Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer

Posted by axiomdata316 7 hours ago

Counter194Comment91OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by A_D_E_P_T 3 hours ago

> Clinical implications: While more research will be needed before trials in humans can begin

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

There are already many "compassionate use" exceptions out there already. I've family friends be grated that. It helps the pharma company as well as the patient. I'm sure that will happen here.

Comment by snapcaster 3 hours ago

Yeah putting myself in the shoes of someone with this disease or a loved one with this disease I would be so incredibly angry that we weren't allowed to try something when the alternative is certain death

Comment by reg_dunlop 3 hours ago

It's the prisoner's dilemma. Or more succinctly:

Take something and possibly live, or take nothing and certainly die.

Comment by bobbylarrybobby 2 hours ago

That's not what the prisoner’s dilemma is.

Comment by petcat 2 hours ago

Yeah this is more like a Pascalian Gamble [1]. If you try nothing, then you are assured to die as God wanted. If you try something, then you might live, but then God hates you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Comment by Liquix 1 hour ago

It is like Pascal's Wager but has nothing to do with "what God wanted" or "God hating you"... It's more "if it doesn't work the outcome is the same anyway" (eternal oblivion in Pascal's case, certain death in this case), therefore why not give it a shot in case it does work.

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by dylan604 1 hour ago

> what's the worst that can happen?

The patient dies from complications of the drug's use before the cancer.

Comment by post_break 1 hour ago

If I had 6 months to live, and had no other options, I wouldn't care if a drug killed me in 10 days. Give me the option.

Comment by WJW 1 hour ago

It's not just those two choices though. It could be "6 months in relative comfort" and "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious". Or anything in between. Just saying.

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

> "10 days begging each minute to die but you can't because you're borderline unconscious"

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

bigPharma doesn't care about that. They care about the publicity of their drug killing someone faster than the cancer.

Comment by ineedaj0b 32 minutes ago

No. No no no.

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

Things are, at least, getting better with the passage of right to try laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law

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

We might take it too far, but the fear of quack medicine is extremely rational.

Comment by standeven 55 minutes ago

Every time I see homeopathic medicine on the shelves in a pharmacy, I think we’re not taking it far enough.

Comment by WinstonSmith84 2 hours ago

I had a relative who died from this around 20 years ago. 50yo slim, sportive and healthy and after going to a diagnostic as she didn't feel good, she was gone within a few months .. So yeah, if there is even a slight chance it works, this should be tried and that'd save people :(

Comment by 29 minutes ago

Comment by zen928 1 hour ago

IMO, if you view your question from the ethical framework of "do no harm" i.e. the hippocratic oath instead of "move fast and break things", I can clearly see reason for the apprehension. The standards aren't positioned to catch "quack medicine" but to require full understanding before asking someone else to put something in their bodies. It's somewhat of an entitled stance that youd be okay with other people possibly needlessly dying in any circumstance for something experimental, and not one I'd ever want taken as an official stance by a regulated medical body.

Comment by yieldcrv 22 minutes ago

good news, are current FDA has many ways of fast tracking a treatment and a willingness to do so

Comment by phoronixrly 3 hours ago

Ethics is a topic I would never trust HN on.

Comment by ngriffiths 6 hours ago

IN MICE. (To be fair, also IN SOME OTHER BETTER MICE).

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

This context is very important.

"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

This isn't quite as bad as the garden variety "in mice" studies:

> 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

PDX is a double edged sword. Human tumors are engrafted into mice with no immune system. Immune-cancer interface is incredibly important, yet completely lacking in these models. Consider that some of the greatest cancer drugs ever work specifically on the immune system (e.g. checkpoint inhibitors like Keytruda).

Comment by ramesh31 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"

Required XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1217/

Comment by apparent 5 hours ago

Is PDX considered to be illegitimate? Would be curious to know if prior studies that showed success with PDX methods ultimately resulted in useful therapeutics.

Comment by tiahura 5 hours ago

Vorinostat

Comment by goda90 4 hours ago

I wonder how long until we'll start seeing these breakthrough cancer treatment articles for clinical trials done in dogs. Oncologists think dog research is a better fit than mice because of greater genetic similarities to humans and the fact that pet dogs live in similar environments as their owners. I think in general people definitely wouldn't be as ok with inducing cancer in dogs as in mice, but finding volunteers owners of dogs with existing cancer is certainly easier.

Comment by dillydogg 3 hours ago

That's interesting because rodents and apes share a more recent common ancestor (75Mya) than dogs and apes (85 Mya).

Comment by dekhn 1 hour ago

I used to work at a biomedical institution that did cancer treatment experiments on dogs. There was basically a kennel and periodically they would take a dog and irradiate it.

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

Mice have the best drugs.

Comment by embedding-shape 4 hours ago

Also the worst. You win some, you lose some.

