Cancer Care: Current Directions

PART TWO OF DOC GUMSHOE'S LOOK AT CANCER

By Michael Jorrin, "Doc Gumshoe", February 20, 2015

[ed note: Michael Jorrin, who I like to call “Doc Gumshoe”, is a longtime medical writer (not a doctor) who shares his thoughts with us from time to time, generally on non-financial topics in health and medicine (as today, though, he mentions a couple publicly traded companies). His words and opinions are his own.]

The needle in Doc Gumshoe’s handy Trend Indicator points unwaveringly towards Precision Medicine. This is possibly a public-relations-motivated bandwagon, and if you citizens of Gumshoe Republic have been paying attention, you know that recent jumpers-on have included the highest in the land. This is not to say that Precision Medicine has no merit other than its PR value, only that the nomenclature begs the question. Precision Medicine is obviously good, and that suggests that the rest of medicine – by implication imprecise? – is groveling in the mud.

There are other ways to describe this research avenue – individualized or personalized therapy, molecular targeted therapy, genomic-based therapy – which do not set up an automatic “good vs bad” distinction. The objective of these developing cancer therapies is to identify and target the vulnerabilities in the specific cancer in a specific patient. It does not take anything away from the immense potential of individualized therapy to point out the success of the therapies that have successfully targeted the behaviors that most types of cancers have in common. These were discussed in the first installment, “Cancer Care: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading,” which was posted a couple of weeks ago, and which you can see here. Among these are the characteristics that cancers grow more quickly and need somehow to induce new blood vessel growth to provide needed nourishment, and also that cancer cells will replicate endlessly. Drug therapies have been developed that target both of those behaviors, and these therapies have been hugely successful. They are not “Precision Medicine,” but neither are they some inferior, imprecise form of medicine, deserving of the scorn of the media and the public.

We’ll take a look at some of the approaches to individually-targeted therapy and some of the agents, some already on the market, but most at various stages of development. Many of these drugs look quite promising, both from the standpoint of the benefit that they may bring to cancer patients and also the profits that they may lavish on developers and investors. The clues about these agents’ potential come in the form of clinical trial results. But I need to warn you that in many cases, these clinical trial results appear a bit dim. They are expressed in terms of additional survival time in the patients taking the new drug, and quite often the additional survival is a matter of months. Critics, whose numbers are legion, point out that giving a few more months of misery to a terminal cancer patient is no great gift. However, there’s a reason why those results are often discouraging.

Why clinical trial results with new cancer drugs are often less than stellar

The ideal scenario for a drug developer is to find an agent that treats a disease or condition for which there are no known effective interventions. In such a case, the developer announces a clinical trial and is immediately overwhelmed with candidates, since even if the patient gets assigned to a placebo, it’s no worse for the patient than the current situation in which there is no treatment at all. And in most cases in such clinical trials, patients in the placebo arm are permitted to switch to the treatment arm after a certain period, at which point they get a drug which would not otherwise be available to them. For potential drugs that treat some diseases/conditions, there are also other options. In the case of a drug to treat hypertension, it may be possible to recruit newly-diagnosed patients to a clinical trial, even a placebo-controlled trial, because the effectiveness of a drug to lower blood pressure becomes apparent relatively quickly, so clinical trials are not over-long, and the patients in the placebo arm are not exposed to undue risk.

But with a cancer drug, the restrictions present a colossal hurdle. In the first place, it’s obviously impossible – or at least completely unethical – to put cancer patients on a placebo, so there’s no question of demonstrating efficacy in comparison to placebo. In the second place, there are many established forms of treatment for almost every form of cancer, and even if the treatment has mixed results, very few patients would agree to a completely experimental treatment for a disease that could kill them in fairly short order, when there are treatment forms available that have at least a reasonable chance of success. So there are very, very few clinical trials of new drugs that are able to enroll newly-diagnosed patients.

In most cases, cancer trials initially enroll patients in whom established forms of treatment have failed. Often, these are patients in whom a cancer that originated in one site has metastasized to another site or to multiple sites. The new drug will seldom be used by itself, but will be combined with another, more established drug.

Positive results in these cancer trials usually consist of only a few months longer survival than in patients treated with established drugs. Both the FDA and the EMA (European Medicines Agency, which is the FDA equivalent in Europe) recognize these as positive results and approve the drug, but that does not mean that the drug will be widely-used. An example is a promising drug, Zaltrap (ziv-aflibercept) from Regeneron. Zaltrap improved survival by only 1.4 months in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as compared with Avastin (bevacizumab), from Genentech. Memorial Sloan-Kettering decided not to use it, because it costs about twice as much per month ($11,000) as Avastin. But that doesn’t mean that in recently diagnosed, early stage cancers, drugs like Zaltrap might not be a significant improvement. Currently, Avastin is approved for use in other cancer sites besides colorectal cancer – glioblastoma (a highly malignant form of brain tumors), non-small cell lung cancer, and metastatic kidney cancer – and is being studied in many other types of cancer. Zaltrap is also being studied in more than 80 clinical trials, in several types of cancer, but the way forward is not clear.

