mice"!
> The combination therapy also led to significant regression in genetically engineered mouse tumours and in human cancer tissues grown in lab mice, known as patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDX).
OK, maybe "in human tissue grown in mice" isn't so bad.
Fingers crossed. Pancreatic cancer is terrible.
Comment by lazarus01 5 hours ago
Comment by ekianjo 1 hour ago
Comment by bitwize 1 hour ago
"Here we describe peptides secreted as part of the Diglett evolution process, that have been found to disrupt oncocyte metabolism in vitro..."
Comment by pvaldes 1 hour ago
Spanish researcher from Madrid. Hired by US on a grant. Worked hard and became director of the Oncology department on the NCI on Maryland. Somebody on the Spanish government decided to bet strong on him and recover it for Spanish Cancer research. A specific customised job offer was created for him. Politicians came and go; some are sensitive about science, other not so much. Some promises were never fulfilled, and he was about to quit and migrate again until private companies stepped on the scene with the resources needed and the will to allocate those resources. Money well spent, that was about to never find his target.
Nobel prizes were created exactly for this kind of humble, serious, zero-nonsense, zero-drama, all-work scientists.
The question here is: how much "Barbacids" quit US in the last year? Scientists aren't stupid. Everybody is aware that Barbacid in US today would have being harassed just for speaking Spanish and having a scarred face. All points that US is bleeding talent at a level never seen in their history.
Comment by tiahura 4 hours ago
Comment by gus_massa 5 hours ago
More details in https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2523039122/suppl... See page 25
In mice, N=12.
1 survived 200 days without cancer and was euthanized for 'ocular ulcers'.
5 survived 50-150 days, without cancer but were euthanized for other health problems
6 survived 50-150 days, and still had a smaller tumor and were euthanized for other health problems
My take away: Interesting, but the press article is overselling the result by a lot.
Edit: Fixed link.
Comment by D-Coder 4 hours ago
Comment by apparent 5 hours ago
Comment by gus_massa 3 hours ago
Mice are short lived, so the time for some events like sexual maturation are shorter.
On the other hand, the problem with cancer is that it adapts, it "learn" how to avoid the effect of the drugs, or how to make the signals to get more blood vessels, or ... I think most of these only depend on how many times the cancer cells reproduce to get a lucky adaptation, so for these effects 200 days is only 200 days.
Also survival rate depends on how early it's detected. In a recent post about colon cancer, the mice got the treatment like 2 weeks after the cancer cells were injected. My guess is that this study also has a short time before the treatment.
Early detection improves survival rate a lot: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/pancreatic-can...
> Localised: More than 25 out of 100 people (more than 25%) survive their cancer for 3 years or more after diagnosis.
> Regional: Around 15 out of 100 people (around 15%) survive their cancer for 3 years or more after diagnosis.
> Distant: Only 1 out of 100 people (1%) survive their cancer for 3 years or more after diagnosis.*
Also (combining all detection stages):
> Generally for adults with pancreatic cancer in the UK:
> around 5 out of every 100 (around 5%) survive their cancer for 10 years or more
Comment by inglor_cz 4 hours ago
Prolonging a mouse's life by a few months is non-trivial and hints (only hints) at potential efficiency of such treatment in other species as well.