http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/leukemia-shot-kills-cancer_n_923700.html

A new leukemia treatment is wowing even the researchers behind its creation, providing results beyond their wildest expectations.

It's virtually eradicated cancerous leukemia cells in the first three patients it's been tested on.

In two of the first three patients the process was tested on the treatment completely destroyed the most common type of leukemia, according to MSNBC. In the third patient, the treatment seems to have reduced the cancerous cells to 70 percent of what they once were.

"Within three weeks, the tumors had been blown away, in a way that was much more violent than we ever expected," said senior author Carl June, MD told Penn Medicine.

Amazingly, the breakthrough actually uses patients' own T cells to fight the cancer, according to the University of Pennsylvania's news release. Researchers took the T cells of the patients, ran them through Penn's vaccine production facility, and then reintroduced them to the patients' bodies following chemotherapy.

Yeah I read this on Yahoo yesterday, thanks for sharing it here Hank. I really think the key to effectively fighting cancer lies in helping the bodys own systems do it somehow, I like where these guys are going I hope it works.

Eric

This certainly is wonderful news!
I noted that towards the end of the article it states that -
<<Both the National Cancer Institute and several pharmaceutical companies declined to pay for the research. Neither applicants nor funders discuss the reasons an application is turned down. But good guesses are the general shortage of funds and the concept tried in this experiment was too novel and, thus, too risky for consideration.>>
I just wonder if, in view of the success on the three patients receiving this treatment, whether the NCI or pharmaceutical companies will be more willing to provide funds?

How about this - the process is a fairly healthy one in terms of treatment... A discovery like this could revolutionize cancer treatment. Think about it. You take the body's own cells and turn them against the BAD cells it's a pretty novel approach with a high cure rate. 70%. ... This requires very few drugs.... That takes a big chunk of change out of the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, and if It truly is effective it would minimize the need for a CANCER INSTITUTE! I would personally donate money towards this research!!! something like this would have them both quaking in their boots. I'm not one of those people who sees conspiracies everywhere but I get a bas taste in my mouth knowing that the potential is very obviously there, and the people with the money are holding out. Pharmaceutical companies charge scads for chemo drugs etc.... Their profits would definitely fall. If anything this is research the gov. And insurance companies should fund.

This came across my desk before it was out in the media. The person that sent it to me is a very established cancer researcher who was also pleased at this development, early as it was in its ability to be something valuable in a real world. We had a long discussion afterwards about what it takes to prove this works in large numbers of people, what cancer it works for (or not), (they are all very different) and so much more from a science perspective. Before we say that this will put NCI out of business, or the parma giants - to whom cancer is only a small part of their business for the really big guns, just remember - this is a breakthrough, but hardly a new idea. We have been to this edge, in this same idea at least 3 times in the last decade, and none of them panned out. One day a breakthrough will happen. Just remember when it does, the knowledge that it will be based on, will come from learned core science from billions and billions of taxpayer dollars through the NIH/NCI, and work done by private pharma companies that also advanced our understanding of things. It isn't going to drop out of empty space. Applied science, which is what this is, is all based on pure science, which is what we pay for.

I had a friend who SCUBA dove with me for years. He got a government grant for $42k to study a big shell-less sea slug (sea cucumber) here in CA. Learn everything about this creature. Its life cycle, its biology, the most minute details of its reproduction, the nature of the slime on the outside of it that keeps it from getting infections and more. At the time there was no practical application for ANY of that knowledge. We all laughed that he got one of those grants that the government gives sometimes that we all bitch about, like studying the sex lives of fruit flies. Anyway, we all thought it was a joke that he got that money to go SCUBA diving and work with a couple guys at USC for a summer.

20 years ago, another friend of mine who works for Monsanto (used to design atom bomb fuses but now works on other government projects) gets a contract to figure out how to make our nuclear subs move through the water more quietly. Because the sub creates small sonic waves as water is displaced by its forward movement. So the team is working on this for a year. They come up with a paint on polymer that is kinda like jelly, that isn't water soluble, and actually micro undulates on the outside surface of the sub, eliminating the small detectable sonic waves.

