Live data from Hacker News

Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

twitter.com

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#81
post #44

Related recent discussions: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 - Aug 2023 (205 comments) New targeted chemotherapy able to kill all solid tumors in preclinical research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978199 - Aug 2023 (32 comments) 'Cancer-killing pill' is now being tested on humans - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36969500 - Aug 2023 (33 comments) Cancer pi…

[deleted]

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derek Lowe had a similar take: "AOH1996 is a very unremarkable-looking molecule - to be honest, it looks like the sort of stuff that you used to see in old combinatorial chemistry libraries in the late 90s and early 2000s, a couple of aryl-rich groups strung together with amide bonds." https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-tr...

A key sentence: “I hope that human cancers will prove vulnerable to this new mode of attack in the clinic, and that they are not able to mutate around it with new forms of caPCNA too quickly, either.” Even if this does prove effective in humans, eventually cancer cell defenses will evolve to get around it.

It's possible that this drug doesn't wipe out all cancer cells if effective, thus leading to the possibility of the cells eventually mutating. But it's not like cancer is some bacteria that can become universally resistant.

The ABVD regime starts with the same baseline on all hodgkin's lymphoma patients, and 'cures' cancer permanently in quite a large number of them.

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#83
post #27

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996 Look at that molecular structure. Incredible. Two amide bonds, a completely unremarkable aryl ether and an unsubstituted naphthalene ring system. No fussy weird metals or bonds that need pampering, no chiral carbon atom in sight. You could probably pay someone a very modest amount of money to end up with kilograms of this stuff, and it would probably not degrade at all under am…

> Look at that molecular structure. Incredible. Two amide bonds, a completely unremarkable aryl ether and an unsubstituted naphthalene ring system. Something about this delivery reminds of the business-card scene from Psycho [0]. > Look at that subtle off-white coloring, the tasteful thickness of it--Oh my God, it even has a watermark..." [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY

Only it's the inverse: no subtlety, no surprises, all plain.

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#84

Absolute clickbait fraudulent title. From the article in Cell: "Given orally, AOH1996 suppresses tumor growth but causes no discernable side effect" is a VERY different result.

Suppressing tumor growth is how you kill cancer, is it not? Cancer cells themselves, like the original cells they mutate from, don't live forever. Depending on which type of cell we're talking about, they can die within hours (e.g. skin cells)/days (e.g. blood cells)/months (e.g. liver cells). The issue with cancer cells is they are reproducing like crazy way faster than they die, which is why the tumors grow bigger and bigger. Chemo and surgery attempt to kill or remove the tumors immediately, yes, but my understanding is that's because we have no way to stop the growth and the only hope is to eradicate them entirely before they grow too big to treat, which is why the cancer could come back if any parts are missed.

You stop the cancer cell reproduction and overall tumor growth, you also kill the cancer.

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#85

Absolute clickbait fraudulent title. From the article in Cell: "Given orally, AOH1996 suppresses tumor growth but causes no discernable side effect" is a VERY different result.

IN ANIMALS (mice and dogs)

And?

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#86
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key sentence: “I hope that human cancers will prove vulnerable to this new mode of attack in the clinic, and that they are not able to mutate around it with new forms of caPCNA too quickly, either.” Even if this does prove effective in humans, eventually cancer cell defenses will evolve to get around it.

I don't think that evolve is the right word here. It is not that cancers generally will develop to the point where this is no longer useful in humans. In a single human it is possible that some collection of cancer cells mutates in a way that makes them resistant or immune from this effect (e.g.: by not having the mutated PCNA), and so that strain will become the dominant cancer in that one person. It is also possibl…

Good clarification, thank you.

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#87

Absolute clickbait fraudulent title. From the article in Cell: "Given orally, AOH1996 suppresses tumor growth but causes no discernable side effect" is a VERY different result.

> The affected cells show cell-cycle arrest, replication stress, apoptosis [!], and so on. And application of AOH1996 along with other known chemotherapy agents made the cells much more sensitive to those, presumably because they couldn’t deal with those on top of the problems that AOH1996 was already causing.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-tr...

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it costs pennies a pill and you are trying to sell it for a million dollars, that is a surefire way to get murdered by a mob. I would just sell the patent to the government for a hefty profit and be done with it.

$100/vial insulin and $700 epi-pens would like a word. Thalidomide used to cost $6 per capsule in the '70s when it was given for morning sickness (yes, I know, birth defects) but as soon as they found out it cured cancer the price went up to $18,000 and that's on GoodRx lol. [1] Harvoni for Hep C is $94,500 for a 12-week course. Drugs aren't priced based on the cost to manufacture but based on the projected savings a…

I get your point, but these medicines are all bought by insurance companies for some negotiated price they don't disclose. According to GoodRX a Medicare patient will pay between $42-$198 for thalidomide.

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#89

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOH1996 Look at that molecular structure. Incredible. Two amide bonds, a completely unremarkable aryl ether and an unsubstituted naphthalene ring system. No fussy weird metals or bonds that need pampering, no chiral carbon atom in sight. You could probably pay someone a very modest amount of money to end up with kilograms of this stuff, and it would probably not degrade at all under am…

Derek Lowe had a similar take: "AOH1996 is a very unremarkable-looking molecule - to be honest, it looks like the sort of stuff that you used to see in old combinatorial chemistry libraries in the late 90s and early 2000s, a couple of aryl-rich groups strung together with amide bonds." https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-tr...

I used to bullseye DNA clamps with AOH1996 back home.

Re: Oral cancer drug kills 100% of tumors in vitro and in animal models

#90

[dupe]

You really think this twitter rando is the first source on this topic? Bunch more discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36982813 One of a number of posts over last few days

This comment is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37004911
Post reply on HN