Barb73
-
Posts
1,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Downloads
Store
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Barb73
-
-
Patti,
Thank you for the good wishes. They are being felt, and definitely appreciated.
Yes, the waiting seems to never become a casual event. It is always pretty much the same, except now I have more tools to work with than many months ago.
Getting those results in my hands also helps me to read to be able to question, and they are there for our records (as you have said).
I will let you know after we see the oncologist on Monday.
All good wishes and thoughts,
Barbara
-
Thank you so much Jamie,
When we arrived there this morning, we realized that we had forgotten the Script for the MRI.
Normally, I would get butterflies at the prospect of having to tell them that. Somehow, it didn't matter.
They accepted that we simply forgot it, and just verified the insurance cards.
I am so glad it's over. Now, a bit more waiting...
Love and good thoughts,
Barbara
-
Yes, Dannnie, I agree with you that someday, surely, through sites such as this one, there will be an "awakening."
Lung cancer research and funding is deserving of our attention and concern - rather than treated as a stigma by so many of the public.
It does seem to be moving in that direction, especially when the majority of those diagnosed today are a combination of former or never smokers.
Barbara
-
This MRI is to assess the situation with the original small tumor in mid brain for which WBR was completed last June, and to look for anything new.
Yes, we have a little bit of stress. I guess that part never changes. We are going over there with hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Won't know results until next week. The doctors (oncologist and radiologist) and we will be getting a copy.
We always ask for one so that we can compare notes - VERY important to ask for a copy of the report.
Barbara
-
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103355.php
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy did not have better survival rates than those treated with standard doses, according to a randomized controlled trial published online April 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
SCLC accounts for nearly 13 percent of lung cancer cases in the United States. Although many patients with SCLC initially respond to chemotherapy, most suffer disease recurrence relatively quickly. Laboratory data suggest that increasing the dose of chemotherapy agents kills SCLC cells that were resistant to standard doses, and thus might improve patient survival.
To test this possibility, Serge Leyvraz, M.D., of the University Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland, and colleagues enrolled 140 patients with SCLC in a randomized trial that compared high-dose and standard-dose chemotherapy. Both groups were treated with the same chemotherapy agents, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE).
The 3-year survival rates in the two arms were similar, with 18 percent of patients in the high-dose arm and 19 percent of patients in the standard-dose arm still alive. Additionally, a similar fraction of patients in both arms showed tumor shrinkage in response to therapy - 78 percent in the high-dose arm and 68 percent in the standard-dose arm, which was not a statistically significant difference.
"The approach explored in the present trial succeeded in raising the peak dose, total dose, and dose intensity of ICE by threefold but has clearly been ineffective and highly toxic," the authors write. "As a result, this strategy should be abandoned."
In an accompanying editorial, Paul A. Bunn Jr., M.D., agrees with that assessment and emphasizes that other avenues of therapy should now be explored. "The declining incidence of SCLC and the lack of progress seem to have dampened the enthusiasm of funding agencies and industry for exploring novel therapies. This is indeed unfortunate because SCLC remains a common cancer in both the developed and developing world," Bunn writes.
. . . . . . . . .
(Medical News Today, Lung Cancer, [adapted from original press release], Journal of the National Cancer Institute, April 9, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
Comment: There was also a warning issued by the FDA on this subject in my morning email.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw- ... 7981.story
Article:
. . . . . . . . .
Pfizer Inc. reported an increase of lung cancer among patients who used its discontinued inhaled insulin Exubera, another setback for developers of needle-free diabetes treatments.
Shares of MannKind Corp., maker of a similar product that hasn't reached the market, fell 60% after Pfizer's disclosure. Nektar Therapeutics Inc., which developed Exubera with Pfizer, fell 25% after the cancer findings led it to cancel its search for a new partner.
Exubera was the first inhaled insulin, approved in January 2006, and Pfizer gave up selling the product in October because its cost and unwieldy design made it unpopular with patients. Eli Lilly & Co., Novo Nordisk and Alkermes Inc. also abandoned experimental inhaled insulin this year, all but ending the industry's investment of more than $4 billion and a dozen years.
