Posted on 04/07/2025 9:33:17 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
An international team has found genomic testing and targeted therapies for patients with advanced cancer could improve survival rates by up to 40%.
The team conducted a review of 37 trials.
It found next-generation sequencing could help guide matched targeted therapies (MTT) for people with relapsed or metastatic cancer, delaying the progression of their cancer compared to standard treatments.
"Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cancer identifies specific mutations in the DNA of a person's cancer cells," said Dr. Shrestha.
"These mutations can give clinicians clues about why the cancer is growing and which treatments might work best.
"Targeted therapies designed to attack those specific mutations can then be selected, which makes treatment more personalized and potentially more effective.
"We know targeted therapies can be effective in newly diagnosed cancer cases and patients with late-stage cancer who had previously been considered unsuitable for targeted therapies."
Data from the 37 randomized controlled trials that involved nearly 10,000 participants was analyzed by the research group.
"We found people with advanced cancers who received matched targeted therapies, either alone or in combination with standard treatments, experienced longer periods of disease control compared to those receiving standard treatments alone," said Dr. Shrestha.
Dr. Kazmi said the review, considered to be the largest and most comprehensive conducted to-date, highlights the potential for genomic testing to guide personalized cancer treatment.
"The review clearly demonstrates that matched targeted therapies significantly improve progression-free survival by 35 to 40%," said Dr. Kazmi.
"While the research points to promising clinical outcomes, there is still limited evidence on the long-term effects of MTT in terms of overall survival, quality of life, and severe adverse events.
"We urge health care systems to prioritize NGS testing for these patients, potentially opening the door to more personalized and effective treatment options."
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalxpress.com ...
You could improve your advanced cancer risk by 40%.
With the Vax ,the cancer rates have tripled. They are doing everything they can to kill us off.
Agree.
Thank God for the GOOD (not BigPharma compromised) doctors who are successfully treating MANY of these cancers with repurposed drugs.
You know ... the ones conventional oncologists won’t use, because they can’t make their $600Billion/year off of :-(
Honestly, some alleged conservatives are just as bad as liberals when it comes to topics like medicine and healthcare. You use terms like "Big Pharma", and I don't think you have any idea of what that means, or which pharmaceutical companies it may include. The term is simply a vestige left over from the COVID era, when "Big Pharma" developed ineffective vaccines. I'm not defending them, but I know there are a lot of excellent pharmaceutical companies out there that truly have the best outcome for the patient in mind.
First of all, "matched targeted treatments" aren't repurposing drugs. In the past couple of decades, targeted cancer treatments have been developed (by Big Pharma) that go after the specific way some cancer cells propagate in the human body. By targeting the disease in this way, less physical damage is done to the body than with conventional chemotherapy. There's also a better chance of killing off the cancer, because the treatments interrupt the specific growth mechanisms within the cancer cells. It's odd how you seem to be OK with some pharmaceutical development, just not development you seem to classify as done by "Big Pharma."
As a former cancer patient, I don't understand your back-handed comment about "conventional oncologists" not wanting to use the most effective treatments that they can. It was exactly opposite my experiences with oncologists. I don't think any of them made in the $600B range, either.
First of all ... congratulations on your successful cancer treatment. I wish you continued good health.
I never said that ‘matched targeted treatments ARE repurposed drugs’ ... please re-read my post.
The repurposed drugs I am specifically referring to are Ivermectin, Fenbendazole and Mebendazole ... ones that are currently being used successfully in treating a variety of different cancers ... (Joe Tippens is just one such, and, the most well-known case).
As far as where I am coming from with my comments regarding oncologists and BigPharma ... oncologists are one of the few medical treatment disciplines that directly benefit from payments/incentives ... to the tune of $600 Billion/year.
Neurologists come in second to oncologists, for direct incentive ‘benefits’.
Again....I’m glad you’ve had very successful conventional, BigPharma cancer treatment. My point is EVERY cancer patient in the US should have a choice as to all of their options ... along with informed consent and nutrition counseling.
Many oncologists won’t even hear of trying these repurposed drugs, that are, again, having success in treating cancers. THAT is a shame, especially when a patient may be told, We’re sorry....we’ve done all we can do...there are no other treatment options for you. Heartbreaking.
Also, some oncologists don’t even explain the connection between unhealthy, processed foods/seed oil rich diets and certain cancers. Nor, do many even recommend a patient keeping their Vitamin D levels optimal ... another known preventative and assistance during treatment.
What really irks me are alleged conservatives who jump the shark with their snark attack posts, before comprehending what a post to a fellow conservative may truly be all about.
Have a good rest of your day, Lou.
The posted article was about "matched targeted treatments" and while you didn't specifically call your repurposed drugs an MTT, I took it as an implication. Shame on me.
Your references to ivermectin, fenbendazole and mebendazole as effective cancer treatments is borderline malpractice--simply put, none of them have been seriously studied as cancer treatments, certainly not under a clinical trial with meaningful, repeatable results.
This is why no serious doctor or oncologist will entertain lots of concocted ideas about treatment options, including half-baked "protocols" that Joe Tippens claims to have. The patient will always have the choice, including the choice to seek a second or third opinion, but they'll likely hear the same ideas and advice.
Any oncologist will tell their patients that a healthy diet is important...any of them. But there are no diets that have been clinically proven to lessen, reduce or eliminate cancer in a patient. Anyone telling you otherwise is a charlatan.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the worst hope for a cancer patient is false hope.
Only, it is NOT false hope.
But, you are entitled to YOUR opinion, as am I.
I’ve seen repeated cases of NED, after said treatments.
No...they aren’t ‘peer reviewed studies’ or BigPharma BigHospital systems (paid for by BigPharma) approved. Because they don’t make money. But, they are posted for all to see by doctors/alternative oncologists/Cancer Researchers, many of whom have authored 100s of said publications/cases.
But, you do you .. .
... and, now I am curious if you happen to work for BigPharma or are an oncologist. You are staunchly attached to their practices, I see. And, no, I know for a fact many conventional oncologists do not make the nutritional recommendations I mentioned, previously.
Continued success with your own experience.
Good day to you, Lou.
In other words, you have anecdotes, not data. Nothing that can be re-produced, no data generated that supports efficacy, nothing that a doctor could point to in support of a decision, nothing a patient could be hopeful about in terms of a treatment.
There is a saying, "the plural of anecdote is NOT data." You have a few anecdotes that likely wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny. By all means, you cling tightly to that.
And one more thing--I do work in the pharmaceutical industry and have for 30 years. I've learned a lot about the scientific approach to medicine, and unfortunately, I've seen a lot of it corrupted by politics on both sides of political spectrum. Am I biased? I don't think so, nor should I be disqualified for having an opinion that's different than yours (and a great many, here on this forum.)
Thanks for confirming that my hunch (that you are definitely connected to BigPharma) was correct.
Take care.
Having Ivermectin and Fenbendazole will also apparently reduce or cure cancer, but Big Pharma and the oncologists don’t want that information out there because it would cost them lots of profits. Do your own research, but from what I have seen, there is increasing evidence of this.
Amen.
I'm not "connected to BigPharma" -- I work in the pharmaceutical industry and I'm damned proud of the work my company does.
Do you often follow the sheep along, creating imaginary bogeymen to justify your ignorance of science to the world?
LOLOL....that's a good one.
Do you often follow the sheep along, creating imaginary bogeymen to justify your ignorance of science to the world
No, the sheep are who follow BigPharma, BigGovt, BigAg, etc.... you know, the ones who you so adamantly support/follow around.
Spoken like a true midwit.
The plural of anecdote, if sufficiently numerous, is "empirical."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.