Cancer cure 'may be available in two years'

By Nic Fleming Science Correspondent

Last Updated: 8:26pm BST 19/09/2007

Cancer sufferers could be cured with injections of immune cells from other people within two years, scientists say.

Red tape hinders cancer research, says report
US researchers have been given the go-ahead to give patients transfusions of “super strength” cancer-killing cells from donors.
Dr Zheng Cui, of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, has shown in laboratory experiments that immune cells from some people can be almost 50 times more effective in fighting cancer than in others.
Dr Cui, whose work is highlighted in this week’s New Scientist magazine, has previously shown cells from mice found to be immune to cancer can be used to cure ordinary mice with tumours.
The work raises the prospect of using cancer-killing immune system cells called granulocytes from donors to significantly boost a cancer patient’s ability to fight their disease, and potentially cure them.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week gave Dr Cui permission to inject super-strength granulocytes into 22 patients.
Dr Cui said: “Our hope is that this could be a cure. Our pre-clinical tests have been exceptionally successful.
“If this is half as effective in humans as it is in mice it could be that half of patients could be cured or at least given one to two years extra of high quality life.
“The technology needed to do this already exists, so if it works in humans we could save a lot of lives, and we could be doing so within two years.”
Dr Cui is confident patients could benefit from the technique quickly because the technology used to extract granulocytes is the same as that already used by hospitals to obtain other blood components such as plasma or platelets.
Prof Gribben, a cancer immunologist at Cancer Research UK’s experimental centre at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, said: “The concept of using immune system cells to kill off someone else’s cancer is very, very exciting.”
Dr Cui, who presented his latest findings at an anti-ageing conference in Cambridge last week, extracted granulocytes from 100 people, including some with cancer.
When the immune cells were mixed with cervical cancer cells, those from different individuals demonstrated vastly varying abilities to fight the cancer.
Those of the strongest participants killed close to 97 per cent of the cancer cells in 24 hours, while those of the weakest killed only two per cent.
The abilities of the cells of participants aged over 50 were lower than average, and those of cancer patients even lower.
Dr Cui noticed that the strength of a person’s immune system to combat cancer can also vary according to how stressed they are and the time of year.
Initial experiments suggest it may be possible to transfer granulocytes which have demonstrated strong cancer-fighting powers into cancer sufferers.
In 1999 Prof Cui and colleagues discovered a male mouse that appeared to be completely resistant to virulent cancer cells of several different types.
Since then more than 2000 mice in 15 generations have been bred from the original cancer-free mouse and 40 per cent of the offspring have inherited the immunity.
With the immune system, some types of cells which provide “innate immunity” are constantly on patrol for foreign invaders, while others have to firstly learn to identify a specific threat before going on the attack.
Scientists developing cancer vaccines have generally attempted to stimulate responses in the immune system cells that require prior exposure.
Last year Dr Cui caused shockwaves in the cancer research community when he identified granulocytes as the cells responsible for the mouse cancer immunity – because they are among those which act automatically.
Prof Gribben said: “This is surprising because it goes against how we thought immune system works against cancer. It makes us think again about our preconceived notions.”
Prof Cui injected granulocytes from immune mice into ordinary mice, and found it was possible to give them protection from cancer.
Even more excitingly he found the transfusions caused existing cancers to go into remission and to clear them completely within weeks.
A single dose of the cells appeared to give many of the mice resistance to cancer for the rest of their lives.
Granulocyte transfusion has previously been used to try to prevent infections in cancer patients whose immune systems have been weakened by chemotherapy.
However their effectiveness has been unclear because they have mainly been given to patients in an advanced stage of disease.
Prof Gribben warned the US researchers would have to be careful to avoid other immune system cells from the donor proliferating in the patient’s body.
He added: “If they’re using live cells there is a theoretical risk of graft-versus-host disease, which can prove fatal.”
Dr Cui said he is working on ways to minimise this risk.

More here:

The Mprize-

1 posted on 09/19/2007 4:59:42 PM PDT by Stoat

Smoke’em if you got’em.

2 posted on 09/19/2007 5:02:30 PM PDT by spanalot

3 posted on 09/19/2007 5:04:29 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)

Heard that headline for decades - cancer will not be “cured” by the medicos until something else deadly enough in large enough numbers comes along to keep the money flowing.

4 posted on 09/19/2007 5:05:46 PM PDT by maine-iac7 (",,,but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." LINCOLN)

5 posted on 09/19/2007 5:07:10 PM PDT by Dysart (Lip-readers are more fun than naked Jell-O fights.)

