What’s Coming Down the Pike

245

Comments

  • TerriNick
    TerriNick Member Posts: 43

    Extraneous factors

    Thanks Fox.  Do give this some thought if you have a chance.  Going to the AACR conference was literally mind-numbing.  It is going to take me months to decipher what I have seen and learned.  For example, the "book" of Proceedings listing all the papers being presented was 1523 pages long in extremely teeny-tiny typeset.  But that's not all.  At the start of the show I was then handed a "Proceedings Supplement: Late-Breaking Abstracts" that was another 159 pages long.  Just to go through and collate all the papers that might touch on topics directly related to RCC (or of personal interest) will take me daze, er, days.

    However, there were some extremely tantalyzing papers (that, incidentally, were all heavily attended) regarding such topics as:

    - Cancer and Metabolism: Metabolic considerations and Novel Cancer Therapies; Whole Body Metabolism; Metabolism and Signaling; etc. - All of these and related topics were my personal area of interest and that interest is apparently shared by countless other researchers.  That really surprised me.

    - Immunology

    - TME - Tumor Micro-Environment (i.e. the support given to tumors and mets by the surrounding "normal" tissues

    - Drug resistance and how to extend effectiveness.

    - "Liquid Biopsies" (deciphering what the tumor or mets are doing by analyzing Circulating Tumor Cells or tumor DNA (not in any cells) in the blood.

    - Tumor and/or metastases evolution; latent metastases; dormant tumor cells, etc.

    - Future Anti-Cancer Targets

     

    Regardless, if one were to attempt to take an overall view of where current research is going it consistently pointed to thinking outside of the genome, beyond the nucleus, beyond the cytoplasm, outside of the abnormal cells and into the surrounding environment and then on to the entire system.  That is why it would be invaluable to figure out what "external" factors might be contributing to one person's success (yours) on a given therapy while it may fail for someone else.

     

    I need to understand

    Hi Neil

    Sorry to be dim but I am still new to all this. What do you mean when you talk about 'complete response' and 'partial response' please? Do any of these mean that the cancer is beaten into submission and remission happens or is that just a pipe dream of mine?

     

  • NanoSecond
    NanoSecond Member Posts: 653
    TerriNick said:

    I need to understand

    Hi Neil

    Sorry to be dim but I am still new to all this. What do you mean when you talk about 'complete response' and 'partial response' please? Do any of these mean that the cancer is beaten into submission and remission happens or is that just a pipe dream of mine?

     

    Understanding

    Hi Terrie,

    No need to apologize - we are all constantly learning new concepts and acronyms as part of our initiation process into the posh and exclusive kidney cancer club.  Pretty soon you will be ready to learn the secret handshake as well...

    The holy grail of any therapy would be to get a complete response - i.e. No visible Evidence of Disease, usually referred to as NED.  But more often the response is less than complete - perhaps the mets just stabilize (do not grow but do not shrink either).  Of perhaps some mets shrink but others are not effected.

    There is a rigorous set of criteria to meet called "RECIST".  Here is a link that quickly outlines the criteria:

    http://imaging.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/imaging

    From that link:

    RECIST criteria are a voluntary, international standard, and are not an NCI standard. They are based on a simplification of former methods (WHO, ECOG) and based on measurable disease, i.e., the presence of at least one measurable lesion.

    RECIST criteria offer a simplified, conservative, extraction of imaging data for wide application in clinical trials. They presume that linear measures are an adequate substitute for 2-D methods and registers four response categories:

    • CR (complete response) = disappearance of all target lesions
    • PR (partial response) = 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions
    • PD (progressive disease) = 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions
    • SD (stable disease) = small changes that do not meet above criteria

    Plans call for improving on RECIST methodology by developing and validating clinical trial-acceptable methods and standards to incorporate:

    • volumetric (3D) anatomical imaging
    • dynamic contrast imaging
    • functional (molecular) imaging

    If successful, the use of medical image data as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials could lead to:

    • Smaller clinical trials with fewer patients
    • Earlier go/no decisions on drug compounds
    • Faster regulatory approval for new drugs
    • Earlier use in clinical care
  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798

    Understanding

    Hi Terrie,

    No need to apologize - we are all constantly learning new concepts and acronyms as part of our initiation process into the posh and exclusive kidney cancer club.  Pretty soon you will be ready to learn the secret handshake as well...

