Scientists have developed a holy grail cancer drug that kills all solid cancer tumors while leaving other cells unharmed.

[Buckeye]

The new molecule - codenamed AOH1996 - targets a protein present in most cancers that helps tumors grow and multiply in the body.

It is significant because this protein - the proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) - was previously thought to be 'undruggable'.

The drug was tested on 70 different cancer cells in the lab - including those derived from breast, prostate, brain, ovarian, cervical, skin, and lung cancer - and was effective against them all.

The drug is the culmination of 20 years of research and development by the City of Hope Hospital in Los Angeles, one of America's largest cancer centers.

It comes amid excitement that cancer will be curable within the coming decade, a claim that has been made by the scientists who invented the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
The latest study, published in the journal Cell Chemical Biology, revealed that the new drug had been tested on more than 70 cancer cell lines and several normal human cells that did not have cancer but were used as a control.

The molecule selectively killed cancer cells by disrupting their normal reproductive cycle, preventing cells with damaged DNA from dividing, and stopping the replication of faulty DNA.

This combination of factors caused the cancer cells to die without harming healthy cells in the process.
The results will now need to be replicated in people. The drug is currently being tested on humans in a Phase 1 clinical trial at City of Hope.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...nihilates-types-solid-tumors-early-study.html

I certainly pray that this new drug cures many if not all cancers, but it seems like we’ve been hearing about these miracle drugs for at least the past 50 years.

 

[Remy]

@Dustbunny Not off topic. Very relevant. I'm heartbroken at reading your post. This is egregious. This is why I've thought people are products. The treatment received was cruel on all levels. And so wrong. Where is the care in healthcare?

OMG I also noticed I hit the laugh smiley, changed it to hug which I intended. I hope that cancelled the laugh because that is never what I meant.

 

[Dustbunny]

Thanks @Alligatorob and @Remy .

 

[hearlady]

Big business yes. Treatment and research. Hubby's costs were $22,200 a pop for Radiation (every weekday for 3-4 months), $33,000 for Chemo once a week (after radiation) and a few months of Immuno-Chemotherapy after all of that. Not counting Cat Scans, PET Scans, Labs and office visits. Oh and the surgery to install a port in his chest for the Chemotherapy. Consultations and trips to other cities.
His job fired him (in the middle of treatment) because he was sick too long and no longer of use to them. They cancelled his treatments until we could buy our own supplemental insurance and get the part B Medicare. It's not enough to worry about losing your loved one.
This new development will be wonderful for cancer patients if it becomes a possibility and the big pharmacy companies don't squash it because it will save money, time and lives.

Sorry, maybe off topic, I just wanted to vent.

Wow. I'm so sorry that happened to you both!

 

[OneEyedDiva]

This is great if it works as intended and if the treatment is not so expensive that the average cancer patient won't be able to afford it.
@C50 I'll be real interested in reading what your daughter thinks of this.

 

[hollydolly]

Wow @Dustbunny... as others have said, your post is very relevant to this thread, and what a horrendous situation for you and your hubs to have been put in... The worry and stress of him having cancer and the stress and exhaustion of the treatment.. then the cost... and then to lose his job... I just can't imagine how you both had the strength to get through that..it's beyond my understanding... ..is your husband still with you ?

 

[hollydolly]

This is great if it works as intended and if the treatment is not so expensive that the average cancer patient won't be able to afford it.
@C50 I'll be real interested in reading what your daughter thinks of this.

scroll back Diva,, C50 posted his daughters' opinion...

 

[OneEyedDiva]

scroll back Diva,, C50 posted his daughters' opinion...

Thank you HD. I was rushing and hadn't read the entire thread. @C50

 

[Dustbunny]

Wow @Dustbunny... as others have said, your post is very relevant to this thread, and what a horrendous situation for you and your hubs to have been put in... The worry and stress of him having cancer and the stress and exhaustion of the treatment.. then the cost... and then to lose his job... I just can't imagine how you both had the strength to get through that..it's beyond my understanding... ..is your husband still with you ?

Thank you @hearlady and @hollydolly .