What cancer drug developers hope is that they come up with an agent that demonstrates better results than whatever else is out there, even if it’s only a few more months of overall survival in these exceedingly difficult-to-treat patients. Modest benefit in the most difficult patients can then provide justification for using that agent in patients with less advanced disease, frequently in combination with another drug, or after some other first-line therapy has been employed – what’s termed “adjuvant” therapy – or sometimes in advance of first-line therapy, such as in the attempt to shrink a tumor so that it can more easily be surgically removed. This last is called “neoadjuvant” therapy. The ultimate goal of drug developers is, of course, to have their drug recognized as the first-line therapy of choice. This does not happen overnight, but it has been known to happen.

What are the goals of “Precision Medicine”?

Obviously, the ultimate goal is to treat cancer more effectively – the question is, “How, exactly?” The wide-angle answer is that this approach proposes to base cancer treatment on cause rather than on location; meaning that instead of classifying cancers by the organ systems that they affect, Precision Medicine expects – ultimately! – to be able to pinpoint the genetic cause of many or most cancers and to develop treatments that target the specific genetic cause and, in some way block or inhibit its cancer-producing effects.

In promoting this approach, there’s a good deal of supercilious characterizing of location-based cancer treatment as imprecise and somehow behind the times. This needs to be viewed with skepticism. It will be a long, long time before oncologists ignore the location of a cancer in planning treatment: regardless of gene-sequencing, malignant melanomas will be treated differently than lung cancers.

But the Precision Medicine Initiative seeks to accomplish genuinely important objectives: essentially, by means of a proposed cohort of a million or more volunteers, statistically valid correlations will presumably emerge linking specific genomic sequences with specific cancers. This is something that Big Data can undeniably do, given enough time and enough money – and enough volunteers, of course. If robust correlations are found, it may be possible to make statistically valid assumptions about causality; this has already happened with several types of cancer, e.g., melanomas in patients with a mutated BRAF gene, and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes or with particularly active HER2 receptors. In turn, those assumptions about causality have led to major treatment advances.

And what are they looking for?

Most of our genes don’t give a hoot about cancer, but among them there are heroes and villains. The heroes are the tumor suppressor genes, which identify cancerous cells early on and initiate processes that lead to their destruction, such as mobilizing the immune system. The villains are the driver oncogenes, which can signal cells to multiply and grow endlessly, until they overwhelm the entire organism, occupying space, stealing nourishment, interfering with necessary function, and destroying tissue. But the driver oncogenes can also initiate the cancer process by inhibiting the action of the tumor suppressor genes, or by interfering with the process that guides apoptosis – programmed cell death. Without apoptosis, normal cells can become cancerous.

A bit more specifically, here are some targets of genomic analysis:

  • Abnormal gene mutations can be spotted in a total or partial gene sequence and statistical associations with cancers may emerge which permit forming a conclusion; i.e., this specific genetic mutation causes this specific cancer.
  • The number of copies of specific genes in a tumor can be measured by means of a process called Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH); this provides information about gene duplication within a tumor.
  • Gene translocation can be identified. This occurs when chromosomes break apart and rejoin, such that genes that are normally far apart are found in close proximity, with potentially malign consequences.
  • Protein biomarkers in a tumor can be measured with approximate accuracy through immunohistochemistry, which can provide useful therapeutic information.

These analytic procedures can be used in the aid of finding the most effective drug as well as avoiding drugs that are less likely to be effective, either for the individual patient or for the specific cancer. In turn, a drug could be effective because it targets a specific type of cancer with known biomarkers, or because it targets an individual’s specific genetic abnormalities. In other words, genomic analysis would be carried out both in the cancer patient and, separately, in the cancer cells found in that patient.

An example of a cancer resulting from gene translocation is chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), a disease which formerly was almost always fatal within about five years – formerly, that is, until the development of imatinib (Gleevec, from Novartis), which increases mean survival in CML patients to more than 20 years. Since CML mostly affects persons in their sixties, this amounts to conferring a normal life span in these cancer victims. Imatinib targets and disables the translocated driver oncogenes in CML; however, determining whether a patient is a candidate for imatinib requires sequencing of the translocated genes.

Genomic sequencing in the search for oncogenes is indeed highly promising, and the goal is not totally out of sight. It’s likely, based on analysis done so far, that the number of driver oncogenes is not enormous – perhaps only a few hundred – so continuing investigation will almost certainly continue to add to the number that have already been identified. But developing agents that will target and inactivate these genes is another matter altogether – first the oncogenes must be identified, then the drug developers have to figure out a molecule that can prevent these genes from doing their damage. The success of imatinib/Gleevec, which also can be used to treat other cancers, has not yet been matched by other agents.