Cancer cure 'may be available in two years'

Utterly preposterous.

Not to mention cruel and deceitful.

6 posted on 09/19/2007 5:07:13 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims.)

cancer will not be “cured” by the medicos until something else deadly enough in large enough numbers comes along to keep the money flowing.

Dumb paranoid comment of the week.

7 posted on 09/19/2007 5:08:52 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims.)

My theory for the cure:

Chromosomes have telomeres on the end, to protect the DNA from getting destroyed through division. Each time the cell divides however, the telomere gets a bit shorter. The only reason it doesn’t disappear completely is because of the enzyme telomerase, which helps regenerate it. In cancer cells however, cell division is taking place extremely rapidly. The telomeres of the defective DNA are getting cut shorter much quicker. Since this is DNA of the cancer cells, we don’t want that DNA, we don’t want malignant cells. If we could find a competitive inhibitor to the enzyme telomerase and inject it into the cancerous cells, perhaps the telomerase would stop working and would not regenerate telomeres on cancer cell chromosomes. Thus, due to rapid mitosis (cellular division), the cell would ultimately kill itself because the telomeres would disslove quicker and delete the DNA in the nucleus of the cancer cell.

But hopefully the cure will be here via this guy.

8 posted on 09/19/2007 5:13:01 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (If you can't say something intelligent, don't say anything at all. Congress goes silent...)

All of this done without the need of John Edwards.

9 posted on 09/19/2007 5:14:19 PM PDT by Perdogg (Look out! The juice is on the loose)

10 posted on 09/19/2007 5:16:28 PM PDT by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has been born. Ronald Reagan)

What?! We didn’t have to suck stem cells from murdered children to accomplish this?!

11 posted on 09/19/2007 5:19:41 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)

To: FormerACLUmember

well that was upbeat and optimistic :)

12 posted on 09/19/2007 5:20:38 PM PDT by isom35

13 posted on 09/19/2007 5:22:44 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)

Cancer cure may be available in two years!

14 posted on 09/19/2007 5:23:43 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)

Just think how much of this has been prevented by people like John Edwards.

15 posted on 09/19/2007 5:24:35 PM PDT by U S Army EOD (Say Cheese.)

To: FormerACLUmember

Those of the strongest participants killed close to 97 per cent of the cancer cells in 24 hours, while those of the weakest killed only two per cent.

The abilities of the cells of participants aged over 50 were lower than average, and those of cancer patients even lower.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We shall see.

16 posted on 09/19/2007 5:25:19 PM PDT by TheDon (The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)

I am just excited. I am an apheresis technician.

17 posted on 09/19/2007 5:26:07 PM PDT by momincombatboots (World changing power in the blood)

To: FormerACLUmember

“Utterly preposterous.

Not to mention cruel and deceitful.”

I agree. This may or may not be an additional effective bullet in the armamentarium against cancer, but it is unethical to hype things this way. Cancer is so very complex. People need to understand that every cell in our bodies has the same DNA instruction set, but some cells become heart muscle, some become skeletal muscle, some become neurons, some become the lining of the air sacs in your lung, etc. etc. etc. We don’t understand fully how this happens, and are just now starting to look at how some cells (e.g. stem cells) can maintain the ability to become other cell types. Cancer is in some ways the reverse of this process. Cancer occurs when cells that are already differentiated go back to a more primitive state. The mechanisms that define going in either direction are very complex and poorly understood.

18 posted on 09/19/2007 5:26:29 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle

God , please let this be true, and hasten the day.

We are losing many good people to this insidious disease.

19 posted on 09/19/2007 5:33:44 PM PDT by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))

Heard that headline for decades - cancer will not be “cured”

My Bro-in-law is a cancer specialist here in S.E. Michigan and he has been having great success with treatment of lung cancer.

A couple weeks ago I had a long conversation with his son (my nephew of course) who is also a doctor and he explained to me the politics that goes on within the medical community.

Most doctors only follow established "protocols" when treating cancer. Kinda like continuing to pitch fast balls to Barry Bonds. Sameo, sameo.......

He is constantly changing his treatments and trying to bring aboard other doctors who basically belong to the old school.

Then 6 months later, there will be an article in the AMA relevant to new successful treatments of different cancers and lo and behold, that's what my bro-in-law has been trying to tell his counterparts.........

bottom line is, it's all political and most doctors, afraid of the legal system, will only treat their patients with pre-established (and in many cases useless) medical treatments.

