Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice • Hacker News Board

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#101

Post by mft_ » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:37 PM UTC

mbag wrote: post #27

perlgeek wrote: post #15

This seems to be the actual paper: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/10/426/eaan4488 I hope this translates well to humans and other mammals.

I see that authors are from Stanford University. Can someone from the US clarify if this will be in public domain/knowledge, or is it possible some drug company will patent this later on?

The approach is in the public domain - in that it could be attempted by anyone else.

According to the paper, these were the two drugs used:

* "CpG SD-101 was provided by Dynavax Technologies"

* "Fc-silent Anti-OX40 (CD134) mAb was purchased from Absolute Antibody"

SD-101 is already in clinical trials. http://www.dynavax.com/our-pipeline/cancer-immunotherapy/sd1... The anti-OX40 was a laboratory antibody, presumably as this was for a study in mice. However, there are various anti-OX-40 molecules in clinical trials, which could be used.

To get clinical trials going with this approach isn't a matter of patents - it's a matter of one or two companies (depending on ownership of suitable molecules) deciding its something they want to do, and then doing it. My guess is that Dynavax will already be exploring this.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#102

Post by stryk » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

jcims wrote: post #55

Writing this from a squeaky recliner set beside my wife’s bed in the oncology department of a local research hospital. Three weeks ago she had a radical hysterectomy and partial lymphadenectomy to treat stage IIIc ovarian cancer, and we’re back to try to aid her in her recovery to prepare for chemotherapy. Chemo should start next week, but we are hoping to also participate in a clinical trial for atezolizumab. This i…

I wish the best for you and your loved ones, and genuinely hope your wife beats the shit out of this cancer and I hope she beats it so badly that it never returns. My mother went through ovarian cancer, including the hysterectomies, chemo, and associated therapies. I wish I could tell you it was easy, but I would be lying, it's not.

Incidentally, at least for my mother, the injections she would get shortly after her chemo treatments -- if I remember right these were referred to as "white cell-count booster shots" although I don't remember their actual medical terminology -- these left her feeling far worse than the actual chemotherapy. It most affected her appetite, namely she didn't have one for 3-4 days after getting the injections. We tried everything the doctors and nurses recommended, and a few that the internet recommended [don't do this, but we were desperate], all to no avail. Finally, I talked her into smoking a joint -- and this woman never drank anything other than communion wine or did any drugs in her 55+ years of life before this. Appetite problem solved. It was back in spades, almost like never before. I guess what I'm saying is, if your wife finds herself with the same issues [and I hope she does not] never mind the 'stigma' associated with it -- weed works.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#103

Post by randcraw » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:42 PM UTC

I'm impressed at how precisely and locally targeted the therapy seems to be.

Many of the cancer immunotherapies I've heard about are systemic and risk overengaging a diffuse immune response against multiple tissues. This approach trains in-situ using strong signatures from individual tumors first, before the antigens spread out across the body. Perhaps this localizes the cancer antigen signature better, so antibodies cause less collateral damage?

But CAR-T therapy should do something similar, though re-introduction of the antibodies is systemic (untargeted). Is the administration of this therapy directly into the tumor somehow essential to its specificity?

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#104

Post by cryoshon » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:43 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #26

allenz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is really nicely written. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.

As a regular man in the street, how excited should I be about this? What's the chance of this developing into a regular treatment for most types of cancers, within, say, the next ten years?

as a former immunooncology scientist i'd say you should be guardedly optimistic. you should be aware that there probably won't be a generalized cancer cure, but i think we'll be starting to tackle a lot of different cancers in the next 2-3 years, just like we have been for the previous 3-5 years. beyond that, who knows.

immunotherapies don't work for 100% of people or 100% of cancers, and some cancers seem to grow resistant to some immunotherapies after multiple rounds of treatment.

there are a lot of limitations and strengths of immunotherapies that we don't even have a clue about yet-- by my totally made up estimation we have about 10% of the puzzle figured out, an additional 30% which we have partial or incorrect understandings of (but at least we realize it and are working to clarify things), and 60% remains unknown unknowns.

but remember: we don't need to understand quantum gravity or have much knowledge of how gravity works whatsoever to make an airplane that defies gravity at our will. it's the same way with immunotherapies, except replace "gravity" with "cancer." we can do an awful lot with what we know.

immunotherapies are incredible-- literally the data is often unbelievable at first glance.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#105

Post by epmaybe » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:44 PM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #97

josu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>10 years away from getting approved for humans. Isn't there a fast-track for experimental treatments for late stage cancer?