"Concern over cancer will not be limited to Exubera solely," William Tanner, an analyst with Leerink Swann & Co. in New York, wrote in a research report today. "We no longer think there will be a major market for inhaled insulin" because of the cancer risk and because other forms of insulin have become more convenient, he said.
Pfizer said today it updated Exubera's prescribing information to include a cancer warning after a review of clinical trial data found there were six cases of lung cancer among 4,740 patients using the drug, compared with one of 4,292 who did not take the drug. All cases were in former cigarette smokers. The lung cancer cases were twice the number as when Pfizer won regulatory approval for Exubera in January 2006, though too few cases to prove a link, Pfizer said.
Pfizer said it will make the device available for an unspecified period while patients switch to other forms of insulin. There were 2,438 prescriptions written for Exubera in February, according to data research firm Wolters Kluwers.
When Pfizer scrapped Exubera last year, it returned the rights to the drug's developer, Nektar Therapeutics. In a separate statement today, Nektar, of San Carlos, Calif., said it ended negotiations with potential partners for the product.
Nektar fell $1.80, or 25%, to $5.39. MannKind, of Valencia, Calif., fell $2.35, or 60%, to $2.35.
MannKind has lost 84% of its value in the past 12 months as bigger drugmakers quit inhaled insulin. The company said last month it plans to file an application late this year for U.S. clearance of its Technosphere insulin inhaler. The product is in the third and final round of human tests needed to support marketing approval. Three analysts, including Tanner, downgraded MannKind today.
Nektar will now focus on other products, including treatments for colorectal cancer, cystic fibrosis and hospital acquired pneumonia, Chief Executive Howard Robin saidt.
Exubera labeling already warned of a possible risk to the lungs from studies that showed it decreased lung function. Pfizer expected $1 billion in annual sales when the product went on sale in January 2006. The company wrote off $2.8 billion last year to abandon the drug.
. . . . . . . . .
(Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg News, April 9, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132118.htm
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
Double Binding Sites On Tumor Target May Provide Future Combination Therapy
ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) — Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and colleagues at Merck Serono Research in Germany have found that two drugs bind to receptor sites on some tumors in different places at the same time, suggesting the possibility of a new combination therapy for certain types of cancer.
An increasing number of therapies targeting tumors that have proteins called epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR) sitting on their surface are already being used in the clinic or are in late stages of development. For example, Herceptin is an established treatment for certain types of breast cancer and Erbitux and Vectibix are in use for other types of cancer. An additional drug called matuzumab is in phase II clinical trials.
Three years ago, Kate Ferguson, PhD, Assistant Professor of Physiology, and colleagues determined the precise molecular details of how Erbitux, a colorectal and head and neck cancer drug, binds to its target on cancer cells. EGFR drugs halt cell proliferation by blocking EGFR's molecular doorway, keeping hormones from binding and signaling tumor growth. X-ray crystallography provided a snapshot of the interaction between Erbitux and the extracellular component of the cancer cell's receptors.
As is characteristic of many epithelial cancers - such as cancers of the colon, head and neck, breast, ovary, lung, and pancreas - the surface of cancer cells possess abnormally high levels of EGFR. In a cancer cell, an extracellular hormone binds to the outer piece of EGFR, and causes the inside part to kick off a series of reactions that signal the cancerous cell to replicate and divide.
In the present study, published in Cancer Cell, Ferguson and Merck colleagues found -- again using X-ray crystallography -- that matuzumab binds in a different place from Erbitux. Their binding does not overlap, and they can bind to EGFR at the same time.
"These findings imply that a combination therapy using both types of EGFR drugs could be developed and tested," says Ferguson. "This has important implications for the clinical use of matuzumab and for developing new therapies that target EGFR."
The research was governed by a Supported Research Agreement between Merck KGaA and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and is financially supported in part by Merck KGaA, and the National Cancer Institute. Kate Ferguson is the Dennis and Marsha Dammerman Scholar of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.
. . . . . . . . .