Yes, he is still with me. He is stable. Still has some breathing problems (lung cancer). Don't know if it was the treatments, but he developed 3 Aortic Aneurysms. He made it through that surgery. That was scary.
I am very thankful to still have him. He hates that I fuss over him so much. Can't help it.

 

[Paladin1950]

You are right, it usually is an awful death. And there is only so much we can do to prevent it, cancer strikes pretty randomly, more if you smoke or something but lots of very healthy people die of it. About 20% of us will die from cancer. Any progress on treatment is good news.

Lifetime Risk of Developing or Dying From Cancer
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-...ility-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html

My father started smoking when he was 14. He died one day after his 44th birthday. Cancer spread all through his body. I think it started in the pancreas. I saw how that rotten disease, slowly ruined his body. My niece had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy. She's okay now. All the lifetime smokers have died off in my family. Now it's heart disease that has been the problem.

 

[palides2021]

I did ask my daughter about it. She wasn't familiar with the study but said City of Hope Hospital is legit so believes the findings are credible. Her caution is they are only in phase one of testing so very early, she said cancer finds ways around blocked pathways and wait until phase three to get excited. She was going to read up on the study and findings when she has time.

I grew cancer cells (mammalian and human) in the lab years ago. They are insidious and can change on you. If you look at them under a microscope, they look abnormal as compared to a normal cell. Their nucleus is huge and their damaged DNA is usually the reason why. They do not divide like normal cells, and have no boundaries as do normal cells. In the lab, cancer cells will grow one on top of the other at a fast pace, doubling every few hours, whereas normal cells have boundaries and will stop growing once they reach the edge of the Petri dish.

Doing drug tests on a cancer cell in the lab is totally different from doing drug tests on a human being. In the lab, you are working only with simple cancer cells, but when it applies to humans, one has to consider how to administer the drug, the location of the cancer (does it have a good blood supply or not?), the toxicity of the drug to the body (how much dosing). I agree with @C50's response (his daughter's) that we still have a way to go. Phase 1 is in the early stages.

Finally, something else to consider- when cancer cells grow into a tumor, the outside layer of the tumor are usually fast dividing cells that are connected to the blood supply that feeds them. However, inside the tumor, it can become necrotic due to lack of nutrients and oxygen. Also, old cancer cells can become senescent (they sleep) which makes them more resistant to treatment as compared to when a cell is young and divides (mitotic phase), that is when it is most susceptible to the treatment (during division, DNA is more susceptible to injury from radiation treatment or chemo). Also, cancer cells have a history of changing on us. A cancer cell that is sensitive to radiation, after a few divisions, can become resistant to radiation.

 

[Paladin1950]

I grew cancer cells (mammalian and human) in the lab years ago. They are insidious and can change on you. If you look at them under a microscope, they look abnormal as compared to a normal cell. Their nucleus is huge and their damaged DNA is usually the reason why. They do not divide like normal cells, and have no boundaries as do normal cells. In the lab, cancer cells will grow one on top of the other at a fast pace, doubling every few hours, whereas normal cells have boundaries and will stop growing once they reach the edge of the Petri dish.

Doing drug tests on a cancer cell in the lab is totally different from doing drug tests on a human being. In the lab, you are working only with simple cancer cells, but when it applies to humans, one has to consider how to administer the drug, the location of the cancer (does it have a good blood supply or not?), the toxicity of the drug to the body (how much dosing). I agree with @C50's response (his daughter's) that we still have a way to go. Phase 1 is in the early stages.

Finally, something else to consider- when cancer cells grow into a tumor, the outside layer of the tumor are usually fast dividing cells that are connected to the blood supply that feeds them. However, inside the tumor, it can become necrotic due to lack of nutrients and oxygen. Also, old cancer cells can become senescent (they sleep) which makes them more resistant to treatment as compared to when a cell is young and divides (mitotic phase), that is when it is most susceptible to the treatment (during division, DNA is more susceptible to injury from radiation treatment or chemo). Also, cancer cells have a history of changing on us. A cancer cell that is sensitive to radiation, after a few divisions, can become resistant to radiation.

Thank you. That was an interesting read. Very educational!

 

[palides2021]

Yep the American Cancer Society article I linked above says about 40% in the US, pretty close to 1 in 2.

