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

Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

drugtargetreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#151

Post by MathMonkeyMan »

mft_ wrote: post #39
Projectiboga wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

There once was a couple in thread who traded jargon and one said, "I think you're a fraud, your words are too odd. Come up with a limerick instead."

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#152

Post by vibrio »

ulfw wrote: post #150
vibrio wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even cost plus? Not sure how that works, from the viewpoint of economic incentives.

It's literally free data for efficacy / later sales.

So charging patients/insurance companies at cost to fund the clinical studies?

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#153

Post by Tade0 »

tjpnz wrote: post #143
Tade0 wrote: post #57

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 havin…

>Only thing that I'm doing differently is having blood tests done on an annual basis Tumor markers? Did one once because it was a cheap add on to my annual medical. Which then led to a rather more expensive MRI (lucky for me it wasn't cancer). Genuinely curious if those tests have helped anyone here as a preventative measure.

No, just a standard test, so the typical parameters + glucose + cholesterol. On top of that liver function tests.

I'm aware that tumor markers have a significant false positive rate, so I wouldn't try that unless I had reason to.

A while ago I had a conversation with a person whose 3rd stage bowel cancer was detected because due to an unrelated reason they had a standard blood test done and it was wildly off in hemoglobin levels, so the doctors started investigating.

Eventually the surgeon cut out a significant part of their intestine, but the person lived, so they count that as a win.

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#154

Post by DennisP »

vibrio wrote: post #152
ulfw wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally free data for efficacy / later sales.

So charging patients/insurance companies at cost to fund the clinical studies?

Clinical studies today are funded entirely by the pharma companies, keep that. Selling at cost of production would be something extra, for patients who want the drugs but aren't enrolled in an actual study. The company doesn't get solid data it can use for regulatory approval, so making them donate the drugs in that case seems excessive.

A downside would be that for drugs that don't cost much to produce, patients might be less willing to enroll in the studies, given the chance of getting a placebo. That could be handled by shutting down the informal access while the study is enrolled, for anyone who's eligible. I'm sure there are other wrinkles that would need to be considered too.

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#155

Post by vibrio »

DennisP wrote: post #154
vibrio wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So charging patients/insurance companies at cost to fund the clinical studies?

Clinical studies today are funded entirely by the pharma companies, keep that. Selling at cost of production would be something extra, for patients who want the drugs but aren't enrolled in an actual study. The company doesn't get solid data it can use for regulatory approval, so making them donate the drugs in that case seems excessive. A downside would be that for drugs that don't cost much to produce, patients mig…

Put this way, this seems reasonable. Beyond cell therapy, I don't thin the cost of drug is the motivation for not making it more freely available. 'Misuse' leading to potential liability or unjustified bad outcomes, along with some regulatory burden seems like the issue.

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#156

Post by BobaFloutist »

post_break wrote: post #80
dylan604 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's the worst that can happen? The patient dies from complications of the drug's use before the cancer.

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.

Fine, what if the drug causes a violent psychotic break and you harm your loved ones?

What if some weird interaction sensitizes your nerves, and you spend your last weeks in incredible pain, begging to die? Not only would that suck for you, it would, again, affect your loved ones. It would also cause distress to the nurses that cared for you and the doctor(s) that administered it to you; remember, they don't just have to convince you, they have to convince medical professionals that this wouldn't be violating their code of ethics.

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#157

Post by kulahan »

DennisP wrote: post #120
kulahan wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of money to be made selling snake oil to the desperate, so we definitely want regulation…

So don't let people sell the drugs at a profit, at early stages.

Oh sick, so every time my company faces an economic downturn, I can shift huge amounts of workers to a program designed to sell unfinished drugs at cost! Like, it doesn’t even have to be viable, just start selling saline with coloring or something.

Unless it does have to be somewhat viable, which is… regulation.

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#158

Post by jjtheblunt »

packetslave wrote: post #78
jjtheblunt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's MSK?

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

cool...so random i hadn't thought to right click, but thanks because while right under my nose and overlooked, it's useful to know now!

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#159

Post by namuol »

dyauspitr wrote: post #9
ngriffiths wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) tha…

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.

> human bodies without a brain for testing

I think the way a drug impacts the brain is kind of important

Re: Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer in mouse models

#160

Post by DennisP »

kulahan wrote: post #157
DennisP wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't let people sell the drugs at a profit, at early stages.

Oh sick, so every time my company faces an economic downturn, I can shift huge amounts of workers to a program designed to sell unfinished drugs at cost! Like, it doesn’t even have to be viable, just start selling saline with coloring or something. Unless it does have to be somewhat viable, which is… regulation.

I'm not against regulation in principle. In this case, full disclosure of exactly what's in the drug should definitely be required. People's doctors can make informed decisions after that.

Restricting this to patients who are otherwise out of options is probably also a good idea. Pancreatic cancer would certainly qualify.

Post reply on HN