    The holy grail of any therapy would be to get a complete response - i.e. No visible Evidence of Disease, usually referred to as NED.  But more often the response is less than complete - perhaps the mets just stabilize (do not grow but do not shrink either).  Of perhaps some mets shrink but others are not effected.

    There is a rigorous set of criteria to meet called "RECIST".  Here is a link that quickly outlines the criteria:

    http://imaging.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/imaging

    From that link:

    RECIST criteria are a voluntary, international standard, and are not an NCI standard. They are based on a simplification of former methods (WHO, ECOG) and based on measurable disease, i.e., the presence of at least one measurable lesion.

    RECIST criteria offer a simplified, conservative, extraction of imaging data for wide application in clinical trials. They presume that linear measures are an adequate substitute for 2-D methods and registers four response categories:

    • CR (complete response) = disappearance of all target lesions
    • PR (partial response) = 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions
    • PD (progressive disease) = 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions
    • SD (stable disease) = small changes that do not meet above criteria

    Plans call for improving on RECIST methodology by developing and validating clinical trial-acceptable methods and standards to incorporate:

    • volumetric (3D) anatomical imaging
    • dynamic contrast imaging
    • functional (molecular) imaging

    If successful, the use of medical image data as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials could lead to:

    • Smaller clinical trials with fewer patients
    • Earlier go/no decisions on drug compounds
    • Faster regulatory approval for new drugs
    • Earlier use in clinical care
    Medical image data

    The last few lines of your post are very promising, Neil.  May not get as far as n=1 though?  :)

  • foxhd
    foxhd Member Posts: 3,181 Member

    Medical image data

    The last few lines of your post are very promising, Neil.  May not get as far as n=1 though?  :)

    Nice info Neil

    Always up on top of things. I like smart people. Saves me alot of work. Thanks.

  • angec
    angec Member Posts: 924 Member
    BDS said:

    New Cancer Agent Debuts in Multiple Cancers

    Below is a nice article about nivolumab/BMS-936558. The most interesting point of the article for me was the prediction given that nivolumab/BMS-936558 may be FDA approved by 2015. - BDS  

    New Cancer Agent Debuts in Multiple Cancers

    'Living Therapy' May Last for 'Many Years'

    Nick Mulcahy

    Apr 08, 2013

    WASHINGTON, DC — In a noteworthy moment in the history of cancer drug development, phase 3 clinical trials of an experimental agent are simultaneously underway in 3 different cancer types.

    Trials of the investigational immunotherapy nivolumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb) have begun in melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and nonsmall-cell lung cancer, said Suzanne Topalian, MD, here at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) 104th Annual Meeting. She is from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center in Baltimore, Maryland.

    The simultaneous trials of a single investigational agent in so many different cancers "may be unprecedented," Dr. Topalian told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

    The phase 3 trials are an outgrowth of the positive results seen in phase 1 trials of nivolumab, which was previously called BMS-936558 and MDX-1106. The agent is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes the programmed death 1 (PD-1) protein, an element of tumors that enables them to evade their nemesis, the immune system.

    Nivolumab was hailed as the next big thing in cancer treatment last year after early data indicated that it had durable tumor response rates of 20% to 30% in multiple cancers. In the words of one expert, the agent had "broken the ceiling" of durable tumor response rates of 10% to 15% that has existed for cancer immunotherapies over the past 30 years.

    That an immunotherapy — and not some other type of cancer treatment — should be making such an auspicious debut in phase 3 trials is not an accident, Dr. Topalian noted.

    "In many ways, the adaptive immune system comprised of T-cells and antibodies is an ideal anticancer agent," she told the audience at a plenary session.

    Dr. Topalian challenged the prevailing wisdom in cancer research.

    "The current dogma is that cancer is a genetic disease," she explained, acknowledging that individual tumors contain hundreds of mutations and alterations in signaling pathways, which are the basis of the personalized medicine approach.

    But the genetic model is highly problematic, she argued. The problem of resistance to targeted therapies "has its limitations," she noted. "Blocking one pathway can lead to the emergence of another," she explained.

