I mean, it's interesting data, and any step forwards in treating cancers (especially solid tumours) is great... but this isn't especially novel. Toxin-bearing antibodies like this have been worked on now for years; indeed, there are examples which have successfully made it all the way through large phase III trials and onto the market, which takes many years.
e.g. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2859 and https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/9537/smpc
Can we not have one breathless article about an incremental improvement in cancer drugs without everyone in the know scoffing about how it is not revolutionary?
this will probably happen about the same time that the headlines stop presenting incremental things as revolutionary..
Why is it not based on the cost of the treatment?
“A study has placed the amount spent on drug marketing at 2-19 times that on drug research”
This antibody binds to 'tissue factor' which are present at high levels on the surface of many cancer cells. Are these tissue factor present in significant proportions on other types of cell? (Reading later it suggests that side effects can include nose bleeds which I wonder if that means that nasal tissue also contains this)
The figures that they show; obviously it is a small cohort anyway and these people were otherwise considered untreatable but do we know what percentage of (eg) ovarian cancer would otherwise find that their tumors were either shrinking or had stopped growing? It would be important to compare that against the 14% they saw..
The mechanism of action is good, I am not able to say if it is novel (the name they use for the technique relates to an incident ~4000 years ago); do we have leads on other particular circumstances which may be useful to do this? (eg prostate cancer was not affected.. presumably because it has no tissue factor on its surface? could it identifiable by any other means?)
Tissue factor is expressed on the surface of the cells adjacent to blood vessels, so it's all over the body.
Tissue factor's normal role is to trigger blood coagulation - it reacts with factors in the blood to trigger a coagulation cascade. There is a waterproof layer of endothelial cells between the adjacent TF-bearing cells and the blood itself, so this only happens when a blood vessel is breached by mechanical damage, letting blood come into contact with TF - the resulting coagulation seals the breach. It's a cool system! Although a bit complicated:
I had no idea there was a connection between coagulation and cancer, but apparently there is - specifically, it's involved in metastasis:
Tisotumab vedotin is a first-in-human antibody–drug conjugate that is directed against tissue factor expressed on the cell surface of tumour cells to deliver a clinically validated toxic payload to tumours. [...]
Tisotumab vedotin is comprised of a fully human monoclonal antibody specific for tissue factor conjugated to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a protease-cleavable valine-citrulline linker. .... The study was funded by Danish and US biotech companies Genmab and Seattle Genetics
This Lancet paper references this 2014 Cancer Research paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24371232?dopt=Abstract (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/74/4/1214.long)
: "An Antibody–Drug Conjugate That Targets Tissue Factor Exhibits Potent Therapeutic Activity against a Broad Range of Solid Tumors"
Seattle Genetics page on Tisotumab Vedotin : http://www.seattlegenetics.com/pipeline/tisotumab-vedotin
Our [antibody-drug conjugate] technology combines the specificity of monoclonal antibodies, innovative linker systems, and the cell killing power of potent cytotoxic agents to treat cancer.
Interestingly, Seattle Genetics stock is down 12% on Friday:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SGEN ("cuz earnings"). Genmab was up 0.69% : https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GEN.CO
Seems the 25% is up from a perceived 0% possible success rate.
This sort of dickery just means we'll see a rise in NoScript users, or that functionality becoming baked in.