(Science Daily, Eureka Alert, Source: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, April 8, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 06319.html
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Exaggerated claims are being made for new cancer treatments that are not justified by the evidence, scientists warned yesterday.
Drugs hailed as breakthrough treatments for cancer, Britain's biggest cause of death, may be less effective and cause more harm than suspected, they said.
A sharp increase in the number of trials being halted prematurely to deliver rapid results is undermining confidence in the drugs.
Public demand for access to new treatments, allied to the pharmaceutical companies' eagerness to bank profits, creates pressure on researchers to terminate trials as soon as a drug reveals a benefit. But that can be before the full results are in.
A review of 25 trials of cancer drugs that had been stopped early during the past decade because they had started to show a benefit to patients, found more than half (14) had been halted in the past three years. Of those, 11 were used to support an application for a drug licence in Europe or in the US, researchers discovered.
One of the research team, Giovanni Apolone, from the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research in Milan, said: "This suggests a commercial component in stopping trials prematurely. We are aware that trials stopped early because they are showing benefit may result in the identification of promising new treatments for patients.
"However, findings obtained in this way require subsequent confirmation. Without such evidence, unsafe and ineffective drugs could be marketed and patients' health could well be jeopardised."
The drugs tested in the trials that were stopped early include some of the biggest new discoveries in cancer therapy, touted as heralding a new golden age in treatment. They include Herceptin (trastuzumab) for breast cancer, Avastin (bevacizumab) for bowel and kidney cancer, Campto (irinotecan) for lung and bowel cancer, Sutent (sunitinib) for kidney and gastrointestinal cancer, Nexavar (sorafenib) for kidney cancer, and TaxolCarbo (carboplatin) for ovarian and lung cancer.
Dr Apolone said it could take years for the long-term benefits or dangerous side-effects of a drug to become evident, but the average duration of the 25 trials stopped early was just 30 months. Five had enrolled less than 40 per cent of the planned number of patients.
Only 4 per cent of the trials were halted because of serious adverse effects but Dr Apolone said the main worry was that early stopping exaggerated the beneficial effects.
Writing in the online edition of Annals of Oncology, the researchers say: "If a trial is evaluating long-term efficacy of a treatment of conditions such as cancer, short-term benefits – no matter how significant statistically – may not justify early stopping. Data on disease recurrence and progression, drug resistance, metastasis, or adverse events, all factors that weigh heavily in the benefit/risk balance, could easily be missed."
Stuart Pocock, professor of medical statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who had no involvement in the study, said all trials should have independent monitoring committees of experts to advise on when they should be stopped early.
Statistically, stopping trials that showed early evidence of benefit while allowing the rest to run their full course would skew the overall results and exaggerate the benefits, he said.
"Overall, there is an underlying bias towards exaggeration [of the results]. We can pretty reliably claim there is exaggeration going on. This is not as sober an environment as it should be. It has an aura of hot-headedness about it."
Professor David Kerr, editor of Annals of Oncology, said researchers faced a dilemma. "If we see an effective cancer drug, it is our duty to get it into the clinic as quickly as possible. But we must not run down the quality of the evidence to support that drug."
Cancer drug trials stopped early
Herceptin
Breast cancer – two trials started 2001 and 2003
Avastin
Bowel cancer – trial started 2005
Campto
Lung cancer – trial started 1995
Sutent
Gastrointestinal cancer – trial started 2003
Nexavar
Kidney cancer – trial started 2003
TaxolCarbo
Ovarian cancer – trial started 1994
. . . . . . . . .
(Independent.co.UK, By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor, April 9, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
Comment: Carole sent this interesting article to me this morning. Thank you, Carole.
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... /804090458
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
VU research could produce blood test to detect top killer
By CLAUDIA PINTO
Staff Writer
In 1971, lung cancer was the leading cancer killer, with about only about 15 percent of its victims alive after five years. In 2008, that's still true.
Lung cancer kills more people than breast cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer and skin cancer combined. A lack of funding over the years has hampered research, advocates say.