    An "alternative viewpoint" proposed by Dr. Topalian is that "cancer is an immunologic disorder."

    Immunotherapy is the "common denominator" that "takes advantage of the fact that many of the mutations of cancer can be specifically recognized and targeted by the immune system." Furthermore, "the immune system can adapt and evolve as the cancer evolves," she said.

    Dr. Topalian showed a timeline of the identification of the PD-1 gene and the development of an anti-PD-1 therapy (Nat Immunol. 2012;13:1129-1132). The timeline, which was not created by her research team, projects US Food and Drug Administration approval of anti-PD-1 therapies by 2015.

    "If nivolumab is approved, it would be so inspiring and motivating for the field of immunology," said Priyanka Agharkar, a predoctoral trainee from the Department of Cell Stress Biology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. Aside from sipuleucel-T (Provenge) for prostate cancer and ipilimumab (Yervoy) for melanoma, "there is very little approved in terms of immunotherapies for cancer," she told Medscape Medical News.

    There is now plenty of competition in the field of anti-PD-1 agents and complementary anti-PDL1 agents. In fact, Genentech, Amplimmune/GSK, CureTech, Merck, and MedImmune all have drug development programs.

    Proof From 3 Patients That the Immune System Has "Memory"

    The quality that makes the immune system "different from all other cancer therapies" is that the immune system has "memory," said Dr. Topalian.

    To support her assertion, she showed treatment and response timelines for 3 of 39 patients treated with nivolumab in the first-in-human trials for melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, nonsmall-cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer.

    The 3 patients had objective responses for a "very long time" after a single course of treatment with nivolumab, she reported.

    A patient with colorectal cancer had a complete response after a few months of treatment, which has remained into year 4 after initiation of treatment.

    A patient with kidney cancer had a partial response after a few months of treatment; the tumor continued to shrink and a complete response was seen in year 3 after treatment. The patient has maintained the response into year 4.

    null

    A melanoma patient had a partial response and was taken off treatment after a few months. In year 3 after trial enrollment, that patient had lymph node metastases and resumed treatment, but has achieved an ongoing partial response into year 4.

    In addition, in a follow-up phase 1 trial of nivolumab, durable tumor regressions were seen in approximately 300 patients with lung cancer, melanoma, and kidney cancer, and regressions persisted even after the drug was discontinued.

    These results are "compatible" with the idea that the immune system has a memory, said Dr. Topalian.

    "This is actually a living therapy that stays with the host, potentially for years," she noted.

    She explained that the duration of the effect could be similar to childhood vaccines for infectious diseases, and the resulting immunity might even last a lifetime.

    Dr. Topalian reports a financial relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

    American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) 104th Annual Meeting. Presented April 7, 2013.

     

    This is excellent information

    This is excellent information BDS! You certainly are using your situation to the fullest by keeping on top of treatments helping all of us!  I too wish the Nivo.... would be approved much sooner. I also thought i heard it was used for gyno cancers as well.  I think finally they are onto something by working with the immune system.  Thanks for the new info... keeping on going!  

  • alice124
    alice124 Member Posts: 896 Member

    Extraneous factors

    Thanks Fox.  Do give this some thought if you have a chance.  Going to the AACR conference was literally mind-numbing.  It is going to take me months to decipher what I have seen and learned.  For example, the "book" of Proceedings listing all the papers being presented was 1523 pages long in extremely teeny-tiny typeset.  But that's not all.  At the start of the show I was then handed a "Proceedings Supplement: Late-Breaking Abstracts" that was another 159 pages long.  Just to go through and collate all the papers that might touch on topics directly related to RCC (or of personal interest) will take me daze, er, days.

    However, there were some extremely tantalyzing papers (that, incidentally, were all heavily attended) regarding such topics as:

    - Cancer and Metabolism: Metabolic considerations and Novel Cancer Therapies; Whole Body Metabolism; Metabolism and Signaling; etc. - All of these and related topics were my personal area of interest and that interest is apparently shared by countless other researchers.  That really surprised me.

    - Immunology

    - TME - Tumor Micro-Environment (i.e. the support given to tumors and mets by the surrounding "normal" tissues

    - Drug resistance and how to extend effectiveness.