Some promising approaches to treatment: the CAR-T strategy

Just to get it over with, the “CAR” part stands for ‘chimeric antigen receptor,” and the “T” for T cells. By now everybody knows about T cells, remembering that T cells are those cells in our immune system that are supposed to protect us from harmful invaders – those were the cells that were attacked by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in people with AIDS, and the progress of the disease was usually measured in terms of the patient’s T-cell level, because the virus attacked and disabled T cells. Well, cancer cells also attack and disable T cells, and the CAR-T strategy is an effort to reverse that process such that T cells can be modified to attack and destroy cancer cells.

Sounds simple, right? Conscript the T cells, enlist them in the battle against cancer, boost their morale with patriotic songs, and victory will soon follow.

Of course, it’s not quite so simple. The part that enables the T cells to do battle against the cancer cells is the CAR, the chimeric antigen receptor. Cancer cells have a protein on their surfaces which is classified as an antigen, meaning any molecule that can be recognized by the immune system as an invader. In the case of many cancers, the term “antigen” is a bit deceptive, because in fact the immune system often does not recognize the so-called antigen as an invader, permitting the cancer cells to survive and spread.

That’s where CAR comes in. In the CAR-T strategy, the T cells are modified so that they do recognize the antigen. They have been engineered with a receptor, the chimeric antigen receptor or CAR, which specifically recognizes the antigen on the cancer cell’s surface. Designing a receptor that will recognize the antigen is a highly complex feat, requiring precise knowledge of the shape and molecular structure of the antigen, so that antigen and receptor essentially lock together.

Once the T cells with the CARs on the surface encounter and bind with the cancer cells, the T cells move on to the task for which they are designed – attacking and destroying invaders.

Or, at least, that’s the proposed mechanism of action for many cancer drugs now under development. There have been some amazingly successful cases in which patients with seemingly terminal cancers, in which no treatment had worked, have received therapy based on engineered T cells and come out cancer free. Some of these treatments have been based on some previously-known mechanisms. For example, a protein called cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), which protrudes from the surface of T cells, is thought to damp the response of T cells to cancer cells, and treating patients with antibodies to CTLA-4 has resulted in dramatic cancer remissions and even cures, although sometimes accompanied by horrendous side effects.

So far, the most effective strategy for employing T cells to treat cancer has involved removing a large population of T cells from the patient, genetically modifying them outside the patient’s body so that they will recognize and combat cancer cells, and then reinfusing them. Once reinfused, the modified T cells will reproduce, retaining their genetic modifications, and join the battle against cancer cells. This strategy has the enormous benefit of avoiding the side effects that occur when the process of T-cell engineering using CTLA-4 antibodies takes place inside the body. These bio-engineered T cells are themselves a new generation of cancer agents.

Cancers where CAR-T therapy has been used successfully to date

This approach has been amazingly successful in cancers such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and also chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Promising results have also been reported in some lymphomas. Several small trials have been conducted, as is common with experimental cancer treatments, in patients who had basically run out of options. In advanced ALL patients in whom no other treatment had worked, CAR-T therapy has resulted in many patients becoming entirely cancer-free, and many of these continue to be cancer-free to date. These small trials have been so successful as to attract hordes of pharmaceutical companies to explore this strategy.

One of the pharmaceutical companies that is out in front is Novartis (NVS), which was awarded breakthrough status by the FDA on July 7 2014 for its CAR-T agent CTL 019, which it is developing in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania. In October, they announced results of a study in children and young adults with recurrent or refractory ALL, in which 36 of 39 patients attained complete remission. Novartis is a cancer powerhouse, with nine patented cancer drugs besides Gleevec, and many more in various stages of development.

Another frontrunner is Juno Therapeutics (JUNO), which has a CAR-T candidate dubbed JCAR015 in clinical trials, conducted in collaboration with Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Adults with recurrent or refractory ALL were treated with JCAR015, and the trial resulted in complete remission in 14 of 16 patients. Perhaps as a result of these results, JCAR015 was granted orphan drug status by the FDA on November 18, 2014. JCAR015 targets CD19, which is present on B cells that are involved in the ALL disease process. In order to assure a reliable supply of the agent, Juno is expanding to construct its own facility for the manufacture of their agent, rather than relying on contract manufacturers to supply their needs for clinical trials. And they have 10 more agents that they are planning to get into clinical trials in the next year or so.

