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

New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

princeton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#91

Post by agumonkey »

sharkweek wrote: post #33
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

What takes years to develop for the human trials to start? Is it about optimizing the delivery system, or finding the right targets to test on in bigger animals first? There are so many people closecto dying in cancer, that finding volunteers for a Phase 1 test should be easy.

I have a friend who about 15 years ago was told he was going to die from melanoma in about a year. Within that first year he was put on a trial that added another 2 or so years to his life. Then during that time another experimental treatment was created and tested on him and that gave him another couple of years. A decade and a half later here we are, he still has cancer but his family (wife and two kids) has got to…

Vince DeVita said it was the main strategy in the 60s. Extend enough to find a new idea. Today things are standardized but if you fall out of the solution, you're given morphine and a bed. Which I find dreadful. Your friend life is a, pardon my french, interesting story.. because he managed to jump above deadlines but I can understand how spiritually damaging it is to always take your fate in your own hand every few years.

Good luck to him

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#92

Post by f6v »

EMM_386 wrote: post #14

> MTDH is important for most major human cancers, not important for normal cells, and it can be eliminated with no obvious side effects I'm not fully buying that. If you look at "Function" on Wikipedia, it seems to have some important roles, including angiogenesis (which is still important outside of cancer). It's not like evolution would select for something that is useless outside of helping cancer. I'd be curious…

There’s also a lot of redundancy in biology. A protein could be essential for cancers and non-essential for healthy cells. That’s the holy grail.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#93

Post by KoftaBob »

EMM_386 wrote: post #14

> MTDH is important for most major human cancers, not important for normal cells, and it can be eliminated with no obvious side effects I'm not fully buying that. If you look at "Function" on Wikipedia, it seems to have some important roles, including angiogenesis (which is still important outside of cancer). It's not like evolution would select for something that is useless outside of helping cancer. I'd be curious…

Entirely possible that while it’s involved in angiogenesis, it’s not a critical component of that process, and angiogenesis can continue just fine without it.

The statement “not important for normal cells” doesn’t mean it serves zero purpose outside of cancer, all it means is that it’s not critical for body functions.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#94

Post by gus_massa »

sharkweek wrote: post #33
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

What takes years to develop for the human trials to start? Is it about optimizing the delivery system, or finding the right targets to test on in bigger animals first? There are so many people closecto dying in cancer, that finding volunteers for a Phase 1 test should be easy.

I have a friend who about 15 years ago was told he was going to die from melanoma in about a year. Within that first year he was put on a trial that added another 2 or so years to his life. Then during that time another experimental treatment was created and tested on him and that gave him another couple of years. A decade and a half later here we are, he still has cancer but his family (wife and two kids) has got to…

Is that study a randomized controlled study? Was your friend in the control group or in the experimental group? What was the difference of the outcome in both groups?

It's very rare that everyone in the control group dies and everyone in the experimental group survives. Usually the result is mixed.

The problem is that medical doctors sometime make bad guess about how many years the person will survive. That's one of the reason to have a control group, so the error in the guess compensate.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#95

Post by bitcurious »

gus_massa wrote: post #94
sharkweek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who about 15 years ago was told he was going to die from melanoma in about a year. Within that first year he was put on a trial that added another 2 or so years to his life. Then during that time another experimental treatment was created and tested on him and that gave him another couple of years. A decade and a half later here we are, he still has cancer but his family (wife and two kids) has got to…

Is that study a randomized controlled study? Was your friend in the control group or in the experimental group? What was the difference of the outcome in both groups? It's very rare that everyone in the control group dies and everyone in the experimental group survives. Usually the result is mixed. The problem is that medical doctors sometime make bad guess about how many years the person will survive. That's one of…

For anyone reading, the control group for cancer trials is the best current treatment, there’s no placebo control.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#96

Post by majkinetor »

koheripbal wrote: post #89
majkinetor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Biology has never selected genes to maximize longevity, only to maximize healthy breeding. That is assumption which is hard to validate. There is a case for longevity as children with longer living dedicated parents in the context of abundant resources will out survive those that are ditched by their parents. > Delete the notable gene or just make a point mutation to disable it. The article say that effect is the s…

I agree with your sentiment, but this condition... > in the context of abundant resources ...has only been true for a tiny number of generations and so likely has not had a large evolutionary influence.