    - "Liquid Biopsies" (deciphering what the tumor or mets are doing by analyzing Circulating Tumor Cells or tumor DNA (not in any cells) in the blood.

    - Tumor and/or metastases evolution; latent metastases; dormant tumor cells, etc.

    - Future Anti-Cancer Targets

     

    Regardless, if one were to attempt to take an overall view of where current research is going it consistently pointed to thinking outside of the genome, beyond the nucleus, beyond the cytoplasm, outside of the abnormal cells and into the surrounding environment and then on to the entire system.  That is why it would be invaluable to figure out what "external" factors might be contributing to one person's success (yours) on a given therapy while it may fail for someone else.

     

    AACR

    Mind boggling stuff Neil. Thank you for trying to break it down for the rest of us.

    In reading  different  articles and updates on treatment and new drugs, I often see reference to medical conferences. And to be honest, I don't know the difference between one conference and another.  I mean is this AACR the Masters of Cancer research meetings? Should one conference be given more credibility than another? There's more and more infomation becoming available and increasingly difficult to determine what is the best information. Given you have 1700+ pages of info to decipher, I'm guessing this was a biggie, and one of the premiere conferences on topic. In your opinion, wihich annual meetings/conferences do you consider the most enlightening?

  • angec
    angec Member Posts: 924 Member
    foxhd said:

    Nice info Neil

    Always up on top of things. I like smart people. Saves me alot of work. Thanks.

    LOL Fox, you are too funny!

    LOL Fox, you are too funny!  Heck, i like 'em too.  It is a pity they get picked on in school!  ;)

  • angec
    angec Member Posts: 924 Member
    TerriNick said:

    I need to understand

    Hi Neil

    Sorry to be dim but I am still new to all this. What do you mean when you talk about 'complete response' and 'partial response' please? Do any of these mean that the cancer is beaten into submission and remission happens or is that just a pipe dream of mine?

     

    Terri... NED does happen for

    Terri... NED does happen for some.  And if you are like Fox here, it happens BIG TIME!  Read up on his story if you haven't.  It is very encouraging.  Lots of new meds here now and down he pipeline!  It is all good!

  • NanoSecond
    NanoSecond Member Posts: 653
    alice124 said:

    AACR

    Mind boggling stuff Neil. Thank you for trying to break it down for the rest of us.

    In reading  different  articles and updates on treatment and new drugs, I often see reference to medical conferences. And to be honest, I don't know the difference between one conference and another.  I mean is this AACR the Masters of Cancer research meetings? Should one conference be given more credibility than another? There's more and more infomation becoming available and increasingly difficult to determine what is the best information. Given you have 1700+ pages of info to decipher, I'm guessing this was a biggie, and one of the premiere conferences on topic. In your opinion, wihich annual meetings/conferences do you consider the most enlightening?

    AACR

    Hi Alice,

    I am chagrined that you would ask my opinion - because I am such a newcomer to this entire field.  Believe it or not everything I "know" about RCC, nutrition, diet, cancer (and normal) cell metabolism, etc. I have only learned since I was declared "stage IV" this past July. My formal education is not in any medical field - my degree is in Electrical Engineering. Although I did once take a course in Organic Chemistry.

    Regardless, I have always depended on educating myself.  In my approach I try not to take anything for granted or to let the opinions of others sway me away from potential controversy.  That, for example, is why I have disregarded "experts" who have told me not to waste my time investigating whether or not dietary changes could be of any help in fighting cancer.

    In the same spirit I decided to attend the AACR Annual Meeting because I wanted to go right to the top and hear the latest research from the experts themselves.  The downside to this is that I have still have so much more to learn, decipher, and digest. I definitely do not recommend this kind of approach for most other folks.  It is kind of like those immersive techniques for learning a new foreign language by refraining from speaking in one's native tongue.  At first this is totally disorienting and very difficult.  But slowly things do begin to make some sense.

    This is a long roundabout way of admiting that I have not been to any other conferences (as yet) and so I can't answer your question as to which is the best or which I recommend. However, I have seen some excellent online reviews of several Kidney Cancer Symposiums - and I would definitely plan to put those on any calendar.

