Cancer Vaccine for 90 Percent of Cancers Potentially Developed

[FourScore]

There seem to be a number of posts expressing disbelief of this vaccine. Here are some peer-reviewed articles to give this information more legitimacy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16042579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21570434
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/6/5/1693.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15769088
http://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/de08-2-ctsa-gendler/index.cfm
Hopes this helps. You can also google MUC1 for more info.


Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 03:45 PM PST
Cancer Vaccine for 90 Percent of Cancers Potentially Developed
by Mets102

Cancer caused 7.6 million deaths worldwide in 2008, some 13% of all deaths worldwide according to the World Health Organization. In the United States, it caused the death of 569,490 people in 2010 (PDF), per the statistics reported by the American Cancer Society. Now, imagine these numbers going down by 90% overnight. Imagine less than 1 million cancer deaths worldwide. Imagine less than 60,000 cancer deaths in the United States. It might seem like a pipe dream. It might seem like something that will take many, many years of research and testing. It might seem like that day is decades away...

...A cancer vaccine developed by the Israeli biotech company Vaxil BioTherapeutics is now entering into Phase III clinical trials (make that Phase I/II). If it gets to, and passes, the Phase III trials (as the Merck and Oncothyreon treatment, Stimuvax, is currently in) it would go to the respective national regulatory bodies and finally enter the market in about six years. Explaining how ImMucin works:

The company says that ImMucin is designed to tell the body which cells to attack, by enhancing the immune system so that it can track down and destroy the cancer. Julian Levy, the CEO of Vaxil, told United With Israel, "the body knows something is not quite right but the immune system doesn’t know how to protect itself against the tumor like it does against an infection or virus. This is because cancer cells are the body’s own cells gone wrong..."

SNIP

...The new vaccine works by activating the immune system by “training” T-cells to search and destroy cells with the MUC1 molecule, typically found only on cancer cells. More than 90% of common solid tumor cancers bear the MUC1 molecule, as well as many non-solid tumors, including lymphoma, leukemia and multiple myeloma...

SNIP

&feature=player_embedded

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/16/1055362/-Cancer-Vaccine-for-90-Percent-of-Cancers-Potentially-Developed?via=siderec

[Xipe Totec]

1. Is there a link to a medical journal or scientific publication? nt

[FourScore]

4. Here is a link

to Merck's Vaxil trial. There is a tab with publications.

http://www.vaxilbio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32&Itemid=39

[Xipe Totec]

14. Those are company press releases,

And the publications in the tab are also links to company press releases.

It does not look like they have any links to actual scientific journal publications.

[FourScore]

7. I have posted some links in the OP. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

15. I see them now in your OP. I'll check them out. Thanks! nt

[Xipe Totec]

19. Impressive work

Based on Ralph M Steinman's discovery of dendritic cells, for which he will receive this year's Nobel prize in medicine. Sadly, Steinman died of pancreatic cancer, a few days before the prize was awarded.

[bluestateguy]

2. And after 8-10 years of testing they will quietly admit that there was no there there

Happens all the time.

[superpatriotman]

3. Corporate PR

Though they are walking an admirable path.

[LeftyMom]

5. Smells like a scam.

[Demonaut]

6. zombiepocolypse,....nt

[99th_Monkey]

8. THC ?

Oh no. Just another wannabe.

[scarshapedstar]

9. Medical student here

I know people are skeptical of Holy Grail terms like "cancer vaccine" but this principle - generate antibodies against a protein that only cancer cells produce - is a dream that many have been working towards for years. Google "prostatic acid phosphatase vaccine" for a similar experiment. I'm an aspiring oncologist and this is why - we live in an age where the focus isn't on finding some miracle chemical 'cure' but rather in helping the body's own immune system to hunt down the cancer cells more thoroughly, less painfully, and with a lower rate of recurrence.

The genetic revolution was a big step for cancer but the proteomic revolution will truly transform the field. If any of you are familiar with herceptin or gleevec, you know that they're very different from the original chemo agents that kill rapidly dividing cells (tumors, mucosa, hair follicles). They target specific vulnerabilities of the cancer cells that were only possible with modern molecular biology techniques.

Throughout the history of oncology, the problem has been that cancer cells just don't look all that different from normal cells. Not nearly enough to, say, find or synthesize a poison that you can be sure will only reach the cancer. It may be possible with Star Trek technology, but not ours.

