Lung Cancer Vaccine Study Produces 'Exciting' Results

The Scotsman ^ | 2/19/04 | Stephanie Busari

[qam1]

A leading British scientist today hailed pioneering new research into lung cancer as “promising and exciting”.

Dr Richard Sullivan, Head of Clinical Programmes for UK Cancer Research said an experimental vaccine that wiped out lung cancer in some patients in the US was “encouraging”.

The three-year experiment was carried out on 43 lung cancer sufferers by researchers at Baylor University Medical Centre, Dallas.

Each patient had cells from their tumours injected into their arm and leg every two weeks for three months during the experiment.

A gene called CM-CSF was placed into the cancer cells to change the surface of the cells to help the body identify them as cancerous.

The body’s immune cells soon began to recognise, attack and destroy the cancer cells in the lung.

The cancer disappeared in three of the 33 advanced stage patients, while in the rest, the disease remained stable.

For the 10 patients who were in the early stages of their cancer, the vaccine did not make much difference against the cancer.

Dr Sullivan said the vaccine was a breakthrough in the treatment of lung cancer which can be very difficult to treat.

“Lung cancer treatment is a big problem,” he said. “It’s an aggressive cancer that takes years to come up.

“Chemotherapy is very toxic and to kill the cancer, you often end up killing the person.

“Getting the immune system to recognise the lung cancer is an exciting prospect. It is very promising, there’s no doubt about it.”

But he added that the small scale of the sample used meant it would have to be carried out again on a larger population.

“This is a small trial, it needs to be replicated in a large study before we can be sure that it will be beneficial to everybody and is not just a fluke.

“You can get results by chance which have nothing to do with the reality.”

[Great Dane]

Gee, I thought they weren't going to bother with a cure for lung cancer, as they assume all lung cancers are the result of smoking, they of course know better, but we must not let honesty stand in the way of a good lie.

By the way, I saw this reported, but at that time they had no results to the testing.

[Great Dane]

#9.... Only the drugs the medical community approves of gets fast tracked, funny how many approved drugs has to be recalled, cause they kill people. :-}

[The Raven]

Interseting

[qam1]

Non-small-cell lung cancer which is a "Smoker's" cancer

Here is the absract of the study

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor gene-modified autologous tumor vaccines in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Nemunaitis J, Sterman D, Jablons D, Smith JW 2nd, Fox B, Maples P, Hamilton S, Borellini F, Lin A, Morali S, Hege K.
US Oncology, Dallas, TX, USA. john.nemunaitis@usoncology.com

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of vaccination with autologous tumor cells genetically modified with an adenoviral vector (Ad-GM) to secrete human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), we conducted a phase I/II multicenter trial in patients with early and advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Vaccines were generated from autologous tumor harvests. Intradermal injections were given every 2 weeks for a total of three to six vaccinations. Tumors were harvested from 83 patients, 20 with early-stage NSCLC and 63 with advanced- stage NSCLC; vaccines were successfully manufactured for 67 patients, and 43 patients were vaccinated. The most common toxicity was a local injection-site reaction (93%). Three of 33 advanced-stage patients, two with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, had durable complete tumor responses (lasting 6, 18, and >or=22 months). Longer survival was observed in patients receiving vaccines secreting GM-CSF at more than 40 ng/24 h per 10(6) cells (median survival = 17 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6 to 23 months) than in patients receiving vaccines secreting less GM-CSF (median survival = 7 months, 95% CI = 4 to 10 months) (P =.028), suggesting a vaccine dose-related survival advantage.

PMID: 14970281 [PubMed - in process]

[Great Dane]

I suspect it's a by-product of smoking preventing old age.

Lots of smokers lives to a ripe old age...... sorry.

[WhiteGuy]

Look into a company called "Titan Pharmaceuticals"

They used to be Trilex pharmaceuticals...............

Very positive results in trials back in the nineties.

[Gabz]

Actually lung cancer is a rather rare, though mostly fatal form of cancer.

However only about 80% of lung cancer is found in smokers or those who were smokers - not 95%. And of that said 80%, most are former smokers.

Your "no smoking, no lung cancer" comment is a fallacy used to demonize and denormalize smokers.

Additionally, there are forms of cancer that have no relation to smoking, but have a tendency to metastisize(sp?) in the lungs but if the person was a smoker - it is automatically blamed on the smoking. That is the power of propaganda.

[Great Dane]

95% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. No smoking, no lung cancers.

I am not sure I trust those numbers, there are 5 kinds of lung cancer, only one of them caused by smoking.

[Gabz]

.......there are 5 kinds of lung cancer, only one of them caused by smoking.

And with that one, I believe there is only a strong linkage.

[ladyjane]

Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? hmm...where is it coming from then?

[The Mayor]

Bump

[qam1]

95% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. No smoking, no lung cancers.

Not exactly, Whole milk also causes lung cancer so I guess we have to ban that to.

Actually, No meat would mean fewer heart attacks so let's also ban that!!

[RckyRaCoCo]

bump

[TwoBear]

There may be 5 types but the majority are of the type that are known to cause lung cancer. Metastatic lung cancer is not lung cancer per se and thus isn't a consideration here. Someone else stated that 80% of lung cancers are found in smokers not 95%. That is a totally different statement. Of all lung cancers, 95% of total number are from people that are genetically predisposed to develop lung cancers if they smoke.

Let me tell you how it occurs. The branches of your lungs are lined with small finger like projections called cilia that are constantly moving inhaled particles back out of the lungs. On inhalation of cigarette smoke paralyzes these cilia for five minutes. Continued smoking for years damages these cilia and allows carcinogenic particles to remain in the lungs instead of being removed.

I work in the oncology field and treat lung and many other lung cancers daily.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

bumpr for later reading

[Great Dane]

Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? hmm...where is it coming from then?

Read my post again, I didn't say that.

Lung cancer comes from all kinds of pollution, not just smoking.

[Great Dane]

Of all lung cancers, 95% of total number are from people that are genetically predisposed to develop lung cancers if they smoke.

Now that makes a lot more sense.