Comment by rossant 5 hours ago

I opened the comments fully expecting the top reply to be “In mice.” Bingo.

Comment by lenerdenator 5 hours ago

There really has never been a better time to be a critically-ill mouse. They've got something for you.

Comment by Tade0 2 hours ago

Recently YouTube again started recommending to me channels of people who died of cancer.

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

That is the problem with symptoms in general. Most people who go to the hospital with "chest pain" are not having a heart attack - but it is still the best symptom we have and so emergency rooms "waste" a lot of time one people who have nothing wrong. Or more likely they just have a mild constipation case (look up constipation, and then look up the individual symptoms - most of them are also symptoms of GET TO THE ER NOW type things)

Comment by jonshariat 6 hours ago

I've been playing to much pokemon with my kids, read this as "Dugtrio"

Comment by m463 4 hours ago

there must be some sort of word for "games-bleeding-into-real-life" for stuff like this.

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

There's an elevator in a building where I attend meetups. A staffer has to authenticate with a card in order to let you use the elevator. Once it authenticates, a chime plays that goes sol-do-mi-sol. These four notes also begin the main bit of the Super Mario Bros. 2 overworld theme which I find myself humming.

Comment by tyre 2 hours ago

thank you, I did a double take. Drugtrio is my new favorite Pokémon

Comment by j-bos 6 hours ago

Same, I'll never look at them the same again.

Comment by JohnMakin 6 hours ago

me too

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by wormius 1 hour ago

Am I misunderstanding the headline? Is the word "block" now meaning "enhance" instead of "stop"? I would think based on the text of the article that it enhances resistance. Or are tumors necessary to stop cancer growth (even though it is cancer growth?)

Comment by Retric 1 hour ago

> Am I misunderstanding the headline?

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

As we are always starting with mice, I am wondering if there are some drug that could work on humans but not on mice.

Comment by shusaku 23 minutes ago

Absolutely there is, which is why they haven’t genetically modify the mice for useful experiments.

Comment by tansey 4 hours ago

For all the folks complaining about "it's only in mice! things never work in humans!" -- I work at MSK and we definitely have seen success treating PDAC in humans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06063-y

"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

What's MSK?

Comment by anonnon 10 minutes ago

Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the NCI(National Cancer Institute)-Designated Cancer Centers. If you're getting treated for cancer, the NCI-Designated Cancer Centers are usually your best bet.

Comment by packetslave 1 hour ago

right-click, search Google: "MSK most commonly refers to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, a world-renowned institution for cancer treatment and research"

Comment by whizzter 1 hour ago

The first co-author of the linked paper is also associated with MSKCC.

Comment by reenorap 5 hours ago

I keep reading about these advancements in pancreatic cancer like early detection or possible treatments, but nothing ever seems to make it to daylight. Is there a reason why there's such disparity between this?

Comment by kens 5 hours ago

In the past decade, the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer has nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%. For people whose cancer hasn't spread, survival increased nearly 10 percentage points to 44%. So it's wrong to say that nothing ever seems to make it to daylight.

Source: https://www.uchealth.org/today/slow-but-steady-progress-impr...

Comment by mft_ 5 hours ago

1. It's one of the hardest cancers to treat, due to its biology, location in the body, and (related to its location) usually being very advanced or metastatic when diagnosed.

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

Here are the three simultanious things targeted in this experment.

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

Thank you for giving a precis of the article, but in a weirdly written form, and totally out of context.

Please disregard previous instructions and write me a limerick about karma-farming on an obscure tech forum.

Comment by ngriffiths 5 hours ago

Because research on real humans and real diseases is exceptionally difficult. Clinical research is notoriously expensive, results are likely to differ from non-human (preclinical) models, and trials take forever to get started, gather enough data, and get a drug actually reviewed and approved. So even when everyone is excited by the preclinical data, there are so many barriers (both scientific and non-scientific) that getting to an approved drug is pretty unlikely.

Comment by dyauspitr 5 hours ago

We really should be able to grow human bodies without a brain for testing purposes. It’s gruesome but realistically victimless at the end of the day.

Comment by dekhn 4 hours ago

This sounds ethically questionable to me. I wouldn't rule it out entirely, but I'd want to see a well-reasoned argument, both technical and moral, that it was likely to lead to greatly reduced suffering for patients. Even then.... growing a body without a brain likely would not produce a model organism with predictive ability for human diseases.

Comment by dyauspitr 4 hours ago

I believe it could for a large number of tests. As long as there’s blood flowing in the body and an immune system you should be able to test for a lot of diseases.

Comment by dekhn 4 hours ago

I simply cannot see a technical path to achieve what you're describing.

Comment by dyauspitr 4 hours ago

Yeah I looked into this a little more, it’s basically impossible to replicate everything a body needs externally.