We don't need that, though, if we can co-opt our own ruthlessly efficient and incredibly adaptable immune systems, and there's two ways to do that. One is to force cancer cells to produce molecular "kill me" signs, which is also in the works. The other, just like this vaccine, is to show the body a cancer-specific protein and say "kill this". Some combination of these two approaches will almost certainly be in the future standard of care, and with the price and time of DNA and protein analysis dropping exponentially (Human Genome Project took 13 years and cost $2.7 billion, and now we can do the same for $1,000 in a week) we will be able to tailor treatments to each patient's specific variant of cancer.

I don't know if this vaccine is all it's cracked up to be, we'll see if it's really The One, but make no mistake, this is what the future WILL look like.

[DirkGently]

10. If something's going to work, it will be something like this. Radiation & chemo are crude.

[renate]

11. thanks for this great explanation!

I always roll my eyes at the idea that oncologists wouldn't be thrilled to have a real cure for cancer, so I ask this in the pursuit of knowledge, not out of cynicism... but if or when there is a cancer vaccine, or specific vaccines depending on the type of cancer, how will they respond to a sea change like that? Right now their knowledge database is so complex and so complicated and so rarified, but if treatment became vastly simplified, what would they do? The doctors who are just starting out in their careers might not have a problem making a switch, but those in their 50s or 60s might have a hard time.

Again, I firmly believe that oncologists would be thrilled at this development (though not the drug companies whose patents might become obsolete); I'm just curious about the impact on them careerwise.

[scarshapedstar]

12. It's a fair question

To be perfectly honest, you could decimate oncology, cardiology, and pulmonology (oh, and also save $$$$$$$$$) with one fell swoop by banning tobacco. Just throwin' that out there!

And yes, oncologists will be very much thrilled if this pans out. We're talking about a field where 30% of your patients die, even if you are the absolute best on the planet. That's what keeps people up at night. My interest in oncology (and in medicine in general), like that of countless others, began when I lost a wonderful friend to cancer after a decade and a half of increasingly painful but relatively successful treatments. It was the best anyone could do, but that's also what made it so unbearable, watching her become so fatalistic towards the end and knowing that, well, she was right.

It's not just a job.

That said, if this vaccine is wildly successful, I guess heme/oncs will be doing a lot more hematology, although there will still be cancer. "Treats 90% of cancers" will not translate to "reduces cancer rate by 90%" for reasons both epidemiological (this is a vaccine against a protein that all of our bodies can produce, and as such I don't know if it will be recommended for everyone the same way that the HPV vaccine is) and biological (if we do that, there will be an uptick in the rate of MUC1-negative cancers, probably small but statistically significant). The realistic view of "cured cancer" is something more akin to HIV; effective screening, regular followups, but ultimately a livable condition. These days, if you are diagnosed with HIV, the first thought through your mind isn't "oh my god, I'm going to die". It won't be a good thought, but it's just not a guaranteed death sentence anymore. That's what oncology is aiming for. There's plenty of work to do and chemo agents are problematic right now anyway, what with supply shortages and drastically lower reimbursement rates.

Every heme/onc has spent at least 8-10 years as an internist and they'll figure out something to do if it really does come to that. If there is a shadowy conspiracy to keep cancer alive, it won't be them.

The poor radiation oncologists, though, will be in for a shock. Theirs is essentially THE most competitive specialty, and they're basically separate from the rest of medicine because they're the ones who can do math, physics, all that hard stuff. They might raise hell.

[Xipe Totec]

16. It looks like its based on Ralph M Steinman's work on Dendritic Cells.

I just read an article on the subject in SciAm Jan 2012.

[FourScore]

17. Thank you for your input.

I think it is exciting to think that this (or something like it) might someday work. I have a friend on his death bed right now due to stomach cancer. All of us know someone who has died or is dying from cancer.

I share some skepticism toward the medical community though. I have a friend who is a breast cancer specialist. He worked with a doctor in the Bay Area who pioneered a new way to detect the early stages of breast cancer. My friend moved to NY to practice this diagnostic method and has received enormous backlash from radiologists. I told him he should write an op-ed about his experiences, but he is afraid to since everyone would know who wrote it (even if he wrote it anonymously). It's very frustrating to him.

[DesertRat]

18. Welcome to DU!

And thanks for the detailed explanation!

[Warren DeMontague]

13. If it works- big IF-

that would be GREAT.