    I actually did not realize that the AACR Annual Meeting featured full length and ongoing Patient Advocacy sessions (which were not quite as technical as they were geared to layman).  To be honest, I knew very little (prior to this show) of what I was getting into.  Once I was there I was immediately swept up in the enormity of it all.  But there was some fun stuff too. The Opening Ceremony and Award Presentations featured the "AACR Distinguished Public Service Award" being bestowed on Katie Couric.  Her (at times) quite humorous acceptance speech was followed by several interesting lectures such as those by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee (author of "Emporer of Maladies") and Dr. Suzanne Topalian - whose presentation on Immunology merited some press coverage reported elsewhere on this site.  The entire conference was suspended for a few hours on Tuesday so that the entire audience could attend the "Rally for Medical Research" protest (featuring participation by over 200 other organizations). This event was designed to send a powerful message to Congress to stop reducing the funding of the NIH.  It was hosted by Cokie Roberts of NPR fame.  Most absurdly, I ended up being interviewed on a local TV station covering the event.

    Such are the weird perks of having renal cancer.  :)

  • alice124
    alice124 Member Posts: 896 Member

    AACR

    Hi Alice,

    I am chagrined that you would ask my opinion - because I am such a newcomer to this entire field.  Believe it or not everything I "know" about RCC, nutrition, diet, cancer (and normal) cell metabolism, etc. I have only learned since I was declared "stage IV" this past July. My formal education is not in any medical field - my degree is in Electrical Engineering. Although I did once take a course in Organic Chemistry.

    Regardless, I have always depended on educating myself.  In my approach I try not to take anything for granted or to let the opinions of others sway me away from potential controversy.  That, for example, is why I have disregarded "experts" who have told me not to waste my time investigating whether or not dietary changes could be of any help in fighting cancer.

    In the same spirit I decided to attend the AACR Annual Meeting because I wanted to go right to the top and hear the latest research from the experts themselves.  The downside to this is that I have still have so much more to learn, decipher, and digest. I definitely do not recommend this kind of approach for most other folks.  It is kind of like those immersive techniques for learning a new foreign language by refraining from speaking in one's native tongue.  At first this is totally disorienting and very difficult.  But slowly things do begin to make some sense.

    This is a long roundabout way of admiting that I have not been to any other conferences (as yet) and so I can't answer your question as to which is the best or which I recommend. However, I have seen some excellent online reviews of several Kidney Cancer Symposiums - and I would definitely plan to put those on any calendar.

    I actually did not realize that the AACR Annual Meeting featured full length and ongoing Patient Advocacy sessions (which were not quite as technical as they were geared to layman).  To be honest, I knew very little (prior to this show) of what I was getting into.  Once I was there I was immediately swept up in the enormity of it all.  But there was some fun stuff too. The Opening Ceremony and Award Presentations featured the "AACR Distinguished Public Service Award" being bestowed on Katie Couric.  Her (at times) quite humorous acceptance speech was followed by several interesting lectures such as those by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee (author of "Emporer of Maladies") and Dr. Suzanne Topalian - whose presentation on Immunology merited some press coverage reported elsewhere on this site.  The entire conference was suspended for a few hours on Tuesday so that the entire audience could attend the "Rally for Medical Research" protest (featuring participation by over 200 other organizations). This event was designed to send a powerful message to Congress to stop reducing the funding of the NIH.  It was hosted by Cokie Roberts of NPR fame.  Most absurdly, I ended up being interviewed on a local TV station covering the event.

    Such are the weird perks of having renal cancer.  :)

    While your forte may be in

    While your forte may be in the dietary aspects of fighting RCC, you're quickly becoming one of our house experts Neil. And we'll take all the expertise we can get. We appreciate all that you share.

     

    (BTW, is there a link to your interview still out there? Would love to see it.)

  • NanoSecond
    NanoSecond Member Posts: 653
    alice124 said:

    While your forte may be in

    While your forte may be in the dietary aspects of fighting RCC, you're quickly becoming one of our house experts Neil. And we'll take all the expertise we can get. We appreciate all that you share.

     

    (BTW, is there a link to your interview still out there? Would love to see it.)

    My 15 seconds of fame...

    ...Seem to be lost in cyberspace.  I never got to see it - but at least my wife and daughter did.