Kite Pharma (KITE) is another strong contender in this arena. Their lead drug, KTE-C19, demonstrated strong results in a small trial in 15 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is a subset of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Of those 15 patients, 8 were in complete remission and 4 in partial remission. As a result of this trial, KTE-C19 was given orphan drug status by the European Medicines Agency. Interestingly, Kite employs a retroviral vector to engineer T cells for this agent. The effect of viruses on T cells also appears to be a part of the mechanism of action of Pfizer’s T-Vec, which we discussed in the previous Doc Gumshoe piece on cancer. Kite has five more trials with KTE-C19 planned for 2015, as well as several trials with other candidate anti-cancer drugs that employ related mechanisms. Kite has recently teamed up with the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center’s Prof. Zelig Eshhar to advance their research in this treatment area. And Amgen (AMGN) is partnering with Kite in the development of CAR-T agents.

Yet another contender is bluebird bio (no capital letters in its name!), which is collaborating with Celgene (CELG) and the Baylor College of Medicine to develop CAR-T agents. No specific agents have emerged, but the collaboration is typical of what’s going on in the field. A major pharmaceutical company, in his case Celgene, teams up with a small biotech that has strong credentials in advanced research, and an academic institution is in the mix as well. The lead bluebird product to date is a treatment of beta-thalassemia, which is a blood disorder resulting in insufficient hemoglobin production and consequent problems with transporting oxygen in the bloodstream. The mechanism it uses is autologous stem-cell transplantation, meaning that stem cells are engineered outside the patient’s body and then reinfused, a technique closely similar to CAR-T therapy. The as-yet-unnamed bluebird CAR-T initiative intends to treat solid tumors as well as hematologic cancers.

I could go on and on, but here’s another: two small biotechs, Interexon (XON) and ZIOPHARM (ZIOP) (yes, this one’s all caps) have partnered with M. D. Anderson in Houston, with the plan of developing five CAR-T agents, using what they are referring to as a “non-viral gene integration platform.” The partnering consists of $50 million payments from each of the two biotechs to support M. D. Anderson’s oncology research. The means they propose to use to modify the T cells is an engineered cytokine, based on an interleukin, IL-12. We need to note that other cytokines, namely IL-6 and interferon, have been used to attempt to tinker with T cells, with decidedly mixed results: the patients showed marked improvement, but the adverse effects were ghastly. In those cases, the cytokines were given to the patients with the expectation that the T cells would be modified internally; Interexon and ZIOPHARM (from what I can tell) are proposing to follow the currently-accepted method of removing the T cells, engineering them, and then reinfusing them. Their expectation is that their CAR-T therapies would be effective in a wide range of cancer types. There’s reason for optimism here; after all, M. D. Anderson is one of the two top cancer centers in the U. S.

Checkpoint strategies: PD-L1 & PD-1

The way this works is that T cells carry a protein that promotes programmed cell death, dubbed PD-1 (think Programmed Death One); this is one way that they attack tumor cells. In opposition, tumor cells carry a protein that links to and disables the PD-1 protein on T cells, dubbed PD-L1. Antibodies to this link can restore the T cell’s immune function, and a number of agents that employ this mechanism have recently won FDA approval. These include Merck’s (MRK) Keytruda (prembrolizumab), and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BSM) Opdivo (nivolumab). Other Big Pharma outfits are on the case, including Pfizer (PFE), which is working with Merck KgaA on a PD-1 inhibitor that will target some major cancers – kidney, bladder, and lung cancer.

Agents that target the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction enhance the tumor-fighting activity of T-cells with mostly acceptable side effects, in contrast with agents that employ the CTLA-4 pathway, such as Yervoy (ipilimumab), which triggers immune-related toxicities. The checkpoint inhibitors are thought by some to be good candidates for first-line therapy, probably in combination with drugs that inhibit tumor vascularization or cancer cell replication. That being said, these strategies have not excited the interest of the wider clinical community as much as the CAR-T therapies have done, probably because the CAR-T therapies seem to hold out the hope of results that might actually be termed cancer cures, which is to say, complete remission with no remaining trace of tumor burden.

… and that’s not all!

Another mechanism for recruiting the cancer-fighting capacity of T cells is a pathway called the bi-specific T cell engager, or BiTE. An agent targeting this pathway, blinatumomab, was developed by the biotech Micromet AG. This outfit was purchased by Amgen (AMG) for $1.2 billion in order to latch on to this promising drug, which was approved by the FDA on December 3, 2014. BiTEs, unlike other T cell strategies, bind to both the tumor cell and the T cell, forming a link, and thereby inducing the T cell to release tumor-fighting cytokines. Blinatumomab, now trade-named Blincyto, is approved for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and also non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Finally, Pfizer’s Ibrance (palbociclib), which mobilizes the T-cell army through kinase inhibition, was approved by the FDA based on Phase 2 data on February 3, 2015. It is indicated for first-line treatment (with letrozole) of breast cancer in women whose cancers respond to estrogen receptors, but do not express the HER2 gene. The indication is contingent on continuing positive trial data; however, it points to a clear clinical need and the strength of the data to date.