Guess where they got the idea for the formula for that coating? The slime that was analyzed from those stupid sea slugs' mucous coating that my friend had cataloged the chemistry of decades ago. This is a prime example of the need to do pure science today on things that give us really basic understandings of stuff, so that someone else down the road has a catalog of it, all so they can do APPLIED science to solve problems.

Don't think that this idea of how to turn our immune system into a targeted therapy isn't built on billions of dollars in gene research and more that has happened over decades, that the NCI and pharma companies spent money on and did, most that didn't pan out into a sellable widget, or at the time a usable idea. Sometimes that research work had no known purpose except to understand our genetics, or cells, or whatever, that had nothing to do with this idea of manipulating our immune system. Nothing happens in a vacuum. So while there's a chant to not need an NCI or what ever today, they are the ones that are going to make this possible. As to the pharma companies, they have lots of diseases there are no drugs to cure, that need solving, and they will always be part of the landscape no matter what disease, even the big C, is finally eliminated in your grandchildren's lifetimes. Also note the lack of desire to fund the continuing research today, is today not tomorrow. Also that the NCI had its budget cut by our new "tighten the belt till we scream" congress. The money in NCI today is already committed to complete projects that are in process (starated several years ago many of them) and partway through their exploration. With no new money, you have to be satisfied with finishing what you started till the money tree sprouts again.

Brian, this is an excellent description of now science happens and the importance of basic research. Thanks!

Another thought. Also remember that for every blockbuster drug that a pharma company comes out with that gets through the FDA and they make billions off of, they have 20 or more that they invested the same amount of money in during the same period, that didn't pan out into anything. Total loss of investment capital and time. I spent my life in this industry. They have zilliions of failures that each can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm not defending all of their practices, just offering a perspective. I hate how they gouge Medicare full price, when they discount to insurance companies for the same drug. That kinda crap has to stop. But they do indeed advance much of our scientific knowledge that ends up in the public domain through their many many failures and successes. It all gets published in pieces before they have the total picture to make a working drug, little bits of understanding that can also be used to stimulate other ideas and solutions by third parties.

A very involved description ( not for everyone ) of why we are just now getting to a point where some of the "manipulate our own immune system" ideas are showing promise. I only post this here for those who have emailed me with a scientific interest. These are opinions voiced primarily by John Nemunaitis at the Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas, TX

Are we perhaps unlocking a mystery of cancer management that has eluded us for hundreds of years? Namely, the mystery of how we influence the immune system to control cancer? Tantalizing spontaneous tumor regression has been demonstrated since recorded medical history in 0.1% of melanoma and in rare renal cell cancer patients following primary surgery. Over the last 50 years, in an attempt to duplicate success with infectious disease and antigen awareness, 'single' modality vaccines have been tested (whole-cell vaccines, tumor lysates, activated effector cells, various protein small molecules, cytokines, antibody-directed vaccines, and DNA- or RNA-based vaccines). However, they have met with limited success and have not approached a level of efficacy (survival advantage) necessary for US FDA product approval. Why is this? There are many reasons, but one which is frequently mentioned is that our animal models are not effective and have minimal correlation to the human response. Another is that we have not identified a surrogate marker or assay consistently correlating immune activity with survival. Nevertheless, our knowledge has improved.

For example, there have been many advances in molecular biology that have led to identification of new antigens, cytokines and molecular mechanisms, thereby clarifying our understanding of how immunotherapeutic approaches may impact control over cancer.

Dendritic cells (DCs), for instance, engage in cell-mediated immunity and play a central role in the induction of antitumor immunity in tumor-bearing hosts via antigenic cross-presentation.[1�4] DCs efficiently display antigens on MHC class II and stimulate proliferation and activation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. CD4+ cells augment the activity of natural killer cells and macrophages, in addition to amplifying antigen-specific immunity via local secretion of cytokines.[5,6] Through this process DCs have been identified as a pivotal component to engage for success of immune-based vaccine technologies.