Not sure, but in the United States there may soon be easier access for any person with a terminal illness to get access to any experimental treatment if they so desire, even treatments that are in early stages with no human trials yet.

Yeah there's a lot of talk about "right to try" laws doing what you have described.

Personally? It had better be an airtight law accounting for the edge cases that could allow certain populations to be taken advantage of. For example, if anyone with a terminal illness can try an experimental drug, could a pharmaceutical company charge for said treatment? Or use the data from trying this treatment on the patient to further their own research?

I guess it just doesn't sit well with me since researchers in the US have had a history of taking advantage of certain populations in furthering progress (Tuskeegee, prison populations, mental institutions).

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#106

Post by cryoshon » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

josu wrote: post #78

shadowtree wrote: post #72

If they’re at mice this is, at best, 10 years away from getting approved for humans. Immuno-Oncology is the hot new shit, a huge wave of biotech startups is betting everything on it. Celgene bought Juno for 11bn recently, Gilead bought Kite for 12bn. Puts tech startups into perspective :) Tres commas...

>10 years away from getting approved for humans. Isn't there a fast-track for experimental treatments for late stage cancer?

there is, but making the jump from mouse to humans with a therapy isn't always successful. sometimes subsequent mouse studies don't pan out, or sometimes the FDA sees something they don't like and you need more research before moving to preclinical development and then phase 1. i'd put it far sooner than 10 years assuming their concept works in humans, though.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#107

Post by mft_ » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #80

mbag wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that authors are from Stanford University. Can someone from the US clarify if this will be in public domain/knowledge, or is it possible some drug company will patent this later on?

One drug is already FDA approved. They have a clinical trial for lymphoma. Stanford may patent many parts of it, the two drug combo.. depends on the novelty and the formulation, how it's delivered. It also depends on how obvious it is in the patent sense. You might find other researchers and companies who optimize the system as well (e.g. fine tune the checkpoint inhibitor). But these drugs are manufactured already.…

Just for clarity, neither drug is FDA approved in the conventional sense (i.e. not approved to be sold). However, both SD-101 and also various anti-OX40 MAbs are in clinical trials.

Also for clarity (and responding to the concerns of the original questioner) it's highly unlikely that this combination will be patented by anyone - this isn't how patents are used in drug development. Anyone with access to the necessary drugs would --in theory-- be free to open a clinical trial to test this approach.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#108

Post by randcraw » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

josu wrote: post #78

shadowtree wrote: post #72

If they’re at mice this is, at best, 10 years away from getting approved for humans. Immuno-Oncology is the hot new shit, a huge wave of biotech startups is betting everything on it. Celgene bought Juno for 11bn recently, Gilead bought Kite for 12bn. Puts tech startups into perspective :) Tres commas...

>10 years away from getting approved for humans. Isn't there a fast-track for experimental treatments for late stage cancer?

Yes there is. The FDA calls it "breakthrough therapy".

For breakthroughs, 10 years before widespread availability would be a maximum. In late stage cancer, especially where options for treatment are few, rollout could be very fast, like 2-5 years.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#109

Post by zaroth » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:54 PM UTC

Oras wrote: post #61

The fact that it reached distant metastasis is incredible! Hope this will work well on human with few effects comparing to chemotherapy.

The activated T cells completed their training on the target/injected tumor, and then circulated through the body until they found their next target. Trained cancer ninjas.

Re: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

#110

Post by IncRnd » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:54 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #57

mbag wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that authors are from Stanford University. Can someone from the US clarify if this will be in public domain/knowledge, or is it possible some drug company will patent this later on?

Conflating public domain with public knowledge risks a meaningful error. To patent something requires that you make it publicly knowable , but this knowledge would not be usable by other companies. well... you can write a patent that is so obfuscated that the public cannot learn from it...

> well... you can write a patent that is so obfuscated that the public cannot learn from it...

While this does happen, and sometimes things obvious to a practitioner get patented, obfuscated patents are contrary to the purpose of patenting.