Cancer: Cured?

[r-j]

Attacking a cluster of differentiation (CD) means that immunologically the immune system would recognize that cell as something that needs to be destroyed. So, what happens to all the other cells that express that same CD?

One side effect of the treatment was that healthy cells were subjected to short-term attacks by the mice’s immune system, but the effect was nothing in comparison to the damage done to the cancer cells.

http://nypost.com/2013/03/27/one-dr...atment-that-kills-every-kind-of-cancer-tumor/

 

[ThunderChunky]

The three drawbacks appear to be:

• tumour adaptation (previous drugs have failed because they just shift the tumour mass to strains that stop displaying CD47)

What other drugs have targeted CD47? If this drug functions by blocking the receptor (not actually directly targeting the tumor for destruction), it wouldn't really matter if the tumor stops displaying it. It would have to use a different mechanism to evade the immune system. Just dropping CD47 would be like a bank robber dropping his guns because you found a way to disable them, he still needs some weapon.

 

[blutoski]

What other drugs have targeted CD47? If this drug functions by blocking the receptor (not actually directly targeting the tumor for destruction), it wouldn't really matter if the tumor stops displaying it. It would have to use a different mechanism to evade the immune system. Just dropping CD47 would be like a bank robber dropping his guns because you found a way to disable them, he still needs some weapon.

Good question, previous drugs had a different plan. Blocking CD47 reduces proliferation and metastasis, for example. The problem was that the tumours responded to treatment by downregulating CD47 and upregulating other signals that perform similar functions.

For this functional approach, it's worth mentioning that CD47 is not the only signal that triggers T cell apoptosis, so tumours can upregulate those other signals instead to obtain similar, if less effective, protection. In the meantime, the rest of the body's healthy cells would lose their CD47 defense due to inhibition.

How this will play out is worth investigating IMO, because the world's full of surprises, but the point is that it's just one of a thousand 'maybes' out there.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Good question, previous drugs had a different plan. Blocking CD47 reduces proliferation and metastasis, for example. The problem was that the tumours responded to treatment by downregulating CD47 and upregulating other signals that perform similar functions.

For this functional approach, it's worth mentioning that CD47 is not the only signal that triggers T cell apoptosis, so tumours can upregulate those other signals instead to obtain similar, if less effective, protection. In the meantime, the rest of the body's healthy cells would lose their CD47 defense due to inhibition.

How this will play out is worth investigating IMO, because the world's full of surprises, but the point is that it's just one of a thousand 'maybes' out there.

Have to test it in real patients, but even if it's just an effective drug and not a 'miracle' it will be good progess. According to stanford, phase I clinical trials may start this year. Hopefully it will be safe for humans. Even from a safety standpoint the mouse work is promising. Mice were able to tolerate the anti-CD47 antibody with minimal toxicity and CD47 null mice have only a mild phenotype.

 

[sloinker]

The new biologic drugs that target proteins work well for their intended purpose, Arthritis, Crohn's etc...the issue is that the human body adapts to these drugs and they become ineffective after a while. So my thinking is at best, this new drug may only be a stop gap treatment instead of a cure. Hopefully I will be wrong and this will be a wonder drug.

 

[Trakar]

...except that we aren't talking about preventing cancer, but treating/curing it once it's known to exist.

The first step in treating and curing cancer is in finding cancer in its earliest possible stages of development. Once it has matured the struggle is much more difficult and less often successful.

 

[fromdownunder]

The generic "cure for cancer" is an utterly nonsense statement. Different cancers have many different treatments. Going from personal experience, a have Bladder Cancer (tumors) which have been treated by chemo, and bladder scrapes (ouch!) initially quarterly, then every 6 Months and now annually look and see (more ouch). I am not cured, but I am officially in remission.

I also have a spinal cancer (another tumor) which has been regularly X-rayed for the past 6 years and has not done a damn thing, so the Medicos just keep monitoring it. Which pleases me greatly. I don't want my spine screwed around with unless it is completely essential.

People get cancers in all parts of the body and there is not, and never will be a "one cure fits all" thingie.

That is not the way it works. My bladder treatment, for example, would be useless for Lung, Brain, probably Colon, Prostate and skin Cancers.

And what has been done to me did not exist 10 years ago. Medical research is pretty amazing, and may halt many more difficult cancers in years to come, but there will never be a "take two of these and see me in the morning" generic cancer cure.