Over the last several years we have also explained reasons for the potential lack of activity, including ineffective priming of tumor-specific T cells, lack of high-avidity primed tumor-specific T cells, and physical or functional disabling of primed tumor-specific T cells by the primary host and/or tumor-related mechanisms. One inhibiting mechanism that is now well characterized involves tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, which are immunosuppressive T regulatory cells that secrete TGF-&#946; and express a high level of CTLA-4.[7,8] These cells impede immune activation by facilitating T-cell tolerance to tumor-associated antigens rather than cross-priming CD8+ T cells. This results in the nonproliferation of killer T cells which recognize the tumor and will not attack it.[7�10] Another example of an inhibiting mechanism involves various cytokines (i.e., IL-10, TGF-&#946;1 and TGF-&#946;2) that suppress immune responses against cancer.[11�14]

Virtually all clinical vaccines demonstrate remarkable safety and, furthermore, immune function assessment has demonstrated, albeit periodically and inconsistently, a correlation with response, survival or time to progression. Dramatic responses are described on a 'case report' basis in solid tumor patients and this has been encouraging. However, many oncologists would agree that this is a far cry from where we need to be. Nevertheless, a strategic use of vaccine technology to manage cancer and, in essence, enable patients to 'live with the cancer', is a step in the right direction � that is, to manage cancer similarly to how we manage diabetes or hypertension. These medical disorders are not cured but with the appropriate minimally toxic treatment, patients live long healthy lives with a minimal impact from these incurable diseases.

Recently, Provenge� (Dendreon), an antigen-stimulated activated DC vaccine, demonstrated significant survival advantage in advanced disease prostate cancer patients. Following swiftly on from this, recently in the USA, ipilimumab made a landmark breakthrough demonstrating further survival advantage in advanced melanoma patients. Both products are now approved by the FDA as indicated therapies in prostate cancer and melanoma, respectively. Remarkable systemic responses have also been observed in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving autologous tumor granulocyte�macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) gene-based vaccines (GVAX)[15] and dose-related survival advantage has been demonstrated through inhibition of the TGF-&#946;2 gene using the Lucanix� (NovaRx) vaccine.[16] Oncovex (BioVex), another GVAX, has also been tested in melanoma with similar results.[17]

So why the recent success following such a frustrating road over the prior 50 years? Let us consider the key points of prior work. Cancer vaccines were originally designed to mimic success of infectious antigen-based vaccines as a single modality therapy or to stimulate antigen effector cell function (e.g., cytokines). We now know that the immune system and its involvement in control (or lack of control thereof) of cancer is much more complex and dynamic. However, we have also learned over the last 50 years three key mechanisms by which the immune system can be modulated to control cancer � mechanisms that have been verified by clinical activity. These are antigen education, immune function enhancement and inhibition of immune inhibitors. Vaccines with success consider each of these mechanisms. Recently, we also described one vaccine that strategically controls elements of each of these three mechanisms. Phase I results of this novel vaccine named TAG (Gradalis Inc.) described autologous tumor antigen education, enhancement of immune function using GM-CSF gene and inhibition of tumor inhibitors through blocking of TGF-&#946;2.[18] This could be considered the first 'triad' vaccine. Manufacturing design and Phase I trial initiation of a more comprehensive triad vaccine called FANG� was more recently described.[19] Will these or others generate more fruitful results? We do not yet know, but we do appear to be coming closer to understanding how to manage patients using immune-modulating therapeutics. However, two technologies (Provenge and ipilimumab), despite limitations and some off-target toxicity, are now finally in the hands of oncologists and clinical researchers. In the future, we may expect to see utilization of immune-modulatory approaches in a variety of combination trials now linked to targeted therapy and low-dose chemotherapy. Vaccine technology as it now evolves into the clinical arena with its high safety profi! le will begin to impact adjuvant therapy, consolidative therapy and will engage patients with minimal disease at high risk of recurrence. It will also enable patients with less tolerance to chemotherapy as a result of other medical limitations or age to undergo a new method of therapeutic management. Some of the off-target issues, particularly involving T-cell regulators, need to be worked out, however, a focus on triad vaccine development appears reasonable.