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

211–220 of 330 posts

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

#211

Post by preg_match »

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.

Every cancer is different. Immunotherapy is highly effective, even curative, for some cancers. For my cancer, chemotherapy is curative, while other cancer's just shrug chemotherapy off like it's nothing.

Having a plethora of drugs and treatments is vital because cancer is not "one thing". Each type of cancer will respond better to some treatments than others.

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

#212

Post by deaton »

bluGill wrote: post #139
SoftTalker wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure a bad sunburn sucked back then as much as now, and was something one tried to avoid.

Unless you are albino (which is a large set of other problems) being in the sun all day will develop enough of a tan that you won't sunburn. There might be a problem in spring, but by summer time most people will have spent enough time outdoors that they wouldn't sunburn. I've always been the lightest person in town (a tie in Stockholm) and I can spend all day outside without any sunscreen and I won't burn on the par…

I don't know about that. I'm a fairly tanned individual, but where I live, in Texas, if I spend all day in the sun, I'm getting sunburned bad everywhere.

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

#213

Post by Scoundreller »

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...

For a while (like a year+ ago), the shares were trading around cash value. But they were burning through cash. Happy it’s worked out for them!

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

Scoundreller wrote: post #213
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...

For a while (like a year+ ago), the shares were trading around cash value. But they were burning through cash. Happy it’s worked out for them!

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by grokcodec »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #191
grokcodec wrote: post #64

In other news, your barber thinks you need a haircut. Until there is a proven net overall health benefit to this therapy, I wouldn't waste much ink on it. Also, can someone please tell me how one controls the dose for an mRNA therapy ?

How does one control the dose for anything? Why are you worried about mRNA vaccines in particular?

Radiation dose, for example, is precisely measured - we know exactly how much radiation the body is exposed to during therapy. mRNA products work by making our cells produce the desired protein/drug. There is no way of controlling how many cells are producing the drug and for how long they are producing it - ergo there is no way of controlling the dose. I hate to break it to you but they have found people producing spike protein over 3 years after getting the covid shot.

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

#216

Post by grokcodec »

Plutoberth wrote: post #193
grokcodec wrote: post #64

In other news, your barber thinks you need a haircut. Until there is a proven net overall health benefit to this therapy, I wouldn't waste much ink on it. Also, can someone please tell me how one controls the dose for an mRNA therapy ?

A successful phase 3 trial means that the drug is actually effective, not just safe. That's what they test in phase 3.

As there is no safety data available on this new drug, what makes you say it is safe ? Pre 2020 it took an average of 10 years to release a new vaccine - why do you think it took that long ?

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

#217

Post by ardit33 »

hobojojo wrote: post #202
ardit33 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly.... most of the world didn't live in england. All cultures (including mine), have a way to warn kids, or adults for not to stay too long in the sun. From normal sunburn, to feeling light-headenes/fainting due to heat excaustion, etc. In the winter was the opposite. (stay in the sun to get some sunlight and not get sick). So, they knew, and had nothing to do with 'class'. Also, they knew some sun was goo…

Pale beauty is a phenomenon across geography. What correlation a society works out is largely lost in the cycles of avoiding the sun being a relative luxury until you get expensive air travel.

Again... you are confusing second order effects, with the primary reason.

We have an old saying "te rafte pika e diellit", may you get a spot, sun spot, aka cancer from the Sun.

People knew excessive sun is unhealthy.... if you could you avoid it during the summer. It was not necessary to make you look 'rich'. Ability to avoid it, meant you were rich. And people wanted to be pale, because you look rich, that is a second order effect, that came because of the original reason (aka, too much sun is unhealthy).

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

#218

Post by preg_match »

Noaidi wrote: post #205
calebkaiser wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. That's not what progression-free survival means. 2. I don't think AI was mentioned once in this press release. 3. This drug was approved for trial in 2014, so if it had something to do with deep learning, that would actually be a massive announcement. 4. The paragraph immediately following the one you clipped talks about Overall Response Rate (ORR) and throughout the release they discuss Overall Survival (OS). 5.…

1. That's not what progression-free survival means. I was not pointing to PFS as OS. 2. I don't think AI was mentioned once in this press release. I did not say it was. I said it was written FOR AI trading algorithms to read and invest on. 4. The paragraph immediately following the one you clipped talks about Overall Response Rate (ORR) and throughout the release they discuss Overall Survival (OS). Someone noted this…

Yes every cancer is different, responds to different therapy, and with different survival rates. However, cancer treatment, as a whole, works. Oncologists do not prescribe incredibly intense treatments like chemotherapy out of nowhere. Chemotherapy is often not curative. Instead, it's used to both prolong life and improve quality of life.

Dying from late-stage cancer is often painful and miserable. It might be shocking, but getting just a few more months from chemo can provide a greater quality of life. Keyword can. Every oncologist is different with different recommendations, and they explain the risks very concretely. There is always an option to refuse treatment, but bear in mind it's not just about how quick you die. It's also about how much that dying sucks.

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

#219

Post by anonymars »

Noaidi wrote: post #207
anonymars wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reading comprehension is way off. The article says "Each year in Australia, up to 420 people are diagnosed with acral or mucosal melanomas. They affect people of all ethnic backgrounds, and are the most common forms of melanoma in people with very dark skin." That is a discussion of specific subtypes of melanoma. You've turned that into a general statement about melanoma: > not all skin cancers are caused by sun…

5-year relative survival rates for melanoma skin cancer is 95%. That is all that matters. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/melanoma-skin-cancer/det... The study data is not out yet, I thought it was, so I will wait untiul it is to comment further. But saying in the press that: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-20/melanoma-drug-cancer-... "Melanoma is one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer, with more than 330,…

Question for you: what is the goal of these comments? What is it would you like people to do or think differently after reading what you've written?

I'll go first: my hope is that someone who has read what I've written will be more likely to take seriously something suspicious they see on their skin rather than ignore it as unimportant, and be more inclined to take seriously protection from sun exposure when possible

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

#220

Post by preg_match »

grokcodec wrote: post #64

In other news, your barber thinks you need a haircut. Until there is a proven net overall health benefit to this therapy, I wouldn't waste much ink on it. Also, can someone please tell me how one controls the dose for an mRNA therapy ?

Cancer treatment is different. We have a high tolerance for side effects because many cancers are aggressive and deadly. It's a risk-analysis. If your odds of dying from cancer in the next year are 50%, and the drugs have a 25% chance of killing you, then the drugs are worth it.

In actuality, even extremely aggressive therapies like high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell transplant have shockingly low risk of death. Less than 5%. Bear in mind, that's for a therapy that literally wipes out all of your bone marrow. You know, the part of your body that produces your blood? Your body stops making blood and your immune system. And yet, we've gotten the death rate as low as it is.

Post reply on HN