Caveats

The overall picture is undeniably positive, not to say rosy. But the road ahead will certainly have potholes and possibly be littered with large rocks. Cancer is just about the trickiest of all adversaries. Those little tumor cells are doing everything they can to evade detection and survive. Even after the cancer detectives do their meticulous genome sequencing, the cancer cells may mutate, requiring continued efforts to stay ahead of the game.

And there will always be side effects. The adverse events / side effects that emerge early in the course of treatment, as with engineering T cells with CTLA-4, IL-6, or interferon, tell the clinician to stop and try something else. But tinkering with the immune system in any way could have consequences down the line – consequences that might take years to emerge.

Another factor that will need to be considered is the cost. Even though the goal of drug development is to create drugs that can be used against a number of different cancers, the likelihood of coming upon a drug that will just “cure cancer” is pretty small. Individual cancers in individual patients will need to be characterized, and, yes, the cost of genomic sequencing has plummeted in recent years, but the individualization of treatment – the very premise of “precision medicine” – will be very expensive. This may tilt some payers, and some governments, away from some of the most promising therapies.

On the other hand – and there’s always another hand – one of the current trends that points to lower costs is the current movement towards biosimilars. Doc Gumshoe preached about that in a previous piece. The biosimilar tide is rising, and it points to more treatment being available to more patients. The presumption with biosimilars is that since they are chemically very, very close to the originator drugs, they will have similar efficacy and safety. The regulators, in the US and Europe, seem to think so. But the proof that they really behave the same will emerge as they are adopted, which I’m sure they will be.

* * * * * *
It’s very hard to maintain a light tone while writing about cancer. In the minds of nearly everyone on the planet there lurks a fear of cancer. Might this symptom that we’re experiencing right now be the dreaded Big C? In the words of the poet W. H. Auden, “That spot on your skin is a shocking disease.” We accept mortality, but not that way.

When I was describing the kinds of patients that were likely to be enrolled in the clinical trials of new cancer drugs, the repellent phrase “hopeless cases” came inevitably to mind. “Hopeless cases” is linked, also inevitably, with another repellent phrase, “miracle cures.” Doc Gumshoe’s article of faith is that there are no hopeless cases. Patients whose chances of survival were thought to be miniscule have responded to treatment and gone on to enjoy many additional years of life and health. And, similarly, the treatments that conferred those additional years of life on those patients were not “miracle cures.” They were the result of diligent, painstaking, and genuinely inspired investigation by a community of researchers and clinicians that continues to pursue the goal of – shall I dare say it? – curing cancer.

Doc Gumshoe will continue to watch new cancer treatments and keep you posted.

71
Share your thoughts...

avatar
25 Comment threads
46 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
40 Comment authors
bjackvTombertRay E.John King Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

gggb
Member
👍15
gggb

What about Northwest Bio?

Tom Deschaine
Guest

Sangamo Bioscience (SGMO) is an interesting play with it’s Zinc Finger Technology.

Add a Topic
560
hussein dhirani
Guest
hussein dhirani

i used to read doc gumshoe from the opening statement of his overly long articles to the bitter end religiously only because of my abiding interest in health. now i simply skip his articles.

i don’t know about you, but unfortunately i never got the impression that i was any the wiser at the end. the information is presented in an extremely rambling style (more words are better, and even more words are even better) is usually mundane, elementary, non-specific, kowtowing and apologetic to mainstream destroyers of health such as big pharma and big med.

KennyG
Member
👍3530
KennyG

Hussein- I suspect that you speak for the minority here. Perhaps you should attempt to share your self-perceived wisdom with the Gummies by offering an article of your own. I’m sure that you can make it concise and to the point as well as informative.
I am really amused by the free-loaders to Stock Gumshoe with all their critiques for something that they receive for free. Instead of being grateful, they feel the need to be critical rather than keeping their thoughts to themselves.

Add a Topic
5971
Nicholas Kappes
Guest
Nicholas Kappes

It is indeed deeply disturbing that after reading this article–which is very well written and upon reading a second time shows nothing superfluous–Hussein should find it “rambling”! Every sentence has value to someone who is suffering from cancer, knows someone else who is suffering from cancer, or is at all interested in acquiring an informed overview of the current research landscape regarding the various approaches to solving mankind’s largest medical problem. No one should be ungrateful for the author’s effort. I feel sorry for Hussein’s sad experience and defeatist comment, and only hope that the author is not discouraged in… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
C. E. Colson
Guest
C. E. Colson

Yes, this article on cancer is lengthy, and I admit to reading the first 40% and then the “Caveats” at the end. This is due only to the fact that I am personally less-interested in additional cancer ‘treatments’ that, as the good Doc G. states at the outset, tend to extend lives only 1.x months (at great expense, false hopes for the families, and with no consideration of the quality of that “life” — perhaps ‘continued metabolism’ would be a more accurate description of these benefits). HOWEVER, this in no way detracts from the clear, complete, up-to-date, extremely well-written, and… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
hussein dhirani
Guest
hussein dhirani

as it happens, zed files by dr kss is a timely example of original writing of high quality currently on the irregulars site. such enlightening work is a far cry from the “cut and paste” jobs that proliferate the net masquerading as “writing” that insults the intelligence and wastes enormous amounts of time.