One reason is that lung cancer is often associated with smoking, and victims are blamed for their disease, but ex-smokers and nonsmokers now make up more than half of all new lung cancer cases.
"The idea that lung cancer patients don't deserve support is incredibly unfair since cigarettes are not only legal but highly addictive, and it's especially unfair to the nearly 20,000 people per year who take care of themselves, never smoke and get lung cancer anyway," said Dr. David Carbone, professor of medicine and cancer biology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center.
Finding a way to detect lung cancer early is critical to improving survival rates. Researchers at Vanderbilt are working on developing a blood test that would find the cancer before symptoms appear.
When cancer cells develop in the body, they sometimes shed proteins that show up in the blood, urine or tissue. Vanderbilt researchers are working to identify proteins that are unique to lung cancer.
Carbone said there is currently no good way of detecting lung cancer early. X-rays are ineffective and CT scans detect nodules in 70 percent of people.
Without removing part of the lung there's no way to know whether those nodules are cancerous.
If lung cancer is detected early, patients have a 70 percent survival rate at five years. So, though a blood test to identify lung cancer early is years away, its impact would be enormous.
"There are tens of millions of ex-smokers for which there is no early detection," Carbone said.
Misperceptions common
Kristen White thought lung cancer was a disease for old chain smokers.
White, 47, of Russellville, Ky., had been biking 10 miles several times a week when she was diagnosed with the disease. She said she smoked socially a few times a year.
"I was thinking, why me? I didn't do that. Look at all these people who smoke like chimneys. They're healthy," she said.
White learned that her perception is a common one. One of the first questions she's asked after she tells people she has lung cancer is, "How much did you smoke?"
Carbone's patients have told him similar stories.
"Nobody asks heart attack patients how much ice cream they ate," he said. "They don't tell colon cancer patients that they should have eaten more fiber."
Kay Cofrancesco of the Lung Cancer Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based support and advocacy group, said the stigma surrounding lung cancer ultimately hampers research funding.
"The mentality is: 'You smoked. You deserve lung cancer,' " Cofrancesco said. "The stigma prevents people from speaking out, so you don't have the awareness piece."
Carbone said about 40 percent of new lung cancer cases occur among people who quit smoking three or more years ago. And almost 15 percent of new cases are people who never smoked.
"More people die of lung cancer who have never touched a cigarette in their life than die of ovarian cancer," he said.
Cofrancesco said another common misconception is that the lungs will repair the damage done by smoking within 10 years.
That's not true, according to Dr. Pierre Massion, an associate professor of medicine and cancer biology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center.
"The risk of cancer never decreases for a smoker to the point of someone who never smoked," Massion said.
Still, Massion said there is tremendous benefit to quitting. Just how much quitting lessens the chance of developing lung cancer depends on factors such as how long and how much a person smoked, he said.
Protein study 'promising'
Because there is no good way to detect the disease early on, lung cancer patients usually aren't diagnosed until the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. Only 25 percent of patients are candidates for surgery.
But studies at Vanderbilt could one day change those statistics.
In their effort to create a blood test, researchers at Vanderbilt and the University of Pittsburgh compared the blood of about 300 people. About half had lung cancer and the other half were considered to be at high risk for lung cancer.
Massion said the research has identified seven proteins that may be unique among patients with lung cancer.
"It's very promising," Massion said. "We'll need to conduct further studies to verify whether the protein profile is helpful in the diagnosis of lung cancer."
But doing lung cancer research has gotten tougher, Carbone said. Grant money from the National Cancer Institute will be slashed by $400,000 a year for the next five years. Vanderbilt's $2.7 million annual grant was trimmed to $2.5 million two years ago and $2.3 million last year.
"It caused us to eliminate an entire research project," Carbone said.
Doctor, patient are hopeful
Lung cancer researchers across the country face similar struggles. For every lung cancer death, $1,829 is spent on research by the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That compares with $5,216 per death for colon cancer, $14,369 for prostate cancer and $23,474 for breast cancer, according to the Lung Cancer Alliance.