    I have been unable to find that interview posted anywhere.  It was done by Ch. 4 - WRC-TV - the local NBC affiliate in Washington, DC.

    There is full YouTube coverage of the actual rally though.  Just google "Rally for Medical Research".  It was a very impressive turnout.

  • vtvickil
    vtvickil Member Posts: 18

    Extraneous factors

    Thanks Fox.  Do give this some thought if you have a chance.  Going to the AACR conference was literally mind-numbing.  It is going to take me months to decipher what I have seen and learned.  For example, the "book" of Proceedings listing all the papers being presented was 1523 pages long in extremely teeny-tiny typeset.  But that's not all.  At the start of the show I was then handed a "Proceedings Supplement: Late-Breaking Abstracts" that was another 159 pages long.  Just to go through and collate all the papers that might touch on topics directly related to RCC (or of personal interest) will take me daze, er, days.

    However, there were some extremely tantalyzing papers (that, incidentally, were all heavily attended) regarding such topics as:

    - Cancer and Metabolism: Metabolic considerations and Novel Cancer Therapies; Whole Body Metabolism; Metabolism and Signaling; etc. - All of these and related topics were my personal area of interest and that interest is apparently shared by countless other researchers.  That really surprised me.

    - Immunology

    - TME - Tumor Micro-Environment (i.e. the support given to tumors and mets by the surrounding "normal" tissues

    - Drug resistance and how to extend effectiveness.

    - "Liquid Biopsies" (deciphering what the tumor or mets are doing by analyzing Circulating Tumor Cells or tumor DNA (not in any cells) in the blood.

    - Tumor and/or metastases evolution; latent metastases; dormant tumor cells, etc.

    - Future Anti-Cancer Targets

     

    Regardless, if one were to attempt to take an overall view of where current research is going it consistently pointed to thinking outside of the genome, beyond the nucleus, beyond the cytoplasm, outside of the abnormal cells and into the surrounding environment and then on to the entire system.  That is why it would be invaluable to figure out what "external" factors might be contributing to one person's success (yours) on a given therapy while it may fail for someone else.

     

    Late to the Party but totally in AWE

    of Neil and BDS and so many of you posting for all that you share on the various sites.  Science is not my strength so it is hard for me to slog through the detail and decide what I need to know and what is better left to the experts.  I am tremendously grateful for those of you that can decipher it all and explain it so the rest of us can understand as well.  Rick (an engineer) is usually quite good at it, but like me, has had his head down for a few months just trying to survive and recover.  Feels like we've been in a fog since mid-December.  This thread is a nice way to catch up on what's new and what to be on the watch for.  Thanks for putting it all in one place!

  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798
    angec said:

    This is excellent information

    This is excellent information BDS! You certainly are using your situation to the fullest by keeping on top of treatments helping all of us!  I too wish the Nivo.... would be approved much sooner. I also thought i heard it was used for gyno cancers as well.  I think finally they are onto something by working with the immune system.  Thanks for the new info... keeping on going!  

    Another line in Anti-Angiogenic Virotherapy

    Abstract


    Purpose: VB-111 is an anti-angiogenic agent consisting of a non-replicating adenovirus vector (Ad-5) with a modified murine pre-proendothelin promoter leading to apoptosis of tumor vasculature by expressing a fas-chimera transgene in angiogenic endothelial cells. In a phase I dose-escalation study pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and efficacy of a single dose of VB-111 in patients with advanced solid tumors was evaluated.


    Experimental design: VB-111 was administered as a single intravenous infusion at escalating doses from 1x1010 (cohort 1) to 1x1013 (cohort 7) viral particles (VPs) in successive cohorts. Assessments included pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, tumor response and overall survival.


    Results: Thirty three patients were enrolled. VB-111 was safe and well tolerated; selflimited fever and chills were seen at doses above 3x1011 VPs. Transgene expression was not detected in blood, but was detected in an aspirate from a subcutaneous metastasis after treatment. One patient with papillary thyroid carcinoma had partial response.


    Conclusions: VB-111 was safe and well tolerated in patients with advanced metastatic cancer at a single administration of up to 1x1013 VPs. Evidence of transgene expression in tumor tissue and tumor response was observed. 

