PDA

View Full Version : Possible New Cancer Therapy



Duces Tecum
01-25-2020, 11:42 AM
Snip below. Emphasis in original.

"Researchers at Cardiff University that were in the midst of analyzing blood from a bank accidentally stumbled into an "entirely new type of T-cell", according to The Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/british-scientist-may-have-found-cure-for-cancer-by-accident?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro). The new cell carries a "never before seen" type of receptor that acts like a grappling hook, latching on to most human cancers.
Prior therapies, called CAR-T and TCR-T, which use immune cells to attach to HLA molecules on cancer cells' surface, are incapable of fighting solid tumors, the article notes. HLA molecules vary in people, but the new therapy instead attaches to a molecule called MR1, which does not vary in humans. This gives the therapy a chance of fighting most cancers. It also means people could share the treatment, which could allow banks of cells to be stored and offered quickly, as needed.



The treatment has already worked on lung, skin, blood, colon, breast, bone, prostate, ovarian, kidney and cervical cancer cells. The study stated . . . "

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/scientists-britain-may-have-just-accidentally-found-cure-cancer

wvincent
01-25-2020, 11:46 AM
Oh please let this be true.

45dotACP
01-25-2020, 12:06 PM
Somebody needs to throw up the bat signal for the medical gang here at PF

I'm always hopeful, because fuck cancer.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

wsr
01-25-2020, 12:16 PM
I hope this is true...I had stage 3c colon cancer 4 hrs ago at 46 and while I beat it, the treatment took a heavy toll....60% of my colon gone along with 12” of small intestine so the problems associated with that then the chemo which took me from near perfect vision to needing progressive lenses, severe arthritis, burnt up testicles so testosterone injections for the rest of my life, memory and concentration problems
Like I said I beat it (so far) and am immensely thankful if it comes back I wouldn’t do chemo again, I am afraid it would take me almost to invalid level

trailrunner
01-25-2020, 12:37 PM
The treatment has already worked on lung, skin, blood, colon, breast, bone, prostate, ovarian, kidney and cervical cancer cells.


That's a pretty inclusive list of a lot of cancers and would be good news if true. I didn't see were pancreatic and bladder cancer. I'm sure there are others.

Does the skin cancer referenced above include melanoma? A colleague just passed away from this. He found it he had it just before Thanksgiving, and died before Christmas. Jeez.

Nephrology
01-25-2020, 05:37 PM
It's a single basic science research paper that describes, in part, the way T cells can detect neoplastic cells. There is only a very slim chance that this will one day be leveraged to clinical benefit, and, if so, that day is decades away. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the lay media interpretation of this study is a very far cry from reality.


I hope this is true...I had stage 3c colon cancer 4 hrs ago at 46 and while I beat it, the treatment took a heavy toll....60% of my colon gone along with 12” of small intestine so the problems associated with that then the chemo which took me from near perfect vision to needing progressive lenses, severe arthritis, burnt up testicles so testosterone injections for the rest of my life, memory and concentration problems
Like I said I beat it (so far) and am immensely thankful if it comes back I wouldn’t do chemo again, I am afraid it would take me almost to invalid level

Really sorry to hear that, but glad to hear you are disease free. Cancer sucks.

wsr
01-25-2020, 06:52 PM
It's a single basic science research paper that describes, in part, the way T cells can detect neoplastic cells. There is only a very slim chance that this will one day be leveraged to clinical benefit, and, if so, that day is decades away. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the lay media interpretation of this study is a very far cry from reality.

I’m hoping for people in the future really, while I certainly don’t want it to come back I’m comfortable with whatever comes

Really sorry to hear that, but glad to hear you are disease free. Cancer sucks.

