Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 330 posts

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#111

Post by consumer451 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #91
ryan_n wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would love to see a source for this, but I'm assuming you don't have one and are just spreading FUD due to your political beliefs... Closest thing I could find was a little over 15,000 people in Europe who got myocarditis (also includes pericarditis: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10746454/ ). Out of millions (hundreds of millions?) that received the vaccine. Please stop doing what your doing. It's pretty s…

> Please stop doing what your doing Yes, and it's worse than that for the parent commenter, the unvaccinated population also got some cases of myocarditis - often after Covid. And they got myocarditis at a higher rate than the vaccinated.

Thank you for making that point. This is the truth. This whole conversation drives me nuts, because all the data is now available. The increase in risk for myocarditis in non-vaccinated people is staggering! (>10x higher risk!)

Example study:

> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.

The study monitored a total population of 536,448 people. This is real data.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#112

Post by hibikir »

wincy wrote: post #88
GenerWork wrote: post #4

This is great news! I think people forget how anti-skin cancer protocols even as simple as applying suntan lotion weren't as popular as recent as 50-60 years ago. Lots of "sun children" of the 50s and 60s are now feeling the repercussions of only applying baby oil and are getting hit with lots of melanoma.

What’s funny is before the 50s and 60s everyone knew you should cover up and women wore bonnets. That too much sun was bad for you. Laura Ingalls Wilder of Little House fame (I mention this a lot as I read these to my children as an adult, and they’re a fascinating look at 1880s America) has lots of places where her mother says “put on your bonnet! Don’t get too much sun!”. We act like people in the past were ignoran…

We developed creams that stopped sunburn, but were still great at getting you cancer. A lot of the ads from 70s and 80s talked about how they stopped UVB but let the tanning UVA through! So yes, they didn't burn, but the long term cancer rates exploded, along with all the skin aging.

So it's not that they ignored the all knowledge. I blame most of it on the rather detrimental tech advancement. Like cigarettes with filters: now safer (except you can smoke more now, and the cancer risk is still a disaster)

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#113

Post by bonsai_spool »

addisonl wrote: post #105
paulpauper wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

melanoma , unlike the others, has a much weaker link to sun exposure. its why melanoma often appear in areas with no sun exposure

Misleading comment. From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463 > Cutaneous melanoma (CM) accounted for around 331,700 cancer cases globally in 2022 > An estimated 267,353 (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 242,818, 278,638) CM cases were UVR attributable globally in 2022 UVR = Ultraviolet radiation Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the vast majority of melanoma cases in the US at least: > The percentages of me…

Please be careful and charitable in reading others' words, especially as they relate to scientific topics.

OP did not say that melanoma has no sun exposure risk but that it is lower than the risks associated with other cutaneous cancers (e.g., SCC and BCC) and it would seem that's true based on the very short search I performed.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#114

Post by HedonicEscal8r »

HedonicEscal8r wrote: post #103
danjl wrote: post #69

Will this targeted approach be beneficial to other cancer types? Is there any data or theory about this class of drugs as a more general therapy?

Yes, mRNA vaccines are promising for many but not all cancer types, and there are many ongoing clinical trials. There's also a lot we yet don't know about how to design them. Here's a great blog post on this, "How to build a cancer vaccine, and whether they will work this time": https://www.owlposting.com/p/how-to-build-a-cancer-vaccine-a... Here's the blog post I wrote on personalized mRNA vaccines: https://hedonice…

One of the leading problems is that we don't know how to pick the right neoantigens (mutant cancer proteins) which can trigger the optimal immune response.

Moderna used a simple heuristic, "how likely is this antigen to show up on the cell surface?" which makes sense, since an antigen has to show up on the cell surface for the immune system to see it. But there's so much missing from this model, and we just don't have enough data. Failures in clinical trials of mRNA vaccines may well be caused by this problem. (Yes, this is a good problem for AI, if we can get enough data).

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#115

Post by bonsai_spool »

paulpauper wrote: post #95
danjl wrote: post #69

Will this targeted approach be beneficial to other cancer types? Is there any data or theory about this class of drugs as a more general therapy?

Individualized immune cancer therapy has been touted as the next big thing for half a century. It's nothing new, and with few exceptions, such as skin cancer, has failed to yield much. scientists, for decades, have tired to harness the immune system to attackcancer and it almost never works.

> Individualized immune cancer therapy has been touted as the next big thing for half a century. It's nothing new, and with few exceptions, such as skin cancer, has failed to yield much. scientists, for decades, have tired to harness the immune system to attackcancer and it almost never works.

"Almost never" is doing a lot of work. You may be aware that most drugs fail over the course of development and human trials?

Anyway, checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a massive boon to oncology and was only brought into widespread use over the past 15 years.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#116

Post by bonsai_spool »

paulpauper wrote: post #99
consumer451 wrote: post #8

This appears to be a potentially huge win for health. The market has Moderna up 153% at time of writing, which is some sort of validation I suppose. Related stories: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/merck-and-modernas-per... https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/merck-moderna-say-m... https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-vaccine-succ...

[flagged]

> not really a huge win. It's going to cost taxpayers significancy and may not improve survival much or total life expectancy . The stock is way overextended. It's a long way from anything that can be used on patients, assuming it even works well enough to be a commercial success. History has shown this is seldom the case. I would short it if wasn't so expensive and risky to do so.

Buddy, this is a phase 3 trial. This is about as close as you can get to "anything that can be used on patients" without already being approved.

It is clear that you don't have experience in this area.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#118

Post by andxor »

bpodgursky wrote: post #25
Jyaif wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh nice. If it goes up another 100% I may not lose money on this stock anymore.

And if it doubles after that, I may even beat a passive S&P 500 investment.

You know many stocks have done better than the SP500, right?

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#119

Post by ViktorRay »

wincy wrote: post #88
GenerWork wrote: post #4

This is great news! I think people forget how anti-skin cancer protocols even as simple as applying suntan lotion weren't as popular as recent as 50-60 years ago. Lots of "sun children" of the 50s and 60s are now feeling the repercussions of only applying baby oil and are getting hit with lots of melanoma.

What’s funny is before the 50s and 60s everyone knew you should cover up and women wore bonnets. That too much sun was bad for you. Laura Ingalls Wilder of Little House fame (I mention this a lot as I read these to my children as an adult, and they’re a fascinating look at 1880s America) has lots of places where her mother says “put on your bonnet! Don’t get too much sun!”. We act like people in the past were ignoran…

No I think you’re looking at this wrong.

They thought too much sun was bad for you because back then tanned skin was considering a mark of being poor and pale skin was a mark of being wealthy since rich people didn’t have to work outside.

They also had puritanical Victorian notions of modesty and covering up.

There was no knowledge linking sun exposure to cancer or negative health effects. People in the past indeed were ignorant on many things.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#120

Post by HedonicEscal8r »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #113
addisonl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misleading comment. From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463 > Cutaneous melanoma (CM) accounted for around 331,700 cancer cases globally in 2022 > An estimated 267,353 (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 242,818, 278,638) CM cases were UVR attributable globally in 2022 UVR = Ultraviolet radiation Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the vast majority of melanoma cases in the US at least: > The percentages of me…

Please be careful and charitable in reading others' words, especially as they relate to scientific topics. OP did not say that melanoma has no sun exposure risk but that it is lower than the risks associated with other cutaneous cancers (e.g., SCC and BCC) and it would seem that's true based on the very short search I performed. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/

Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. It's still a misleading comment, in my opinion.
Post reply on HN