Add a Topic
3932
Griffin
Member
👍3032
Griffin

I sincerely belive you when you say, “i used to read doc gumshoe”, none of your comments seem to be objectively relevant.

IMO Doc Gumshoe has added an excellent perspective of cancer treatment and in so doing has complemented Dr KSS articles rather well.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3932
jonomalley
Member
👍87

Who says you need to be on here? Please stop wasting MY time with your whining about the quality of free articles. It’s a FREE offering. Go somewhere else. Please.

RichJ
Guest
RichJ

I disagree. I Felt this was an informative piece. Perhaps you are already completely familiar with the subject. I was not as up to date. It served as a very good review of the field.
But then, if you are that familiar with it, why did you bother to read it at all?

Patricia
Member
👍689

Hussein, I have my disagreements with conventional medicine too, but your post is very insulting to Doc and to anyone who is honestly interested in these developments. You aren’t going to win any hearts and minds for the natural approach with posts like this. I doubt I won over anyone with my past comments on psychiatry either, but I avoided just trashing anyone who disagreed. Besides which, sometimes aggressive cancer therapies really are called for and we can always count on there being some ethical doctors around to point out when that’s truly the case.

Add a Topic
3397
Michael Jorrin,
Guest
Michael Jorrin (aka Doc Gumshoe)

Please see my response to this and other comments at the end of the thread.

jking1939
Member
👍1266
jking1939

Hussein –

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree emphatically. I will keep this short and to the point since it is very apparent you are unable to absorb much more than what I will write here.

jk

Add a Topic
899
Ray E.
Guest
Ray E.

A diversion from the highly scientific cancer research: A personal case review: In 2002, I came down with severe fatigue, and by body had significant desire to hit the mountain trails, but I had just been diagnosed with quite high cholesterol and put on Zocor. Six days later I couldn’t walk and the doc took me off the Z. I began to take supplements, including magnesium, vitamin c, and a half dozen others. I took small steps but kept walking and built up slowly to a half mile per day. Three months later I was able to get back on… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3820
Add a Topic
3555
everette
Guest
everette

Thank you, Doc! Great info. I am a 15 year survivor of cancer. And during that time have done a train-load of research, and naturally am interested in investments in the cancer area. I have used supplements and followed the Mediterranean diet as an adjuvant treatment. Ray, sounds like you are on the right track. My oncologist recommends what I do with supplements and life style. He is excited about genetic/immune developments and is into some things that Doc covered. Yes, although most doctors don’t talk about it, cancer’s only fuel is glucose, so for cancer patients, sugar should be… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3555
Rusty Brown in Canada
Guest
Rusty Brown in Canada

“Ten cysto’s”?! I had ONE retrograde bladder cystogram years ago, and all I can say is “thank God I was unconscious at the time”. I still cringe just thinking about it.

Ray E.
Guest
Ray E.

Cystos today take about five minutes with the telescopic magic wand, big screen all the way in sees all details and carries a vacuum tip that sucks up any suspect tissues, no pain involved. To remove the tumors, they inflate you; for that, you are put to sleep. Some pain issues afterward for two or three days, normally, unless they decide to go on an exploration tour into your kidneys, pain lasts for 4 to 6 weeks unless it was an easy venture.

Gr8Full!
Member
👍11352

VIDEO CHOLANGIOSCOPY-Explanation of the Procedure-Choledocholithiasis.mpg

Gr8Full!
Member
👍11352

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ESgaZqYvqk

arch1
Member
👍7788

I notice all the likes on this post so I must address one point which is misleading in my estimation. ” cancer thrives on sugar” all of your cells thrive on sugar including your brain cells . It is impossible to starve your body of sugar without starving all other cells and since your brain is such a heavy user of energy you would kill it ,,,and yourself,,,before your cancer noticed it was being deprived. Carbohydrates are metabolized into glucose and in turn that is carried to all parts of your organism as its energy source . Ethanol is directly… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
1358
Ray E.
Guest
Ray E.

