
One Drug to Shrink All Tumors - mynd
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/one-drug-to-shrink-all-tumors.html?ref=hp
======
wwwtyro
Some heart-wrenching comments from the page:

"Husband and father of 3, age 31, high grade spindle cell sarcoma, stage 4
with mets- help! nuclearcouple@hotmail.com or find me (spouse) on fb, Heather
Cimino in Fort Myers, Fl, willing to travel anywhere, just save my husband!"

"my wife has tumor that are killing her will you hurry up and get this sorted
- is there anyway one can volunteer for a trial tim.parry@xtra.co.nz"

There has got to be a way to address this need.

~~~
maxharris
_There has got to be a way to address this need._

Yes, there is. Fight for the right of each individual to follow his best
judgement in regard to all matters pertaining to his own life. (If someone
doesn't know enough to make the call, he knows enough to choose a physician
who can.)

Right now, _timely_ experimental treatments are basically outlawed. What good
is it to say that there's an FDA procedure to get around the controls if
you're treated too late? What right does anyone have to deprive anyone else of
what might be their only shot at life?

~~~
roc
The problem is that lay people have essentially no ability to distinguish
between potential 'last shots'. And exemptions will invite snake-oil salesmen.

It can be frustrating, but the rules weren't created in some blind
bureaucratic power-grab. They're responses to actual problems that existed in
their absence. They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better
than the alternative on balance.

~~~
Symmetry
Yet somehow countries that regulate drugs merely by safety tend to produce
better health outcomes than countries that regulate for safety and efficacy
like the US FDA does. You're just asserting that the upsides outweigh the
downsides, but every study I've seen that tries to measure things
quantitatively comes to the opposite conclusion.

The gullible are already getting snake-oil in the form of herbal remedies and
homeopathy.

~~~
klenwell
The point here is that this drug hasn't been tested for its safety, much less
its efficacy. It is still at an early testing stage. The researchers seem to
have a reasonable theory for why they believe it will be effective. But
molecular biology is complicated and the risk for harmful effects in humans is
not trivial.

Ben Goldacre's book Bad Pharma details the serious personal and social costs
that come with poor drug trials. Everyone urging the abandonment of caution
here seems to assume this new drug already works or, at the very least, the
effects of its usage could not be worse than the grim prognosis patients
already confront. But that's what proper trials are meant to establish. Snake
oil can come in pill form, too. And even with the current precautions, we've
ended up with a number of ineffective, expensive, and sometimes deadly drugs
on the market.

------
traughber
It bothers me to continuously see articles with headlines like this. Just look
at the comments—it gives false hope to patients and their families. As the
author mentioned later in the article, there is a big difference between
seeing cancer cells die in a petri dish or reduction in size of a transplanted
tumor in mice and it being safe and effective in humans. I hope this succeeds,
but it is a long way from a Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

Cancer research is too important to use misleading, link bait headlines to
attract attention.

------
jasallen
My best friend was just put into hospice for metastasized melanoma. He's 35.
Where is this stuff?

Nothing more useful to add to this comment. Sorry

~~~
pcrh
Sorry for your friend.

This is the original article: <http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6662>

You can actually get the antibody yourself, FTA: "The anti-hCD47 (B6H12)
hybridoma was obtained from the ATCC" [<http://www.lgcstandards-
atcc.org/Products/All/HB-9771.aspx>]

Purifying it is easy, if you have a lab.

However... you can't use that antibody directly in humans, since it is a mouse
antibody, which the human immune system will recognize as foreign. So, even if
this treatment were to work, it is necessary is to first "humanize" the
antibody so it won't be rejected, and then you can see what effect you get in
a clinical trial. I imagine this is what the $20mil funding is for.

You can find clinical trials for new drugs here:

<http://clinicaltrials.gov/>

~~~
wwwtyro
Can you use this one directly in humans? Both humans and mice are mentioned,
and I do not know how to interpret the nomenclature:
[http://www.biolegend.com/biotin-anti-human-
cd47-antibody-370...](http://www.biolegend.com/biotin-anti-human-
cd47-antibody-3706.html)

~~~
pcrh
That is a mouse antibody (viz, Isotype: Mouse IgG1, κ) targeted to the human
CD47 protein, the same problem exists as for the one mentioned in the above
article.

------
kmtrowbr
Here is a longer, more recent, (more obscure), article:
<http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2012summer/article7.html>

~~~
wwwtyro
Thanks for this.

------
jakubmal
The article is from 26 March 2012, over a year ago. Would be great to hear on
developments that happened over last year.

May this be another 'lost' case, appeared once and never again?

------
wwwtyro
"Although macrophages also attacked blood cells expressing CD47 when mice were
given the antibody, the researchers found that the decrease in blood cells was
short-lived; the animals turned up production of new blood cells to replace
those they lost from the treatment"

That's great -- does anyone know if any other cells in the body express CD47?
Especially ones that can't be replaced so easily?

~~~
viraptor
No specific answer from me, but I guess digging through some top entries from
pubmed can answer that.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%28cd47[gene]%29%20AND...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%28cd47\[gene\]%29%20AND%20%28Homo%20sapiens\[orgn\]%29%20AND%20alive\[prop\]%20NOT%20newentry\[gene\]&sort=weight)
may be a good start.

------
guard-of-terra
Cancer evolve. In this sense it is like a new species (and it can occasionally
become one).

That's why fighting it is so difficult. I highly doubt there ever can be one
chemical substance that reliably fights all sorts of cancer.

And you can't really cure cancer anyway.

Our only hope at this point is genetic engineering.

------
johntb86
I would expect that human tissue put in mice would normally be rejected by the
mouse's immune system, so this treatment would just allow that to happen in
the special case of cancer tissue (which has mechanisms to prevent that). I'm
worried that the human immune system wouldn't be as interested in attacking
its own cells that became cancerous, even with this treatment.

------
blaabjerg
This was linked to by The New York Post yesterday, but the article itself is a
year old.

------
bitwize
... and in the darkness bind them? Let's hope so.

------
ttrreeww
White blood cell transplant is proven to shrink (cure) cancer. However you
won't see it in the USA for the next XX years. Some doctors in China is
already doing it though, so if you can travel, that is an option.

See [http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jul2010_Life-
Extension-F...](http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jul2010_Life-Extension-
Funds-Study-of-Therapy-That-Cured-Cancer-in-Mice_01.htm)

Also, I believe there is an organization that helps cancer victims by
arranging travels outside of USA for innovative treatments, LEF can refer you
to them.