Lung cancer has fewer survivors raising awareness, fewer nonprofit organizations raising money and few treatment breakthroughs that would buoy research funding, Carbone said.
The downturn in the economy is making it even tougher, he added.
Yet despite the difficulties, Carbone is hopeful about progress that researchers are making.
"I suspect in the next five or 10 years we'll have a blood test" for early detection, he said.
Despite the odds, Kristen White is also hopeful. Medicine is keeping her cancer from growing. She wants to survive to see her daughter, a high school senior, graduate from college.
"I hope in years to come, lung cancer will get the recognition of other cancers, and a cure will be found."
. . . . . . . . .
(Tennessean.com, Source: Vanderbuilt University Research, By Claudia Pinto, Staff Writer, April 9, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
Carole,
You are great.
I read your postings to Bill. They are uplifting and make so much sense.
We have found that being proactive is important.
Unfortunately, not every Cancer Center is offering palliative in that sense. Thankfully, from the very start, Bill's oncologist was in that thought mode.
A team effort needs to be in place.
Thank you so much,
Barbara
-
http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news/press ... omics.html
Excerpt from press release:
. . . . . . . . .
Columbia University Medical Center and Rosetta Genomics Announce Columbia University’s Submission of the First Cancer Diagnostic Test Based on Rosetta Genomics Proprietary MicroRNA Technology for Approval to the New York State Department of Health Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program
The laboratory-developed test is designed to differentiate squamous from non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), classifying squamous cell carcinoma of the lung with sensitivity of 96 percent and specificity of 90 percent Accurate diagnosis is important for guiding treatment.
Bevacizumab(1) therapy for non-squamous NSCLC, includes a warning about potential higher rates of severe or fatal hemorrhage in patients with squamous NSCLC histology.
Once approved by the New York State Department of Health, the test will be available nationwide through Columbia University Medical Center’s Molecular Pathology Laboratory, which developed and validated the test.
Rehovot, Israel; Jersey City, New Jersey, New York (April 3, 2008) – Rosetta Genomics, Ltd. (NASDQ: ROSG) and Columbia
University Medical Center (CUMC) announced today that the first molecular test based on Rosetta Genomics’ proprietary microRNA technology, developed by CUMC, has been submitted for approval by the New York State Department of Health.
The test is designed to differentiate squamous from non-squamous NSCLC and is the first to use this technology to successfully classify two distinct types of the most common form of lung cancer.
Once approved by New York State Department of Health, the test will be made available nationwide through Columbia University Medical Center’s High Complexity Molecular Pathology Laboratory, a laboratory licensed to use nucleic acids for better diagnosis of various cancers, which is part of the Department of Pathology and Cell Biology at CUMC.
“With advancements toward more targeted therapies for cancer, there is a growing need for better diagnostics,” said Amir
Avniel, President and CEO of Rosetta Genomics.
The test, performed on a sample of the patient’s tumor and validated by Columbia University Medical Center, classifies squamous cell carcinoma of the lung with specificity of 90 percent and sensitivity of 96 percent. This is the first test utilizing
microRNAs’ unique sensitivity and specificity as biomarkers that may offer a standardized and objective method for cancer classification.
The genetic classification can be especially important for selecting proper treatment as therapies have been shown to act differently depending on cancer type, such as the case between squamous (scalelike) and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 185,000 people are diagnosed with either squamous or non-squamous NSCLC each year in the United States.
“The importance of accurately differentiating squamous cell from non-squamous NSCLC has recently been an issue of great interest and is gaining importance as new targeted therapies for NSCLC enter the market or proceed to late stages of development,” said Dr. Dalia Cohen, chief scientific officer of Rosetta Genomics. “This is a great advancement in terms of physicians’ ability to better treat patients with targeted therapies, which are currently highly effective in some patients while being less effective and sometimes harmful for others.”