Good points Frank, however, cancer cells have more receptors than normal cells that seek out the nutrient glucose chemistry, and the stored fat and carbs that are converted adds to the glucose feeding trough.. so when the P.H. falls into the acidic range resulting from the glucose, the outcome is an anerobic environment which enhances the growth and division of cancer cells. Our normal cells are put into a disadvantage, as they need an oxygenated environment. Dumping glucose straight into the blood stream avoids the metabolic transformation and efficiently proceeds to the food trough. So cancer is like a football… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
arch1
Member
👍7788

I was in no way advocating the increased use of glucose,,,merely pointing out the impossibility of not having it in your system. If glucose is so readily ingested by the cancer cell would it not be an easy thing to modify the glucose molecule to carry a poison payload that caused apoptosis of the malignant while sparing the benign. Unfortunately not so simple,,,,no magic bullet yet. But thank you for your civility.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
4463
Ray E.
Guest
Ray E.

In 2008 when I had my second surgery to remove two more tumors, I searched for my magic bullet and found it. I had previously read much research that we didn’t use. In reviewing it, I found a change to 50 grams per IV vitamin C was required to take out the cancer, provided that the blood level reached 400mg/dl, and an update that added oral 300mg Alpha Lipoic Acid and oral 300mg N-Acetyl Cysteine. I dropped another twenty pounds and increased my protein intake to 80 grams, beefed up my physical workout and trail run to three hours per… Read more »

Add a Topic
6225
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
6225
arch1
Member
👍7788

Ray I learned long ago to never argue with success.It is great that worked for you. In every human endeavor or event we often do not know what all is in play and sometimes things that happen once or twice cannot then be repeated. correlation does not necessitate causation. Two equally intelligent and schooled people can look at the same data set and arrive at opposite conclusions.

Ray E.
Guest
Ray E.

My wife has proved that a number of times. Thanks!
Ray

bert
Guest
bert

It should be noted that your tumour is a bladder tumour ;
Vit C is excreted through the kidneys , into the urine ;
therefore, vit C may have a direct effect onto your cancer cells in the bladder.
Also, therefore, Vit C may not have such an effect on other tumours
Today , I checked the medical articles, and there is no evidence for vit C combatting caner ; however, I believe perhaps for urological tumours, there may be great value , and generally, for vit C depleted patients also !

Add a Topic
3397
Cancer-be-gone?
Guest
Cancer-be-gone?

Very interesting discussions. At the moment I am sold on the targeted cure for certain cancers by this little Canadian company -Theralase (TLT) whose technology will kill tumors 100%.

Gr8Full!
Member
👍11352

TLTFF Theralase Technologies Inc. doing nothing novel or exceptional
The above comment was derived from the biotech team’s research. Best2ALL!-Benjamin

bjackv
Member
👍6
bjackv

the above comment is dead wrong. TLT patient #5 no cancer after 180 days. got clearance HC and FDA for phase 2 after success with just 6 patients. watched TLT for past year and the laser-PDC method will be a fantastic success. They use their own medical teminology, but what they are really doing is a technical approach to what 35% H2O2 does in killing free radicals and revitalizing the immune system. This laser tech of creating light photons to destroy cancer cells and cancer causing parasites is an amazing accomplishment. Leaves immune therapy and it’s neg side effects in… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3397
Tom
Guest
Tom

Time to take another look at Theralase (TLT.V; TLTFF) as they march on towards completion of Ph. 1 (safety and incidentally efficacy) clinical testing for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC)…preliminary results released in July showed minimal dose resulted in 3 of 3 patients with apparent cancer-free bladders at the 90-day mark with minimal side effects…now approaching the 180-day review for the first three and the 90-day cystoscopy for the first of 6 patients receiving the therapeutic dose…Photodynamic Compound with LLLT light activation in the bladder…nominally a 1-hour treatment that appears to have saved 3 of 3 patients (worst of the… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
bjackv
Member
👍6
bjackv

into phase 2 soon after clearance from hc and fda.
patient 5 totally cancer free after 180 days. trial one
only needed 6 patients. Unbelievable!

Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3397
Duguyisheng
Guest
Duguyisheng

Maybe I missed itin your article but the Ziopharma-MD Anderson approach also uses the Rheoswitch from Intrexon which supposedly can modify the adverse effects of the cytokinen storm. The MD Anderson approach in this collaboration uses the “Sleeping Beauty” program which as you describe is a “non-viral gene integration platform.”. I don’t really iunderstand it but supposedly the significance of the MD Anderson approach will be able, if successful, to use off the shelf agents, be a lot cheaper, be able to be used a decent community hospital and be much faster in time The following URL is a recent… Read more »

mike
Guest
mike

And what about of Cellectis french biotech which is developing cancer immunotherapies based on gene-edited CAR T-cells?