 

[Dr. Imago]

The first step in treating and curing cancer is in finding cancer in its earliest possible stages of development. Once it has matured the struggle is much more difficult and less often successful.

^ This.

However, we are keen to understand the biologic mechanisms involved in cancer to help with people who receive later diagnosis.

Also, there is coming to light a better understanding of "indolent" cancers, such as small low-burden, low Gleason score prostate cancer, where the treatment may be worse than the disease itself.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Modified]

The first step in treating and curing cancer is in finding cancer in its earliest possible stages of development. Once it has matured the struggle is much more difficult and less often successful.

Sort of, but in its earliest possible stages you generally can't tell if it will amount to anything or be eliminated by the body's own defenses. You need to find it at the stage where the cost to benefit ratio of treatment is minimized.

 

[Trakar]

Sort of, but in its earliest possible stages you generally can't tell if it will amount to anything or be eliminated by the body's own defenses. You need to find it at the stage where the cost to benefit ratio of treatment is minimized.

Well, I was talking about cancerous, not pre-cancerous abnormalities, but that said it is wise to treat, or at the least note and begin monitoring many, if not most, pre-cancerous growths/abnormalities, as well. Most of the lethal cancers that humans come down with are actually treatable if they are discovered early enough, the problem is that they tend to be fast developing and are not often discovered until they are quite developed and already spreading to other tissues.

 

[Trakar]

^ This.

However, we are keen to understand the biologic mechanisms involved in cancer to help with people who receive later diagnosis.

Also, there is coming to light a better understanding of "indolent" cancers, such as small low-burden, low Gleason score prostate cancer, where the treatment may be worse than the disease itself.

~Dr. Imago

I can certainly see this, but this is largely dependent upon the treatment regimen is it not? I mean if the prostate cancer is the known single source of attention PSAs are ~10, Gleason rating of under 7, you are probably looking at a T1 or possibly a T2a, which could take many years to develop into a metastatic problem. Certainly, the best early course in a case like this is to build the overall system health and immune functions to a peak ahead of any future treatments which will undoubtedly involve some form of radiation therapy as a primary or secondary treatment process. With systems like PBT, side effects are generally much milder and surrounding tissue exposures are greatly reduced which may alter the early procedure trade-off concerns in some situations.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I can certainly see this, but this is largely dependent upon the treatment regimen is it not? I mean if the prostate cancer is the known single source of attention PSAs are ~10, Gleason rating of under 7, you are probably looking at a T1 or possibly a T2a, which could take many years to develop into a metastatic problem. Certainly, the best early course in a case like this is to build the overall system health and immune functions to a peak ahead of any future treatments which will undoubtedly involve some form of radiation therapy as a primary or secondary treatment process. With systems like PBT, side effects are generally much milder and surrounding tissue exposures are greatly reduced which may alter the early procedure trade-off concerns in some situations.

Actually, depending on the age and health of the patient, the treatment option = no treatment. Many factors are involved, including morbidity of the treatment vs. expected lifespan, among others.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Trakar]

The generic "cure for cancer" is an utterly nonsense statement. Different cancers have many different treatments. Going from personal experience, a have Bladder Cancer (tumors) which have been treated by chemo, and bladder scrapes (ouch!) initially quarterly, then every 6 Months and now annually look and see (more ouch). I am not cured, but I am officially in remission.

I also have a spinal cancer (another tumor) which has been regularly X-rayed for the past 6 years and has not done a damn thing, so the Medicos just keep monitoring it. Which pleases me greatly. I don't want my spine screwed around with unless it is completely essential.

People get cancers in all parts of the body and there is not, and never will be a "one cure fits all" thingie.

That is not the way it works. My bladder treatment, for example, would be useless for Lung, Brain, probably Colon, Prostate and skin Cancers.

And what has been done to me did not exist 10 years ago. Medical research is pretty amazing, and may halt many more difficult cancers in years to come, but there will never be a "take two of these and see me in the morning" generic cancer cure.

Well, I would never say never, but you do raise a good point that isn't often in the public mind when thinking about cancer. We are all born with multiple cancers and experience new cancers throughout our lives, our body's immune system, however, is actually pretty good at regulating and destroying such growths most of the time. In fact, ever present precancerous and cancerous tissues generally only sustain growth to the point of becoming detectable and problem causing cancers when the body is injured or weakened to the point that the growth of the cancer overcomes the body's ability to identify and attack the rogue tissues. One of the biggest cancer "cures" may have very little to do with chemically attacking lethal forms of cancer in its mature form, and a lot more to do with boosting the strength and competency of the overall immune system, such that these early forms throughout our bodies never grow or mature to become problems.