Abundant is probably too strong word.

Obviously the system can't work to the extreme due to the limited resources, but there is lot of possible contexts that can last for a long time.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#97

Post by timbit42 »

wetpaws wrote: post #68
timbit42 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and human tissue.

>'in a few years'

No. You're reading it wrong.

It says: "which he can NOW disable, in mice and human tissue, with a targeted experimental treatment that will be ready for human trials in a few years."

They have disabled it in human tissue NOW and human trials will be in a few years.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#98

Post by ojosilva »

sharkweek wrote: post #33
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

What takes years to develop for the human trials to start? Is it about optimizing the delivery system, or finding the right targets to test on in bigger animals first? There are so many people closecto dying in cancer, that finding volunteers for a Phase 1 test should be easy.

I have a friend who about 15 years ago was told he was going to die from melanoma in about a year. Within that first year he was put on a trial that added another 2 or so years to his life. Then during that time another experimental treatment was created and tested on him and that gave him another couple of years. A decade and a half later here we are, he still has cancer but his family (wife and two kids) has got to…

The thing about trials is that there's a reasonable chance the patient ends up in the control/placebo group, which is something to think about when signing up for miracle. It could help explain some of the "done nothing" studies in your friend's journey.

A good friend of mine signed up for a trial as an alternative treatment for her aggressive breast cancer, everyone's hopes went up (trials tend to have that effect on people) but "nothing happened". She passed away 6 months after the trial started without knowing if a placebo was used. It's painful anecdata, but the few people I know that got into cancer studies as an alternative to their regular treatment, none ever had the study knowingly influence their outcome. Yet, in every case, the study was the one-hundred-percent animic lifeboat to grab on to.

Participating in a trial is about helping science just as, or more than, it is about helping yourself.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#99

Post by Retric »

inglor_cz wrote: post #65
Retric wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s one thing for a “bad” gene to stick around for a few generations or even spread through a species. It’s wildly different for a “bad” gene to be shared by species who’s common ancestor was 60+ million years ago. On that timescale anything conserved is doing something useful.

Useful , yes, but for whom? Not necessarily the individual. The ultimate goal of the genes is to propagate themselves, possibly in another body. In the contemporary research of aging, the hypothesis that "aging is actually at least partly a programmed process and some genes useful in youth may turn against us later" is taken seriously. There seems to be an intriguing negative correlation between age of sexual maturit…

> some genes useful in youth may turn against us later

That’s very much still useful for the individual, from an evolutionary standpoint. Of course finding out what something does isn’t the same as finding it needed for you. People get vasectomies which are hardly something evolution is going to do.

The extreme prevalence of testicular and breast cancer are likely the kind of trade offs that modern individuals don’t want, but they are a likely a consequence of some useful feature for our ancestors evolutionary environment.

Re: New cancer therapy holds potential to switch off major cancer types

#100

Post by hn_throwaway_69 »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #84
dorkwood wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the link you posted: > It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

At no point have I dismissed any expert. Thanks for the quote tho, whats your point?

The point is quite clear. It's not an appeal to authority. Experts are generally more qualified to express opinions on their topic of expertise, but this doesn't make them immune from criticism. It does, however, make it a bit harder to call their view into question, and calls for a more sophisticated approach, usually by referring to problems with their evidence or absence of consensus.

Suppose an expert in a field has offered an opinion on their topic of expertise. You criticise that view based on unreliable evidence. I point out to you that your evidence is unreliable, and that the expert's view should be preferred due to its higher reliability. It's no answer for you to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy. You need to show that your evidence really is reliable, or why it's wrong to characterise your evidence as unreliable.

Suppose on the other hand that an expert in a particular field offers a view outside of mainstream consensus. I say that his view should be accepted. You say his view is not mainstream consensus. I say that he's an expert so he must be right. This is an appeal to authority.

Post reply on HN