Add a Topic
3397
Steve L
Guest
Steve L

Thought I would pass along that on February 27 at 10pm on HBO a news program called VICE (YES it IS a news program) is going to report on groundbreaking Cancer treatments. The program description says,
“Exploring groundbreaking treatments to fight leukemia, global stomp and multiple myeloma; HIV is used to transform a patients immune system into a cancer killing machine; a genetically engineered cold virus is injected into a patient’s brain tumor.”

The promos I’ve seen show a guy talking about “curing cancer NOT just treating it”
Seems like an interesting hour.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
5153
Add a Topic
3397
Lulu
Member
👍1289

If someone knows how to access this without a cable subscription to HBO, pls post. To get HBO I must subscribe to the higher cable package which is $100 a month more. Yes, here in Canada, we pay the most for cable TV and cellular service than anywhere else in the world. Goldarn it, it’s good to be Canadian. Much appreciated……sounds interesting.

Add a Topic
1515
Add a Topic
372
arch1
Member
👍7788

Lulu There was some chatter about HBO cutting a deal wiha a wannabe competitor to Netflix to sell a pay per view offer,,,,,I have heard nothing more so think it is only rumor.As far as I know only way to get current HBO is subscribe. Some series like Justified and Deadwood have been offered on Netflix after season. frank

Add a Topic
342
Add a Topic
372
Add a Topic
342
Lulu
Member
👍1289

Heyya Frank…..cheers…..Netflix I have…….but Netflix in Canada has many more restrictions…….we have access to half what Netflix users in the US have access too. Again, its good to be Canadian except someone in government is continually deciding what is good for me and what is not. At 56 Im still not able to make that decision on my own.
And now by 2 days I have to wait until I am 67 to get part of a pension. {Ill keep my ears open…if anyone hears pls advise } cheers !!!

Add a Topic
342
Add a Topic
1515
Add a Topic
342
bj
Guest

Hey, Doc Gumshoe! Why don’t YOU write an article on this HBO program!!!???

Steve L
Guest
Steve L

Ok that “global stomp” in my last post should say glioblastoma!

Damn auto correct!

Add a Topic
5809
GuyJ
Guest
GuyJ

It is very difficult to find well written, informative, and objective articles about cancer. Doc Gumshoe gives us exactly that! The problem I have is the sharp line that divides “alternative” medicines and big pharma. Clearly big pharma are making great progress, using the science of genetics as well as anything else that is around, but at the same time clearly “foods as medicine” contribute enormously to basic health, so that high dosage vitamin C and oxygen therapy clearly do help. I’ld like to see that sharp line being eliminated, so that doctors give dietary advice as well as pills,… Read more »

Add a Topic
3397
Lulu
Member
👍1289

Everyone in the sand box coorporating toward a greater health outcome……….beautiful!!

Ken Schumacher
Guest

Have you checked into Dr. Burzynski’s treatments using peptides? He has had amazing success with all types of cancer and has been indicted seven times by the Texas medical board and the fda. The last prosecutor said that the question was not weather the treatment worked or not but was he allowed to do it !?!. This Dr. also has a PHD in biochemistry , but then Linus Pauling won TWO Nobel prizes in chemistry and no one in the medical industry listened to him either,guess there wasn’t enough money in it.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3022
Rusty Brown in Canada
Guest
Rusty Brown in Canada

My understanding is that Linus Pauling won one Nobel for chemistry and the other was the Nobel Peace Prize for his activities on behalf of nuclear disarmament. The only individual to win two unshared Nobel prizes.
In any case, I fully agree with your point. Pioneers like Pauling are often prophets without honour in their own land.
Myself, I’ve been a big believer in his vitamin C therapies since I started taking 3 or 4 grams a day in my early 50s and my varicose veins disappeared completely.

Add a Topic
282
takeprofits
Guest

This will probably disclose my age, but a now out of print book “Confessions of a Medical Heretic” by Dr. Mendelson was early evidence there will always be people in the professions who are capable of thinking outside the box imposed by vested interests. On the question of co-operation between the medical profession and naturopaths or other natural approaches to health as noted above in reference to Dr. Linus Pauling, the barriers have broken down slightly, but the simple fact is there are charlatans in both camps and the approaches are philosophically diametrically opposed to one another. Current medical doctors… Read more »

Add a Topic
4222
RicknRedmond
Guest
RicknRedmond

Very interesting discussion. I am dealing with prostate cancer with supplements and diet, so far in a satisfactory way. The news in this discussion is not what the target audience here wants to hear. They being investors looking for growth and ROI over time. I read it because I am interested in all cancer topics, so here I am. Dr. Burzynski and others mentioned here are pursuing a path toward elimination of established cancers and the causes of them. The medical community is absolutely committed to the treatment of established cancers. It’s a giant industry and the maintenance of it… Read more »

Add a Topic
4454
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3555