20 posted on 09/19/2007 5:34:29 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (I could be Agent "HT")

To: FormerACLUmember

Yeah. They should work on polio and smallpox first.

21 posted on 09/19/2007 5:44:01 PM PDT by Timmy

plasmapheresis has been looked at
in cancer therapy for decades

Immungenic treatments for cancer
with various activating techniques
have been looked at for >25 years

They frequently show “initial promise” then
fail miserably in the long term

I have little hope for this research...

22 posted on 09/19/2007 5:55:18 PM PDT by HangnJudge

Thank goodness Al Gore originated this research, being he’s such a busy inventor.

23 posted on 09/19/2007 6:02:23 PM PDT by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)

Throw in the AOA as well. Ca is a revenue resource.

24 posted on 09/19/2007 6:04:59 PM PDT by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)

Most doctors only follow established "protocols" when treating cancer

This usually goes by the name, "ethical medical practice." Your brother-in-law may have some kind of research position that the line physician doesn't have, which allows wildcat experimentation, but I doubt it. He'd better, though. He is cruising for a series of intimate but unwelcome conversations with a bunch of avaricious John Edwardses. BTW what does he think about laetrile?

25 posted on 09/19/2007 6:05:04 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard

Cancer is a wicked and persistent disease that always seems to find a way around treatments. Whatever the treatment the body it is usually only a matter of time until resistance sets in and the treatment is no longer effective. I believe there are some cancers at advance stages that are not treatable by immunological means.

26 posted on 09/19/2007 6:13:09 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)

27 posted on 09/19/2007 6:13:15 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)

28 posted on 09/19/2007 6:13:15 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)

29 posted on 09/19/2007 6:13:16 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)

30 posted on 09/19/2007 6:13:32 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

31 posted on 09/19/2007 6:13:34 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)

To: WayneLusvardi

You can say that again.

32 posted on 09/19/2007 6:14:43 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt presidential candidate to ever run for office)

Doctors and pharmaceutical researchers get cancer too.
I guess they must take one for the team to keep the conspiracy going,

33 posted on 09/19/2007 6:19:49 PM PDT by Lx ((Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.))

However, that cancer cure may not be available under the UK’s National Health System as it is too costly.

34 posted on 09/19/2007 6:40:09 PM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)

35 posted on 09/19/2007 8:10:29 PM PDT by zip (((Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA)))))

36 posted on 09/19/2007 8:10:38 PM PDT by zip (((Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA)))))

37 posted on 09/19/2007 8:10:40 PM PDT by zip (((Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA)))))

“If they’re using live cells there is a theoretical risk of graft-versus-host disease, which can prove fatal.”

A theoretical risk? Maybe it would be a good idea to solve that not-so-little problem before you raise false hopes in millions of people with cancer.

38 posted on 09/19/2007 8:52:48 PM PDT by TChad

To: FormerACLUmember

39 posted on 09/19/2007 10:04:30 PM PDT by maine-iac7 (",,,but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." LINCOLN)

bottom line is, it's all political and most doctors, afraid of the legal system, will only treat their patients with pre-established (and in many cases useless) medical treatments.

I would also add jealously

and the saddest part is that the good and dedicated dr.s like you spoke of - if they dare go against the establishment , can get "punished"

40 posted on 09/19/2007 10:08:07 PM PDT by maine-iac7 (",,,but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." LINCOLN)

To: WayneLusvardi

Your post metastasized

41 posted on 09/19/2007 10:10:02 PM PDT by Archie Bunker on steroids (Hillary Supporters ....... Fags and Hags)

What is the opinion of your doctor contacts with the American Cancer Society no longer using its donations for anti-cancer information spots but instead putting that money towards promoting socialized medicine? I don’t know if their new policy relates to research dollars too.

As an aside, I will no longer donate any money to them.

42 posted on 09/19/2007 10:21:19 PM PDT by Cold Heart

To: The Great RJ

‘However, that cancer cure may not be available under the UK’s National Health System as it is too costly.’

Then the Brits who need it can do what Americans who need it do, pay for it themselves. There are plenty of private non-NHS hospitals and clinics all over Britain who will compete to offer the treatment if it works.

43 posted on 09/20/2007 2:47:30 AM PDT by britemp

To: WayneLusvardi

44 posted on 09/20/2007 6:22:51 AM PDT by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has been born. Ronald Reagan)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794