Much of the reason is that we have managed to reduce the rate of infectious diseases through sanitation and medicine. Result is now we live long enough for cancer to get us. Kind of a good news/bad news thing. Figuring cancer out will let us live longer, but something will get us.

Advancing age is the most important risk factor for cancer overall and for many individual cancer types. The incidence rates for cancer overall climb steadily as age increases, from fewer than 25 cases per 100,000 people in age groups under age 20, to about 350 per 100,000 people among those aged 45–49, to more than 1,000 per 100,000 people in age groups 60 years and older.

Age and Cancer Risk
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age

Although they state that advancing age is an important risk factor for cancer incidence rates, keep in mind, when studies show the incident rates, they usually have them "age-adjusted" which removes the age factor and thus is a more accurate assessment, IMHO. My husband and I wrote papers on the incidence rates and mortality rates of cancer (1976-2006) in a journal. Here is the first part: https://www.townsendletter.com/Oct2010/cancerprogram1010.html

The takeaway from those articles was that the US does not have a prevention program on cancer but focuses heavily on the treatment aspect. The "war on cancer" has not been won.

 

[hollydolly]

In today's media...some shameful and very worrying statistic from the UK

England's burgeoning cancer crisis was today laid bare by MailOnline's dossier of 'disgraceful' data.

Armed with our sobering catalogue of statistics, renowned experts and MPs from across the political spectrum have demanded urgent action to tackle the unfolding catastrophe, calling for a 'seismic shift in our approach to cancer care' to save thousands from dying prematurely.

The dire numbers – packaged into a searchable tool so you can see exactly how your NHS trust performs – come amid growing fears of a cancer timebomb.

Every hospital across the country is expected to hit ten separate cancer time targets, centered around seeing suspected patients, catching their disease quickly and starting their treatment.

But only one — Calderdale and Huddersfield — out of more than 120 has managed to hit the biggest four so far in 2023, our investigation found.

MailOnline's audit also revealed 27 NHS trusts have never managed to hit the NHS's freshest target, introduced in 2021 as part of the Government's 'war on cancer'. Under an ambitious plan ex-Heath Secretary Sajid Javid said would 'save more lives', hospitals were told to ensure 75 per cent of patients are told they have cancer or given the all-clear within 28 days of being urgently referred with suspected symptoms. The NHS in England has only hit the target once in the 26 months it has been operational for. % figure refers to performance in 2023 so far

THE 10 CANCER TIME TARGETS - IN FULL​

Two Week Wait From GP Urgent Referral to First Consultant Appointment
Operational Standard = 93%
Two Week Wait Breast Symptomatic (where cancer not initially suspected) From GP Urgent Referral to First Consultant Appointment
Operational Standard = 93%
One Month Wait from a Decision to Treat to a First Treatment for Cancer
Operational Standard = 96%
One Month Wait from a Decision to Treat to a Subsequent Treatment for Cancer (Anti-Cancer Drug Regimen)
Operational Standard = 98%
One Month Wait from a Decision to Treat to a Subsequent Treatment for Cancer (Radiotherapy)
Operational Standard = 94%
One Month Wait from a Decision to Treat to a Subsequent Treatment for Cancer (Surgery)
Operational Standard = 94%
Two Month Wait from GP Urgent Referral to a First Treatment for Cancer
Operational Standard = 85%
Two Month Wait from a National Screening Service to a First Treatment for Cancer
Operational Standard = 90%
Two Month Wait Following a Consultant Upgrade to a First Treatment for Cancer
Operational Standard = no set standard
Four Week (28 days) Wait From Urgent Referral to Patient Told they have Cancer, or Cancer is Definitively Excluded
Operational Standard = 75%

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...ucial-cancer-diagnosis-treatment-targets.html

 

[Sunny]

Of course, scary as it is, saying 1 in 2 people will "get" cancer doesn't mean that 1 in 2 will die of it. I'm currently reading the fascinating book about the history of cancer research, The Emperor of All Maladies, which describes in great detail (probably more detail than most of us want) the history of humanity's fight against this disease from the beginning, going right up to the present. Amazing progress has already been made. Cancer is, of course, not one disease, it is many different diseases with some similarities but some are much more deadly than others, and some are now curable that no one would think of curing 100 years ago, probably even 50 years ago. Leukemia is one. I don't remember the statistics, but something like 90% of childhood leukemias are now cured.

