Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday December 14 2015, @01:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the suicide-saves-lives dept.

Gene therapy along with radiotherapy has been used to modify cancer cells in order to make them susceptible to the immune system:

A new gene therapy technique is able to modify prostate cancer cells so that a patient's body attacks and kills them, US scientists have discovered. The technique causes the tumour cells in the body to self-destruct, giving it the name 'suicide gene therapy'. Their research found a 20% improvement in survival in patients with prostate cancer five years after treatment. A cancer expert said more research was needed to judge its effectiveness. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK with more than 41,000 diagnosed each year.

The study, led by researchers from Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, appears to show that this 'suicide gene therapy', when combined with radiotherapy, could be a promising treatment for prostate cancer in the future. The technique involves the cancer cells being genetically modified so that they signal a patient's immune system to attack them. Usually, the body does not recognise cancer cells as the enemy because they have evolved from normal healthy cells. Unlike an infection, which the body reacts against, the immune system does not react to kill off the offending cancer cells. Using a virus to carry the gene therapy into the tumour cells, the result is that the cells self-destruct, alerting the patient's immune system that it is time to launch a massive attack.

In two groups of 62 patients, one group received the gene therapy twice and the other group - who all had more aggressive prostate cancer - received the treatment three times. Both groups also received radiotherapy. Survival rates after five years were 97% and 94%. Although there was no control group in this study, the researchers said the results showed a five to 20% improvement on previous studies of prostate cancer treatment. And cancer biopsy tests performed two years after the trial were found to be negative in 83% and 79% of the patients in the two groups.

Dr Brian Butler, from Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, said it could change the way that cancer is treated. "We may be able to inject the agent straight into the tumour and let the body kill the cancer cells. "Once the immune system has knowledge of the bad tumour cells, if they pop up again, the body will know to kill them."

Long-term outcome of a phase II trial using immunomodulatory in situ gene therapy in combination with intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday December 14 2015, @02:54PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Monday December 14 2015, @02:54PM (#276119)

    but it also sounds like it could so lead to an autoimmune disease. there's only one way to find out... SCIENCE! :)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday December 14 2015, @03:13PM

    by CoolHand (438) on Monday December 14 2015, @03:13PM (#276124) Journal

    SCIENCE! :)

    Is that Thomas Dolby you're quoting there? Every time I see the word Science (especially capitalized and exclaimed) I hear it in Thomas Dolby's voice...

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @04:12PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday December 14 2015, @04:12PM (#276150) Homepage
    Which would mean doing it with a control group, double-blind.

    Both of which they failed to do. Apparently they need to learn some scientific methodism at that hospital
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @04:15PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday December 14 2015, @04:15PM (#276155) Homepage
      Let's extrapolate!!

      one group received the gene therapy twice and the other group received the treatment three times. Both groups also received radiotherapy. Survival rates after five years were 97% and 94%

      Conclusion: each application of the treatment *decreased* their survival rate by 3%! Therefore less treatment is better.

      I'd like to see Ben Goldacre get his teeth into this study, it could be fun.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday December 14 2015, @04:23PM

      by Gravis (4596) on Monday December 14 2015, @04:23PM (#276162)

      Which would mean doing it with a control group, double-blind.

      cancer has proven to be fatal 100% of the time. it would be unethical (and pointless) to constantly have a group of people dying just to be sure that cancer kills you.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @04:43PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday December 14 2015, @04:43PM (#276172) Homepage
        Do you not understand how a control works - you don't refuse all treatment from the control group!?!?!? The control group should differ only in the smallest possible way, such that the efficacity of that change can be measured. So the control group still gets all the standard current treatments. Did you not notice in TFS that it was mentioned that the treatments are done in parallel with traditional ones?
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday December 14 2015, @06:14PM

          by Gravis (4596) on Monday December 14 2015, @06:14PM (#276227)

          Do you not understand how a control works - you don't refuse all treatment from the control group!?!?!?

          oh, so you aren't going to give them a placebo treatment? it seems it is you who doesn't understand how a control works.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @06:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @06:49PM (#276247)

            The survival rates of a common disease, like prostate cancer, with standard therapy would be well known so differences can be observed (qualitatively). While a placebo control group (standard therapy + placebo injection) under double-blind study would be ideal for determining efficiency, these are results from a phase II trial and that is not the main purpose of this stage.

            I would like the phase III to be placebo controlled and double blinded.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @08:19PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday December 14 2015, @08:19PM (#276299) Homepage
            Read for comprehension next time.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @09:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @09:33PM (#276341)

      Also, where did all the patients go by the end? They only had contact with ~15% at the last timepoint (figure 4).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @04:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @04:35PM (#276169)

    The vector was herpes simplex in this one, not HIV. Still the potential for some crappy side effects if they aren't completely emptying the viral DNA from ALL of the protein coats prior to injection. I'd personally be pretty worried about that.

    Then again, given the choice between cancer or herpes....Ok it might still be a tough decision, I might stick to getting nuked with chemo until they refine the process and can prove zero actual herpes DNA gets in.