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

New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

news.keckmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#71

Post by octaane »

Teever wrote: post #3

> The standard treatment for this type of bladder cancer is an immunotherapy drug, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin, Can anyone explain why the vaccine for TB works to treat bladder cancer?

I can explain. BCG infects the actual epithelial cancer cells inside the bladder, triggering Th-1 response (production and release of cytokines by activated CD4 T cells).

The cytokines induce an inflammatory response, which I turn activates other immune system cells such as CD4 and CD8, NK cells and macrophages.

The immune cells then attack the bladder cancer cells, hopefully destroying them, thus "fighting cancer".

Source: Li J et al, NPJ Vaccines. 2021;6:14.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#72

Post by ac2u »

octaane wrote: post #66
lordofgibbons wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do cancers have a tendency to come back with better drug resistance if it's not fully eliminated? at least a resistance to the drug that got rid of it the previous time?

For some cancers yes, for other cancers, no. Sometimes resistance to therapy is a matter of time, not prior lines of therapy.

I wish I could find the article, but there is a clinic somewhere that ran trials where they deliberately wouldn’t treat the cancer too aggressively. Instead they experimented with treatment frequency but with control being the aim instead of elimination.

The theory being that they could keep it at bay indefinitely and lower the chance of selection pressure kicking in. The thought behind their approach is that they wanted their patients to die of something different than their cancer.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#73

Post by octaane »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #61
blackhaz wrote: post #8

My father currently suffers from bladder cancer, he's currently in palliative care, he's in Ukraine. If there are any medical professionals here, could someone provide an advice - is there any chance to get him access to TAR-200?

So sorry to hear this, I wish him the best.

No, the trial is closed to new participants. Check the company website to see if they are having international trials or are open to compassionate use.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#74

Post by apical_dendrite »

MisterMower wrote: post #31
cowmix wrote: post #7

[flagged]

You’re right, those bright, talented kids will just give up and quit their careers because US government funding has been reduced for research in their field. It’s so sad that the only way innovation can happen is if it’s funded by the government.

Just yesterday, I had a conversation with an MD/PhD at one of the major teaching hospitals in Boston. There is a lot of uncertainty right now - a lot of funding has already been lost, and there are real risks around more funding being lost in the future (just as one example, the administration's plans to limit reimbursement rates will cost the Boston area teaching hospitals hundreds of millions a year in research funding - the plans are currently on hold pending a court case). There are also risks around visas - many researchers are on visas. She has scaled back some of her planned research. She's concerned about bringing on grad students and postdocs - if she starts a multiyear project for a grad student and then loses funding in the middle, or they lose their visa, that would be devastating for that person's career, and for the research project.

Your comment is intended as sarcastic, but what you are describing is 100% happening. Industry does not fund a lot of the education and early-career work of scientists doing basic research. Most of those PhDs are funded through federal grants. Fewer grants and more uncertainty means fewer opportunities for young people to go into the field, which means fewer people choosing to go into the field.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#75

Post by cowmix »

oldpersonintx2 wrote: post #11
cowmix wrote: post #7

[flagged]

could people stop posting the same thing over and over again? its been said a million times and all of the upvotes were handed out repeating the same karma-farming copy isn't even mid at this point try reddit

I’m sorry, but when someone posts about a medical miracle here on HN — sure, I spend 2 seconds appreciating it — and then my mind immediately jumps to the fact that the very system that directly and indirectly made it possible is being dismantled as I type. This topic doesn’t get nearly enough ink here on HN, IMHO — and the wreckage isn’t even over yet. Just like how the full effect of tariffs took time to hit, the systematic destruction of research and science in the US hasn’t fully been felt, here or abroad. The gaps we’re creating are insane — and no amount of LLM hype or VC funding is going to cover them.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#76

Post by cowmix »

MisterMower wrote: post #31
cowmix wrote: post #7

[flagged]

You’re right, those bright, talented kids will just give up and quit their careers because US government funding has been reduced for research in their field. It’s so sad that the only way innovation can happen is if it’s funded by the government.

The government doesn’t just “fund innovation” — it creates the fertile ground where it can happen at all. It also bankrolls the unprofitable, high-risk research the private sector can’t or won’t touch. Cut that, and you’re ripping out the roots, not just trimming a branch.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#77

Post by apical_dendrite »

tracker1 wrote: post #35
searine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations were funding scientific innovation indirectly through corporate taxes and they fought with every fiber of their being to cut those taxes because they didn't want to pay for it. If you think they will suddenly have a change of heart and start funding scientific discovery not just indirectly, but directly, then I have a bridge to sell you.

If they want to remain competitive and advance, they certainly will.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Basically what you're saying is that a Pharma company is going to invest in research that may not pay off for decades, if ever. GLP-1 drugs are based on research that started in the early 80s. mRNA vaccines are based on research from the late 80s and 90s. Very few companies are interested in funding highly-speculative work where they won't see a return for 30 or 40 years - and probably will never see a return at all.

It also creates a really serious problem - if companies are funding the basic science, then they are going to want to own what they're funding. But collaboration and shared knowledge is exactly what pushes science forward.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#78

Post by cowmix »

tracker1 wrote: post #22
cowmix wrote: post #7

[flagged]

I know I may get some flack for this. But IMO, you shouldn't make waves when you are a VISA guest in another country. It's just a bad idea all around. There's every reason to actively avoid getting politically involved. While I realize that US higher education is particularly motivated towards activism, protests and the like. Historically accepting even foreign nationals in such activity. It's still just a bad idea f…

The “activism” angle is a red herring — they’re screwing with all foreign students now, regardless of what they do. And honestly, activism is one of the things that made the US stand apart — or used to.

The US government, while far from perfect, was once seen as a neutral partner in research — a place where scientists from everywhere could coordinate, mix, and build. It cost us relatively little compared to what we gained, and that leadership was admired both domestically and globally. It wasn’t perfect, but it was pretty damn good — and now it’s being killed.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#79

Post by apical_dendrite »

beowulfey wrote: post #60
tracker1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) because they're the ones who most benefit from it. Because they still need the research itself, even if someone else isn't paying for it. 2) Harvard has a $54 billion endowment and spends $6.4 billion a year, that doesn't include tuition and fees, that's just what they have in the bank. 3) Actually spending the money is tax deductible and better for the economy.

Endowment funds are not a checking account, they are not just cash on hand for universities to spend as they please. They could certainly liquidate, but then each year their disbursement would get lower. There is no situation where they could continue operating as they do now. See my other comment on the likelihood that any corporation would want to pay for basic science. When would any company choose to fund somethi…

Also, most endowment funds are restricted by the donor. The whole point of making a donation to an endowment is to fund a specific thing in perpetuity. Legally, the university can't just take money that was given to them to fund one thing in perpetuity and use that money to fund a completely different thing as a one-time expense.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#80

Post by burnt-resistor »

codr7 wrote: post #55
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one way of looking at the glass half empty. If half of people get rid of cancer for 1 year that is still outstanding - ESPECIALLY if the majority of those remain cancer free for quite some time after.

If we wanted patients to survive long term, then maybe we could try a treatment that doesn't destroy their immune system in the process.

The most obvious, naive approach is banking blood & marrow prior to treatment. However, there's a need to clear metastatic cells (CTCs) or train the immune system to find and kill them so that it doesn't reintroduce CTCs upon retransfusion.
Post reply on HN