So, progress continues to be made. This new drug sounds very promising, assuming the new item is not a hoax.

P.S. Nearly everyone I know in the "older" age bracket has had it, at least once. Often it's a basil cell carcinoma, a very common skin cancer and very curable. No one dies of it, and it can do its damage if left where it is, but it doesn't metastasize. Treatment is usually Mohs surgery, a simple in-office procedure. I had it and walked out an hour later with a bandaid on my nose. It disappeared, left no scar unless you looked VERY closely, and never came back. Yet, it also counts in the cancer statistics.

 

[hollydolly]

Although they state that advancing age is an important risk factor for cancer incidence rates, keep in mind, when studies show the incident rates, they usually have them "age-adjusted" which removes the age factor and thus is a more accurate assessment, IMHO. My husband and I wrote papers on the incidence rates and mortality rates of cancer (1976-2006) in a journal. Here is the first part: https://www.townsendletter.com/Oct2010/cancerprogram1010.html

The takeaway from those articles was that the US does not have a prevention program on cancer but focuses heavily on the treatment aspect. The "war on cancer" has not been won.

I remember reading the same thing about the UK some years ago

 

[Alligatorob]

The takeaway from those articles was that the US does not have a prevention program on cancer but focuses heavily on the treatment aspect. The "war on cancer" has not been won.

You make a good point. In the last hundred or so years we have become much healthier and longer lived thanks in large part to substantial infectious disease reduction. That has been as much or more the result of improved sanitation, prevention.

 

[rgp]

Cancer is just too large a business , and it is a business ... 'they' cannot afford to "cure" it. Just think of all the millionaire doctors that would lose out if it happened ...... jmo

 

[Kaila]

@Dustbunny I just read these posts....
What an ordeal, for both of you.
My heart goes out to you.

 

[Alligatorob]

Of course, scary as it is, saying 1 in 2 people will "get" cancer doesn't mean that 1 in 2 will die of it.

No, only about half of those who get cancer die of it, odds that we will die of cancer are closer to 1 in 5 (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-...ility-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html). Still way to high.

Cancer is, of course, not one disease, it is many different diseases with some similarities but some are much more deadly than others

Very true, and not something everyone knows. There will not likely ever be a universal cancer cure, no more likely than a universal virus cure.

I'm currently reading the fascinating book about the history of cancer research, The Emperor of All Maladies, which describes in great detail (probably more detail than most of us want) the history of humanity's fight against this disease from the beginning, going right up to the present.

Thanks, I will have to look for it.

 

[Old Salt]

I read somewhere that all old men die with prostate cancer, not "of" but "with!" Talking about cancers, mine is reminding me, for the first time since my surgery, that it's still with me and my bladder. Normally I don't even know I have it, except for minor things I won't go into!

 

[papa tiger]

Big business yes. Treatment and research. Hubby's costs were $22,200 a pop for Radiation (every weekday for 3-4 months), $33,000 for Chemo once a week (after radiation) and a few months of Immuno-Chemotherapy after all of that. Not counting Cat Scans, PET Scans, Labs and office visits. Oh and the surgery to install a port in his chest for the Chemotherapy. Consultations and trips to other cities.
His job fired him (in the middle of treatment) because he was sick too long and no longer of use to them. They cancelled his treatments until we could buy our own supplemental insurance and get the part B Medicare. It's not enough to worry about losing your loved one.
This new development will be wonderful for cancer patients if it becomes a possibility and the big pharmacy companies don't squash it because it will save money, time and lives.

Sorry, maybe off topic, I just wanted to vent.

This kind of thing is tough! Hope you guys can figure it all out. My Best Friend's Wife is very ill also. Prayers go out.

 

[Nathan]

Scientists have developed a holy grail cancer drug that kills all solid cancer tumors while leaving other cells unharmed.

Only time will tell, for those of us hoping to dodge that bullet.