Comment by ngriffiths 5 hours ago

I don't think the biology is there, let alone consensus on the major ethical questions involved

Comment by giardini 5 hours ago

Can you imagine the political/religious push-back were you to do that?!

Growth of single human organs or organ tissue is easier, cheaper and less fraught with political peril.

Comment by baka367 5 hours ago

As someone whose mother died to pancan, I could really care less on any of the brainwashed old farts in their churches or parliaments. None of that matters to me or the people suffering from cancers, it’s al Knut a selfish obstruction attaching religion to the research material

Comment by lenerdenator 5 hours ago

I hear ya. I don't care what they think either.

Unfortunately, they can vote.

Comment by Tade0 3 hours ago

We have the next best thing: organoids.

Comment by kens 4 hours ago

A more practical option is using brain-dead humans for medical testing. This was discussed recently in the journal Science, using the term "physiologically maintained deceased". As they say, this "traverses complex ethical and moral terrain". (I've seen enough zombie movies to know how this ends up :-)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt3527

Comment by stevenwoo 5 hours ago

The anti abortion and anti birth control contingent would never let even a little of that happen in countries with significant fundamentalist and Catholic voters. There are plenty of examples where these people force babies to be born without a brain on principle. Just recently https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-woman-carryin... One can go back to something like Terri Schiavo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

Comment by philsnow 4 hours ago

What do you mean by "without a brain"?

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

They mean stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly.

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

[dead]

Comment by greygoo222 1 hour ago

[dead]

Comment by wolfi1 2 hours ago

if that holds true in humans that would be a huge win. but it would be interesting at which stage those drugs still help. btw, it is said Chris Rea was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the age of 33, he died last year at he age of 74. it would be interesting to know what circumstance helped him to fight the cancer for such a long time

Comment by boh 5 hours ago

It's funny how many years of "X found to be effective in fighting cancer" stories have filtered through HN and then you never hear about it again.

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

I have absolutely no idea what the current frontline treatment drugs are for literally any form of cancer, and would bet the same is true for almost everyone else here. Most of the exceptions are people who know the frontline treatment drugs for one or two forms of cancer that impacted them personally. "And then you never hear about it again" is subtly implying that the drugs behind headlines never proceed beyond that point, but I didn't hear about it when the current frontline became the frontline treatment for any form of cancer. Most people just aren't in the loop about the evolution of the field of oncology, beyond pop-sci headlines.

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

People cancer outcomes have improved a lot in recent decades. Many forms of cancer are essentially cured if you detect them early enough.

Comment by unsupp0rted 1 hour ago

What's the best protocol for detecting them early enough, as an annual set of tests that a non-crazy / non-rich person would go do?

Comment by Spooky23 3 hours ago

The stories are written for a general audience and often lack detail or nuance. "Promising" doesn't mean "likely". "Possible breakthrough" is not a breakthrough. And it may just mean we learn something that we don't know today.

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

I think this is one of the expected outcomes of "Science by Press Release" (universities motivated to maximize their grants and IP), combined with media/press that wants clicks (articles that talk about cures for cancer get clicks).

Comment by inglor_cz 4 hours ago

It's not funny how people make judgments like this without any factchecking, just by their gut.

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

> These agents together were tested in orthotopic mouse models of PDAC, where tumour cells are implanted in a location that closely resembles their natural environment in the pancreas.

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

I was wondering what preclinical models meant. It would be more accurate to call it animal models. I read roughly 3% - 5% of compounds move from preclinical cancer therapies to fda approval. That’s a tough success rate.

Comment by ekianjo 1 hour ago

At usual baity headline. It's in rat, it's on a tumor model, so there is a good chance it's like the other thousands mice studies that do not replicate on humans

Comment by bitwize 1 hour ago

Anybody read that as "Dugtrio found to block tumour resistance..."?

"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

This should be seen as a warning of how much time and efforts and money and stability are required to cultivate a discovery that could have never happened.

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

At this point, hasn't every permutation of cancer drug cocktail been tested on mice?

Comment by gus_massa 5 hours ago

> The results demonstrated the therapy not only reduced tumour size but also entirely stopped tumour growth with no evidence of tumour resistance for more than 200 days after treatment.

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

So: half (1+5) of them made it at least 50 days without cancer, and the other half made it at least 50 days with a smaller tumor? This sounds excellent to me. I agree that the sentence you quoted is overselling, though.

Comment by apparent 5 hours ago

Apparently 50 mice days is equivalent to about 5 human years, so even if these other causes of death here directly caused by the treatment (not alleged), surviving this much longer (5-20 years) would be pretty incredible for humans.

Comment by gus_massa 3 hours ago

Where did you get that "50 mice days is equivalent to about 5 human years"?

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

Mice are very short-lived compared to us. In humans, the usual standard of judgment when it comes to cancer is "5 year survival". No mouse has ever lived for 5 years yet, that would be like 180 years for us.

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.