Thought of the day

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Epic

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
1
In the 70's... people were terrified of Herpes..
In the 80's and 90's...people were terried of AIDS

Those have become chronic condition we can control..in the US.

Yet, we're still battling cancer. We've made progress. But we have ways to go.

What do you think of Cancer Vaccines?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Given that most vaccines I'm aware of require an immune response to something histologically distinguishable from human/host it would be difficult to say the least to develop something that the body can recognize as foreign to mount a viable attack against without compromising normal tissues. HPV vaccine is the way I see it going for now. Find something linked to cancer and create the vaccine against it. Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but you asked for thoughts.
 
How the hell would a cancer vaccine work unless its a cancer that is caused by a virus (like gardasil)?

I'm not really sure how well it would work anyway. It would have to have a copy of your genome...then be able to figure out which cells are neoplasmic and which are normal *** cells. Most of our drugs aren't "smart" drugs. They all still rely of histological receptor binding and **** like that. You would need a something that could intelligently identify cells. With the potential emergence of nanotechnology, it may be possible to program nanomachines with such information some day...then have them float around the body looking for rouge cells....but....uh...that's a while off....
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Are you absolutely sure that the tumor cells are identical to normal cells?? And must a vaccine work against a virus?

boxos7.jpg
 
Are you absolutely sure that the tumor cells are identical to normal cells?? And must a vaccine work against a virus?

Well...we know the immune system is highly involved in CA right? So, presumably it'll be along those lines. And obviously have a mechanism to selectively target malignant cells. Maybe somehow target oncogenes with peptides? Or growth factors?

So...where do you see it going? Prevention or treatment? Post surgery/chemo/radiation?
 
Are you absolutely sure that the tumor cells are identical to normal cells?? And must a vaccine work against a virus?]

No, they aren't identical. For example, some tumor cells overexpress certain proteins on their surface. So, we have drugs like Herceptin for breast cancer. Perhaps that idea could be extended?
 
I always thought an anti-angionenesis drug was an interesting idea to prevent growth of new blood cells...slow down growth/metastasis.

Me too. I agree that anti angionesis is the futue of cancer therapy. However, there has been a lot of roadblocks, and efficacy wise is not as good as I have hoped for. To be fair, I was hoping for a miracle drug once and for all.
 
I'd read of AIDS vaccines in trials whereby they're trying to use plasmids containing portions of the virus as antigens; interesting read.

It's hard to target a disregulation in apoptosis as a potential vaccination target, but for other cancers it may be more applicable.
 
Well...we know the immune system is highly involved in CA right? So, presumably it'll be along those lines. And obviously have a mechanism to selectively target malignant cells. Maybe somehow target oncogenes with peptides? Or growth factors?

So...where do you see it going? Prevention or treatment? Post surgery/chemo/radiation?

Vaccine as a treatment...perhaps immunomodulation.
 
Are you absolutely sure that the tumor cells are identical to normal cells?? And must a vaccine work against a virus?]

No, they aren't identical. For example, some tumor cells overexpress certain proteins on their surface. So, we have drugs like Herceptin for breast cancer. Perhaps that idea could be extended?

Very good...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I worked for a short time as a clinical trials coordinator and had some experience with a study using the GVAX lung cancer vaccine. From my little experience and that of talking to the docs and research RNs it seems that it either worked well for some patients or not at all. I recall reading about at least one success story of a woman with grade IV BAC who had been in remission for about 3 years. Exciting possibilities if some reproducibility can be achieved.
 
Vaccine as a treatment...perhaps immunomodulation.

Have you read anything about RIT? Because if we're talking about what I'd want for myself or a family member...it would definitely come into consideration.

http://www.lymphomainnovations.com/...rview&c=lymphoma_ritops&b=lymphomainnovations

But Medicare's reimbursement decision a few months ago on Zevalin/Bexxar was bad news as far as future use and development of RIT's...even though some decent efficacy studies were coming out.
 
Well...we know the immune system is highly involved in CA right? So, presumably it'll be along those lines. And obviously have a mechanism to selectively target malignant cells. Maybe somehow target oncogenes with peptides? Or growth factors?

So...where do you see it going? Prevention or treatment? Post surgery/chemo/radiation?

Not only is she charming, but she's got brains too. ;)

Why is cancer so difficult to treat? We made great strides in understanding the disease when Dr.Judah Folkman proposed angiogenesis. According to the old theory of a growing tumor, the blood vessels just dilated. Angiogenesis proposed that for a tumor to grow, it needs a feeding support which it gets from new blood vessels forming and signaling molecules near it (NCI). This was a radical new way to understand cancer, but the fact that there are so many different cancers is why I believe the disease is hard to control. The fact that it can also metastasize to other organs of the body prove how difficult it is to treat. For gastric cancer, most symptoms occur late when the cancer is already in its advanced stage. H.Pylori is a culprit and many scientists believe that a poor diet may also be responsible. There are a plethora of other risk factors that can promote many other cancer (not counting hereditary). With so many risk factors, it is evident that scientists (and we also for that matter) have a real problem in our hands.

