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

Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

#61

Post by haldujai »

pas wrote: post #58
haldujai wrote: post #23

The data isn’t published yet (presumably this was shown during the ASCO conference this weekend) but this is a bit misleading and the results seem underwhelming. The DFS numbers are not new and known, the reason this is in the news as it’s the first report of OS numbers from the initial ADAURA trial. I can’t be definitive without seeing the data yet but: 1. Osimertinib is not that new, in the context of curative inte…

Can you elaborate a bit on the cost? Why is it expensive? Will it still be expensive after the patents/marketing-exclusivity expires?

I don’t know much about pharmaceutical pricing or drug discovery to offer an informed opinion as to why it’s so expensive ($300/day) or whether that’s justified.

AstraZeneca’s patent expires in 2035 and as a cash cow ($2B in revenue) I would expect they continue to aggressively fight competitors in court.

Imatinib (the 1st gen drug of the same class) went generic a few years ago and is 99% cheaper now.

I assume we’ll see something similar with osimertinib but I can’t comment on whether there’s any secret sauce that makes it different.

Perhaps one of the pharma/biochem HN commenters can offer more insight.

Re: Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

#62

Post by thebigjewbowski »

faangguyindia wrote: post #37

I just wonder how we've not been able to make a drug to increase lean mass without negative effect on cardiovascular system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enobosarm

I’d read some research about this a couple years ago and didn’t remember seeing anything about effects on the cardiovascular system but that does seem like a possibility

Re: Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

#64

Post by ramraj07 »

waboremo wrote: post #41
ramraj07 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because this approach works doesn't mean this is the only approach out there. I sincerely believe that this thought has singlehandedly retarded progress towards more generic cancer treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibition is a clear proof that you could make one drug that could attack a wide swathe of cancers. Heck even chemo is proof of that. If this is the research you want to focus on, please go ahead. But do…

Why shouldn't he tell the public that every cancer is unique? It's technically true, much in the same way it's technically true you studied cancer but have for years been working with entirely unrelated fields to the advancement of cancer research. You're as much of an authoritative figure on this topic as a random person on the street.

Technically true is how most science education got screwed up in every field of science. We went from educators like Carl Sagan and Feynman who would take great pains to make sure they don't just tell technically true statements to most researchers today blatantly saying misleading technically true statements for a living to get grant money. Every second grant and paper nowadays literally starts with a disingenuous generalizing statement about whatever thing they're studying (xx gene has implications for cancer or whatever). No one says anything because it's technically true but everyone knows it's practically bs. After doing this for decades they start believing their own koolaid.

And thanks for trying to question my expertise. Please look up the no true Scotsman fallacy and see if that may apply here.

Re: Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

#65

Post by ramraj07 »

pas wrote: post #54
ramraj07 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because this approach works doesn't mean this is the only approach out there. I sincerely believe that this thought has singlehandedly retarded progress towards more generic cancer treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibition is a clear proof that you could make one drug that could attack a wide swathe of cancers. Heck even chemo is proof of that. If this is the research you want to focus on, please go ahead. But do…

> They all literally share the same DNA, [...] Do you mean this literally or figuratively? Isn't one of the serious problems with tumors that the mutation rate inside them goes through the roof? (And then they eventually figure out how to be metastatic?)

Even a highly mutated cancer will have Less differences than you have from your neighbor so..

Re: Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

#69

Post by wahnfrieden »

haldujai wrote: post #42
TrackerFF wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lifestyle changes for one. Do you smoke? quit smoking. Do you live in areas with lots of air polution? High levels of radon where you live? Move. Do you work with a bunch of carcinogenic chemicals? Find something else to do. You can also get a gene test do see if you're suspectable to certain cancers. But most importantly: listen to your body. If you feel that something is wrong, take it up with your doctor.

The newest thing is to avoid ground level apartments in a city with traffic if you can. I’ve been told brake (or tire) dust is the newest suspect for why young never-smokers are developing lung cancer (combined with certain relatively prevalent mutations).

my city apartments are always coated in black dust... several floors up

Re: Lung cancer pill cuts risk of death by half

#70

Post by Metacelsus »

pas wrote: post #54
ramraj07 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because this approach works doesn't mean this is the only approach out there. I sincerely believe that this thought has singlehandedly retarded progress towards more generic cancer treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibition is a clear proof that you could make one drug that could attack a wide swathe of cancers. Heck even chemo is proof of that. If this is the research you want to focus on, please go ahead. But do…

> They all literally share the same DNA, [...] Do you mean this literally or figuratively? Isn't one of the serious problems with tumors that the mutation rate inside them goes through the roof? (And then they eventually figure out how to be metastatic?)

Yeah, that guy is wrong. Cancers have many different mutations.
Post reply on HN