Let's take a a break from politics for a moment and talk about a subject near and dear to my heart: cancer research.
Recently, the University of Pennsylvania has been researching a way that HIV (the precursor to AIDS) could act as a cure for cancer (specifically chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the most common form of leukemia, or cancer of the white blood cells). This process (which you can read a description of here) utilizes a modified form of the HIV virus to alter the patient's T-cells (a form of white blood cell that fights both viruses and cancer) so that they recognize and attack the cancer. They then remain in the patient's bloodstream, continuing to act against the cancerous cells and aiding remission.
There is hope that this new treatment could replace bone marrow transplants, which are risky, painful, and expensive. Although pricey chemotherapy drugs are still needed with this new treatment to ensure that unmodified T-cells don't interfere with remission, it is far less expensive than bone marrow transplants ( about $20,000 vs between $300,000 and $600,000). This could mean a tremendous change for families of those with leukemia, a disease can be terminal not only to patients but also to bank accounts.
This research is still in its early stages, but doctors are optimistic about it. So far, three adults who received this treatment have experienced complete remissions, though it has also had no effect on two. In addition, this treatment managed to save now-seven-year-old Emma Whitehead's life after she relapsed two times, even after receiving chemotherapy treatments.
So what do you think? Is this the future of cancer treatment? And, though medical professionals are wary of tossing around the c-word, could this perhaps signify a chance that we are creeping up on a cure for cancer?
9 comments:
This definitely breaks new ground for cancer research and is probably a major milestone. To find a very effective treatment for cancer is a huge step toward actually curing it. I don't think that this is the future to cancer because you are using a disease to combat another disease. While it works, I'm sure that there may be some unwanted side effects. And even though it's cheaper than current treatments, it's still costs a massive amount of money. But all in all, this is a very promising sign in the medical field and hopefully can lead to more discoveries.
As Marvin mentioned, there is an inherent danger of using a virus to combat a disease. As one of the articles Shannon linked mentioned, this procedure has potentially harmful side effects; "Over the next few weeks the patient develops a temperature, chills, shakes, low blood pressure, and other flu-like symptoms. The symptoms are caused by chemicals called cytokines produced by the T-cells." Cytokines are very small proteins that are naturally deployed by Helper T-cells as a part of an active immune response to foreign material (anything our immune system chooses to target). Cytokines function acting as messengers between cells in order to stimulate an immune response (typically signalling inflammation). Their over-production can be related to rheumatoid arthritis.
In this new advancement, T-cells are being reprogrammed to target the protein CD-19. A similar procedure has also been developed where T-cells are modified to target proteins NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1. While the T-cells will successfully destroy cancerous B cells by targeting CD19, they will also destroy all non-cancerous B cells in the process because they contain the same protein. Thus, there is inevitable collateral damage with this procedure. Ideally, T-cells would only target proteins unique to the cancerous cells. However, as I understand it, each patient's cancer will display unique proteins due to the nature of mutation. Therefore, we are not yet able to create a T-cell that could only target cancerous cells.
This is a very exciting breakthrough and I look forward to following this technique's progress. However, we are still a very very long ways off from a "cure to cancer." Firstly, cancer is an incredibly general term that has thousands of subdivisions. This procedure may treat one form of cancer, but it will not be applicable to all other forms. Additionally, the side-effect concerns of this procedure need to be thoroughly examined before this becomes wide-spread practice.
This is amazing news! Millions of people with cancer I am sure have been waiting and hoping and now finally there is something to really hope for besides simple faith. If they do find a cure for one type of cancer that will provide that can provide hope for other people with different types of cancers. Although you have to use a disease to combat another disease, there are many reasons why people would say that it is worth it.
I think ths issue of "disease figthing a disease"is really not much of a problem. From what I am understanding about this peice of research, only the HIV capsid is used as a vector delivery method to deliver the desired gene (which direct the T-cells to attack cancerous cell) to the T-cell. The actual HIV virus gene sequence that renders the immune system useless at the end is actually removed. However, what I am concerned about is if some sort of mutation takes place in the T-cells that have been genetically tranformed, the mutation could be cquickly passed to other cells in the body using the HIV replcaition/dispersal mechanism as a carrier. Also it is unclear if the gene carried by the vector could be detrimental to a normal, healthy person's immune system. Could this lead to a new sexually transmitted disease?
I agree with Marvin for the most part. This new treatment most defiantly is a huge step in curing cancer but isn't necessarily the ideal treatment. Overall though, this is most defiantly a positive step towards curing cancer and will help the millions of people who suffer with cancer and help give their families some hope in fighting the disease.
Like others mentioned, any steps toward more efficient cancer treatments are steps toward a cure. Knowing people who suffered from leukemia years ago, I know it is a very expensive treatment. Any method which lowers this cost is an improvemen, even one that seems risky. Injecting a patient with a form of a life threatening virus does not sound appealing or ideal. Side effects from this treatment may be found, but until then it should be used to help patients. I believe, in time, a cure will be found, but until this happens we need to continue to find small improvements to our current treatments to make baby steps in the right direction.
I applaud any kind of development where chemotherapy is not on the menu. I have witnessed the side effects of chemotherapy and it is heartbreaking. Despite my personal attachment to cancer, I cannot help but feel a little apprehensive about new studies that claim to "cure cancer". While there are three successful patients, I am skeptical to any side effects, long and short term, that this new research may or may not know about. In the face of cancer research it is important to be positive, but it is also important not to confuse being positive with being naive. I hope for more positive results.
I agree with Sam... I don't want to toss around the possibility of a way to "cure cancer" prematurely. As others have noted, there may be harmful side effects, which is never ideal. However, after witnessing loved ones suffer from leukemia, I cannot help but feel excited about the possibility that this will be a tremendous help to suffering patients. We can only hope, and continue to work, for the best.
Even though this isn't really the ideal treatment, I would say it is a remarkable milestone in the field of cancer research. However, I share your apprehension about using this new treatment- although the side effects do seem better than those of chemotherapy, they do not seem pleasant. In addition, I am pretty nervous about using HIV viruses to kill cancer; maybe there are several steps in "taming" the HIV virus I am not aware of, but it wouldn't do any good if the patient was cured of cancer but was infected with AIDS in the process...
Post a Comment