Finding cures will require us to think outside the box (like Dr. Judah Folkman) and some cures may require drastic measures. Yet, some authorities in the 21st century may still use religion as a way to nip that effort in the bud. We cannot be too pusillanimous in the fight against cancer. The government needs to allocate funds to serious research and stop this deadly disease in its tracks.
 
Not only is she charming, but she's got brains too. ;)

Why is cancer so difficult to treat? We made great strides in understanding the disease when Dr.Judah Folkman proposed angiogenesis. According to the old theory of a growing tumor, the blood vessels just dilated. Angiogenesis proposed that for a tumor to grow, it needs a feeding support which it gets from new blood vessels forming and signaling molecules near it (NCI). This was a radical new way to understand cancer, but the fact that there are so many different cancers is why I believe the disease is hard to control. The fact that it can also metastasize to other organs of the body prove how difficult it is to treat. For gastric cancer, most symptoms occur late when the cancer is already in its advanced stage. H.Pylori is a culprit and many scientists believe that a poor diet may also be responsible. There are a plethora of other risk factors that can promote many other cancer (not counting hereditary). With so many risk factors, it is evident that scientists (and we also for that matter) have a real problem in our hands.

Finding cures will require us to think outside the box (like Dr. Judah Folkman) and some cures may require drastic measures. Yet, some authorities in the 21st century may still use religion as a way to nip that effort in the bud. We cannot be too pusillanimous in the fight against cancer. The government needs to allocate funds to serious research and stop this deadly disease in its tracks.

Ha! Well...those ideas I said about targeting oncogenes/growth factors are goofy...just being silly and thinking way outside the box. I don't think that's where they're heading with CA vaccines.

There are a lot of good ideas out there...but $ makes the world go 'round and funding is hard to predict. Even if an efficacious drug is on the market, doesn't mean it's going to have any success!
 
I worked for a short time as a clinical trials coordinator and had some experience with a study using the GVAX lung cancer vaccine. From my little experience and that of talking to the docs and research RNs it seems that it either worked well for some patients or not at all. I recall reading about at least one success story of a woman with grade IV BAC who had been in remission for about 3 years. Exciting possibilities if some reproducibility can be achieved.


That was the placebo arm you foo.. :smuggrin:
 
Have you read anything about RIT? Because if we're talking about what I'd want for myself or a family member...it would definitely come into consideration.

http://www.lymphomainnovations.com/...rview&c=lymphoma_ritops&b=lymphomainnovations

But Medicare's reimbursement decision a few months ago on Zevalin/Bexxar was bad news as far as future use and development of RIT's...even though some decent efficacy studies were coming out.

I would consider RIT as a cousin of "surgery."
 
Not only is she charming, but she's got brains too. ;)


She's a lowly drug rep trained to act charming and come off as brainy...
She got you fooled..
 
She's a lowly drug rep trained to act charming and come off as brainy...
She got you fooled..
Sure Mr. Pharmacist, sorry... Dr. pharmacist... or... (any word here to inflate your ego). Got the point.

No comment.
 
all I know is that I made a lot of money from the Gardasil vaccine trial and I feel like I helped move medicine forward and make a bit of medical history.
 
The immune system already has ways of recognizing cancer cells. Natural Killer cells will respond to the decreased expression of MHC-I on some cancer cells. Sometimes that mechanism fails and the tumor grows. So, if the immune system can be trained to recognize something unique on the cancer cell as foreign, it could attack it. Of course, the immune response required for a large tumor would probably kill the patient, so I'd say we're probably a long way off from using adaptive immunity to fight or cure cancer. Prevention might be a possibility.
 
This is an interesting thread. And speaking of cancer, has anyone heard of using Adenovirus or Clostridium to kill cancer cells? I remember hearing about that in my Virology class.
 
Many of the current anti-cancer drugs target DNA replication to kill cancerous cells. Every kind of cancer is different and therefore have a different gene expression pattern...there are a variety of points in the growth signaling pathways that can become abnormal. There is research currently ongoing to target these abnormalities (such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors) as well as abnormal DNA methylation and histone deacetylation. Promising drugs are being developed to block hypermethylation as well as alter transcription. There is also work being done on targeting receptors that directly induce apoptosis to destroy tumers. I've also heard of using pH sensative nanoparticles that target some tumers because of their more acidic environment. Also, as someone said earlier, anti-angiogenesis drugs are up and coming too.
 
Many of the current anti-cancer drugs target DNA replication to kill cancerous cells. Every kind of cancer is different and therefore have a different gene expression pattern...there are a variety of points in the growth signaling pathways that can become abnormal. There is research currently ongoing to target these abnormalities (such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors) as well as abnormal DNA methylation and histone deacetylation. Promising drugs are being developed to block hypermethylation as well as alter transcription. There is also work being done on targeting receptors that directly induce apoptosis to destroy tumers. I've also heard of using pH sensative nanoparticles that target some tumers because of their more acidic environment. Also, as someone said earlier, anti-angiogenesis drugs are up and coming too.


Yes, it's called Avastin.
 
Yes, it's called Avastin.

Whoops, sorry...I meant NEWER angiogenesis drugs that more specifically target tumers. :D

It's funny because I work on just the opposite...in my research, we are looking for better ways to promote angiogenesis to establish a quicker blood supply to transplanted islets in diabetics rather than inhibit it.
 
Top