  • BDS
    BDS Member Posts: 172
    Cool Stuff

    Scientists Develop Functioning Artificial Animal Kidney

    In other news: Punching microscopic holes in tumors could be effective cancer treatment.

     By Erinn Connor, Everyday Health Staff Writer



    Scientists have successfully grown an animal kidney in a lab and seen it work on a living animal, providing hope for the thousands of people in need of a kidney transplant.


    Researchers at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital created a replacement kidney that, when transplanted into a rat, immediately started creating urine just like a normal kidney. Though the artificial kidney could not live up to the full function of a natural kidney, experts say it’s a promising move towards replacement kidneys.

    “These results are really quite impressive,” said Dr. Mala Sachdeva, a kidney specialist who was not involved in the research. “The transplanted tissue was actually functional.” Though she cautioned “it’s very early to get our hopes up too high. A lot more work needs to be done.”

    The bioengineered kidneys were created by stripping rat kidneys of their “living cells” and then repopulated what was left behind with kidney cells from newborn rats, along with human cells used to replace the lining of kidney blood vessels.

    In the U.S. nearly 1 million people have end-stage kidney disease, and there are currently more than 95,000 people on the organ donor waiting list, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.

    Poking Holes in Tumors is New "Least-Invasive" Treatment

    Researchers presented a new way to destroy cancerous tumors without damaging healthy tissue — using “minimally invasive” needles placed on the tumors.

    Findings presented at the Society of Interventional Radiology’s Annual Scientific Meeting showed that irreversible electroportation, or IRE, lets doctors destroy tumors with the electrical pulses delivered by the needles using the “least-invasive treatments available,” said lead author Constantinos Sofocleous, an interventional radiologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, in a statement.

    IRE drills microscopic holes in tumors that cause them to die when placed exactly, but also limit damage to surrounding blood vessels and nerves. Though further research is needed, scientists believe patients with liver, lung and pancreatic cancer will benefit the most from this procedure.

  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge Member Posts: 2,798
    BDS said:

    Cool Stuff

    Scientists Develop Functioning Artificial Animal Kidney

    In other news: Punching microscopic holes in tumors could be effective cancer treatment.

     By Erinn Connor, Everyday Health Staff Writer



    Scientists have successfully grown an animal kidney in a lab and seen it work on a living animal, providing hope for the thousands of people in need of a kidney transplant.


    Researchers at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital created a replacement kidney that, when transplanted into a rat, immediately started creating urine just like a normal kidney. Though the artificial kidney could not live up to the full function of a natural kidney, experts say it’s a promising move towards replacement kidneys.

    “These results are really quite impressive,” said Dr. Mala Sachdeva, a kidney specialist who was not involved in the research. “The transplanted tissue was actually functional.” Though she cautioned “it’s very early to get our hopes up too high. A lot more work needs to be done.”

    The bioengineered kidneys were created by stripping rat kidneys of their “living cells” and then repopulated what was left behind with kidney cells from newborn rats, along with human cells used to replace the lining of kidney blood vessels.

    In the U.S. nearly 1 million people have end-stage kidney disease, and there are currently more than 95,000 people on the organ donor waiting list, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.

    Poking Holes in Tumors is New "Least-Invasive" Treatment

    Researchers presented a new way to destroy cancerous tumors without damaging healthy tissue — using “minimally invasive” needles placed on the tumors.

    Findings presented at the Society of Interventional Radiology’s Annual Scientific Meeting showed that irreversible electroportation, or IRE, lets doctors destroy tumors with the electrical pulses delivered by the needles using the “least-invasive treatments available,” said lead author Constantinos Sofocleous, an interventional radiologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, in a statement.

    IRE drills microscopic holes in tumors that cause them to die when placed exactly, but also limit damage to surrounding blood vessels and nerves. Though further research is needed, scientists believe patients with liver, lung and pancreatic cancer will benefit the most from this procedure.

    Tivozanib

    Tivozanib has just been turned down by the FDA on the basis of the inadequacy of the trial comparing it with sorafenib.