 

[Modified]

Well, I was talking about cancerous, not pre-cancerous abnormalities, but that said it is wise to treat, or at the least note and begin monitoring many, if not most, pre-cancerous growths/abnormalities, as well. Most of the lethal cancers that humans come down with are actually treatable if they are discovered early enough, the problem is that they tend to be fast developing and are not often discovered until they are quite developed and already spreading to other tissues.

Actual cancer cells will not necessarily lead to a problem. They can be "turned off", destroyed, or shed. So a test that could say "You have at least one cancer cell in your body", if such a thing were possible, would not be useful.

ETA: Sorry, I missed reading your last post when I wrote this.

 

[Trakar]

...ETA: Sorry, I missed reading your last post when I wrote this.

No tribble at all, occasionally my enthusiasm (or my inept conditional phrasing skills), lend an undesired shade of extremism to my postings.



Please pardon my parlance

 

[Iamme]

Well, I would never say never, but you do raise a good point that isn't often in the public mind when thinking about cancer. We are all born with multiple cancers and experience new cancers throughout our lives, our body's immune system, however, is actually pretty good at regulating and destroying such growths most of the time. In fact, ever present precancerous and cancerous tissues generally only sustain growth to the point of becoming detectable and problem causing cancers when the body is injured or weakened to the point that the growth of the cancer overcomes the body's ability to identify and attack the rogue tissues. One of the biggest cancer "cures" may have very little to do with chemically attacking lethal forms of cancer in its mature form, and a lot more to do with boosting the strength and competency of the overall immune system, such that these early forms throughout our bodies never grow or mature to become problems.

Is this really true? That we get cancers and our body destroys them? I actually heard about this years ago and blew such talk off as nonsense, figuring that if some people dont get cancer simply because they have a superior immune system, that people say that were sickly would send up a reg flag you would think...prompting all such people to get screened for cancer, when it is apparent that they have a poor immune system.
But say what you say is true, and that`s the case. Is there evidence where say people who get certain sicknesses or certain diseases, inevitably come down with cancer?
I had an aunt in law that died of metastisized breast cancer. I cant recall that she had anything else to suggest she had an inferior immune system.

 

[Trakar]

Is this really true? That we get cancers and our body destroys them? I actually heard about this years ago and blew such talk off as nonsense, figuring that if some people dont get cancer simply because they have a superior immune system, that people say that were sickly would send up a reg flag you would think...prompting all such people to get screened for cancer, when it is apparent that they have a poor immune system.
But say what you say is true, and that`s the case. Is there evidence where say people who get certain sicknesses or certain diseases, inevitably come down with cancer?
I had an aunt in law that died of metastisized breast cancer. I cant recall that she had anything else to suggest she had an inferior immune system.

This isn't the entire story, there are still genetic susceptibilities and carcinogenic exposures overlying the base state. Not much is easy or simple, but the more we learn, the better our ability to treat and minimize the impacts of disease upon our lives.

 

[Aepervius]

The generic "cure for cancer" is an utterly nonsense statement. Different cancers have many different treatments. Going from personal experience, a have Bladder Cancer (tumors) which have been treated by chemo, and bladder scrapes (ouch!) initially quarterly, then every 6 Months and now annually look and see (more ouch). I am not cured, but I am officially in remission.

I also have a spinal cancer (another tumor) which has been regularly X-rayed for the past 6 years and has not done a damn thing, so the Medicos just keep monitoring it. Which pleases me greatly. I don't want my spine screwed around with unless it is completely essential.

People get cancers in all parts of the body and there is not, and never will be a "one cure fits all" thingie.

That is not the way it works. My bladder treatment, for example, would be useless for Lung, Brain, probably Colon, Prostate and skin Cancers.

And what has been done to me did not exist 10 years ago. Medical research is pretty amazing, and may halt many more difficult cancers in years to come, but there will never be a "take two of these and see me in the morning" generic cancer cure.

To add on what you said, tehre is even cancer which respond well to hormonal treatment. IIRC tsome form of breast cancer are like that.

 

[BenBurch]

I have a good friend fighting metastasized pancreatic cancer. She is in a clinical trial of something they hope is promising, but the prognosis isn't good.

 

[bigred]

Is this really true? That we get cancers and our body destroys them?

It's a theory (and a reasonable one) but far from proven.