Thank you, but you get what you get in life....luckily I have always owned my own business’s and have a pretty wide skill set so I was able to sell off unnecessary stuff and transition into other business with out my family having to suffer financially

And yes cancer does suck

MichaelD
01-25-2020, 10:40 PM
BBC story: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51182451.
Link to the study, which is waaaaaaaaay over my head: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8

TheSergeant
01-26-2020, 08:58 AM
Thank you, but you get what you get in life....luckily I have always owned my own business’s and have a pretty wide skill set so I was able to sell off unnecessary stuff and transition into other business with out my family having to suffer financially

And yes cancer does suck

Glad you had no financial problems. For our family that went not so easily. I have no illusions. Even if that's true, It's gonna cost a fortune for the middle class. Even the article about the cure is $10

wsr
01-26-2020, 09:31 AM
Glad you had no financial problems. For our family that went not so easily. I have no illusions. Even if that's true, It's gonna cost a fortune for the middle class. Even the article about the cure is $10

I guess some would consider what we did financial problems, we didn’t
First thing we did when I got home from the Dr was list every toy we had for sale...sold Harley,dirt bikes, quads, side by side, snow machines, pontoon boat, fishing boat basically everything but my guns my wife’s jewelry and her new car
It took the stress off of both of us and the only thing we re-bought was a harley

Nephrology
01-26-2020, 11:41 AM
Glad you had no financial problems. For our family that went not so easily. I have no illusions. Even if that's true, It's gonna cost a fortune for the middle class. Even the article about the cure is $10

The pricing for most new onc drugs is criminal, in my opinion, given how far they fall short.

RoyGBiv
01-26-2020, 10:01 PM
BBC story: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51182451.
Link to the study, which is waaaaaaaaay over my head: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8

These sources make carry way more gravitas than zerohedge.
Hoping this turns out to be successful.

Fuk Cancer.

beenalongtime
01-27-2020, 01:15 AM
Didn't see brain cancer or esophageal cancer listed. Stopped counting at 20, LONG time ago, the number of people/friends who died from brain cancer. (one friends kid has it currently)
I hope this is true and if it is, they don't just use a version as a treatment to milk profits from those that have it. (the cynic me)

Fuck cancer.

Tod-13
01-30-2020, 02:12 PM
Caveat: I'm not a biologist. I'm a software developer who took 20+ hours of bioinformatics grad classes, mostly in molecular biology, and I have been working at a cancer research institute for around 10 years, so I picked up a bit.

I did read the article.

Background

The biggest problem with cancer is that it is a mutation of normal human biology.
This means drugs like antibiotics and antivirals, which target biological aspects of bacteria and viruses not found in humans, doesn't work.

The next problem with cancer is that cancer isn't a single disease. TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) Project has 34 tumor types--different kinds of cancer based on where it occurs. Then within that there can be more kinds of cancer--breast cancer is more than four different diseases, with different causes and treatments.

Most traditional cancer treatments use the faster metabolism of cancer to slowly poison the cancer. Since the cancer grows faster than most normal cells, it dies faster. (This is why cancer patients with this kind of therapy lose their hair. Hair grows pretty fast, so it is also poisoned faster.)

MC.7.G5

The new T cell receptor, MC.7.G5, seems to detect even minute amounts of a protein, MR1, associated with cancer.
It detects MR1 where staining does not show it on the cell surface, but messenger RNA analysis shows the cell is producing MR1 internally.
They're not sure how MC.7.G5 detects MR1 expressing cells.

Science note: Cells take DNA and make messenger RNA, mRNA, from that, and then read the mRNA to make the protein. Protein makes stuff happen in cells. That's the "Central Dogma" of Biology. (Advanced study: Not all DNA is copied into RNA. And not all RNA becomes protein. And some RNA can also "make stuff happen".)

They used CRISPR-9 screens (way of adding or removing genes from DNA), so they could test stuff like removing a cancer cell's ability to create MR1 and see that the MC.7.G5 receptor ignored that.

Take Away

The neat thing about MC.7.G5 is that it responded to all the cancers they tested, suggesting it can be used to deliver treatment directly to any sort of cancer. The treatment itself may still be different for each kind of cancer, but the main problem has always been getting the "poison" (medicine) to the cancer cells and not to healthy cells.