    This looked to me like a racing certainty on the data.  A pity that Aveo made such a pathetic attempt.  It will inevitably be quite a while before there's any chance of this drug coming to market and it may well be overtaken by history as better options like nivolumab, cabozantinib and others in the pipeline get there first.

  • GSRon
    GSRon Member Posts: 1,303 Member

    Tivozanib

    Tivozanib has just been turned down by the FDA on the basis of the inadequacy of the trial comparing it with sorafenib.

    This looked to me like a racing certainty on the data.  A pity that Aveo made such a pathetic attempt.  It will inevitably be quite a while before there's any chance of this drug coming to market and it may well be overtaken by history as better options like nivolumab, cabozantinib and others in the pipeline get there first.

    More..

    Hi All... Well a pal of mine has ACC  (Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma).  And I was trying to help him, as he was told surgery was the only hope.. WRONG..!  There are a bunch of Chemo drugs that possibly can give him more time before surgery, etc..   So, when looking some of them up, I see some familiar drugs and some new Clinical Trials for drugs I do not know of....  And when I read the info... some of them also mention Kidney Cancer... so below is the link...  I have not singled out the Kidney related ones... but it can make for interesting reading... as some of the issues mentioned may be similar or appropriate for some of us..  As always.. I am no doctor...

    http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Adenoid+Cystic+Carcinoma&Search=Search

    And this link... go to page 6, and you will see both new and familiar drugs, and their performance for ACC... again different than RCC but I think it is good reading.. Note the Sutent has an awesome Stabil Disease of 92%... however there is a caveat on this one.. but still interesting.   Also of note is that there are some combination drugs that have better results...  I see that for RCC we may see a similar trend, combine two or more drugs and get a better result..

    I hope this gives some insite and hope...

    Ron

  • BDS
    BDS Member Posts: 172
    Interesting videos

     

    UCLA's Dr. Antoni Ribas discusses PD1 and PD-L1 targeted cancer drugs

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3md01ReYVA

    Dr Motzer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center discusses Tivozanib. Too bad the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted its disapproval. This I believe is truly a mistake. - BDS

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPqcCPlMwWA&feature=player_embedded

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbbonUOcx8&feature=player_embedded  

     

  • GSRon
    GSRon Member Posts: 1,303 Member
    BDS said:

    Interesting videos

     

    UCLA's Dr. Antoni Ribas discusses PD1 and PD-L1 targeted cancer drugs

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3md01ReYVA

    Dr Motzer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center discusses Tivozanib. Too bad the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted its disapproval. This I believe is truly a mistake. - BDS

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPqcCPlMwWA&feature=player_embedded

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbbonUOcx8&feature=player_embedded  

     

    CD 47

    Hi All..!!

    Today I was at Stanford for a follow up.. and I remembered to ask about CD47.  (Note that I did not see my Oncologist, I saw another one today... it was a busy day there.).  So when I asked about CD 47, her eyes lit up..!!  She went on how everyone is excited about it.. and she confirmed what the general news stories are saying..  However the people testing is still in the waiting stage from the FDA...  not sure when the first human trials will be... But I did say that I was interested..  I will not get back to Stanford for about 7 weeks.. but will try to remember to ask for an update..

    Ron

  • i_love_my_dad
    i_love_my_dad Member Posts: 20

    Here is some information I find about BNC105. Sorry if this is redundant information. 

    It mentioned that in a phase 2 study that 8 our of 12 patients achieved stable desease, (7 received treatment for more than 11.25 months and 1 has been on the drug for 17.25months.) Although I do not know whether the patients were pretreated or not.  

     

    http://www.biospectrumasia.com/biospectrum/news/155399/bionomics-update-bnc105-trials#.UZ3H7JPIFAU

  • foxhd
    foxhd Member Posts: 3,181 Member
    BDS said:

    Interesting videos

     

    UCLA's Dr. Antoni Ribas discusses PD1 and PD-L1 targeted cancer drugs

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3md01ReYVA

    Dr Motzer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center discusses Tivozanib. Too bad the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted its disapproval. This I believe is truly a mistake. - BDS

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPqcCPlMwWA&feature=player_embedded

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndbbonUOcx8&feature=player_embedded  

     

    Thanx

    I just watched those videos and a few more related to it. Good stuff. I'm lucky to be a part of it.