“We are excited to have performed the validation of the first diagnostic test based on microRNAs, and believe this endeavor
is an important next step in bringing better diagnostics to patients and physicians,” noted Dr. Mahesh Mansukhani, director
of the Molecular Pathology Laboratory at Columbia University Medical Center, who has led the validation process and
submission of the test to the New York State Department of Health for approval. “Using a single microRNA biomarker, the test demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity, for squamous differentiation. Once approved, we will be pleased to offer this test through our pathology laboratory nationwide to doctors and patients as an objective aid in the classification of NSCLC. “
Data presented in peer reviewed publications has shown that two blinded expert observers, when asked to give an independent histological classification of NSCLC agreed only 74.7 percent of the time. Furthermore, sensitivity for squamous cell carcinoma was only 70.9 percent (2). A second study (3) looking at classification of squamous cell carcinoma showed that 40 percent of samples diagnosed as squamous cell lung cancer at regional labs were later reclassified as other lung cancers at central labs.
The ability of physicians to accurately differentiate squamous (scalelike) from non-squamous NSCLC is an important treatment guide. Bevacizumab (1), an angiogenesis inhibitor and an important new modality of therapy for non-squamous NSCLC, includes a black-box warning about substantially higher rates of severe or fatal hemorrhage among patients with
squamous NSCLC histology compared with non-squamous NSCLC.
Currently, an estimated 60,000 patients per year are potential candidates for targeted therapy with Avastin™, a market available angiogenesis inhibitor, in the United States.
Rosetta Genomics expects two additional tests based on its microRNA technology to be validated and submitted for regulatory approval during the second half of 2008 by laboratories in the United States. One test is designed to differentiate mesothelioma, an asbestos-associated cancer that develops in the pleura, from adenocarcinomas that either arise in the lung or spread to the lung and pleura from other sites. Another test is designed to identify the origin of a metastasis in patients presenting with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) origin.
About microRNAs
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are recently discovered, naturally occurring, small RNAs that act as master regulators and have the potential to form the basis for a new class of diagnostics and therapeutics. Since many diseases are caused by the abnormal activity of proteins, the ability to selectively regulate protein activity through microRNAs could provide the means to treat a wide range of human diseases. In addition, microRNAs have been shown to have different expression in various pathological conditions. As a result, these differences may provide for a novel diagnostic strategy for many diseases.
. . . . . . . . .
(CUMC, Columbia University Medical Center, Press Release, April 8, 2008 [Contians Forward-looking Statements])
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_8846783
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
Cancer gene therapy seminar set
Staff Reports
Stamford Advocate
Article Launched:04/08/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT
sharedstory
The Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy will host "The Promise of Cancer Gene Therapy for the Treatment of Lung Cancer," an April 16 seminar to explore advancements in treating lung cancer using gene therapy.
Jack Roth, a member of the ACGT scientific advisory council, professor of molecular and cellular oncology and director of the W.M. Keck Cancer Center for Innovative Cancer Therapies at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, will be the featured speaker.
He will discuss lung cancer research, clinical trials and the prognosis of gene therapy as a potential cancer treatment.
"For years we have used chemicals to treat the problem of cancer spreading from the local tumor (but) these chemicals are not very effective against cancer cells and highly toxic to normal cells," says Roth. "Gene therapy selectively targets abnormal biologic pathways in the cancer cell and may stimulate immune responses to cancer which will not harm normal cells.
"Gene therapy for cancer is potentially more effective and much less toxic than current treatments."
Edward Netter, chairman of the board of directors and co-founder with his wife, Barbara, of the Stamford-based ACGT, says Roth is considered a leading expert in the treatment of lung cancer.
Roth has studied genetic phenomena in lung carcinogenesis, the process by which normal cells transform into cancer cells, and potential therapies that can target such phenomena.
The ACGT was founded more than six years ago, Netter explains, to draw attention to gene therapy as an alternative protocol to chemotherapy and radiation, which can harm healthy cells and cause adverse side effects.
"If you look at what's been going on with relation to cancer treatment, (medical professionals) are doing what they've always done," he says. "They are used to doing things the way they were taught."
Since cancer is believed to be caused by a missing or defective gene, the ACGT's mission also includes funding research to develop drugs that attack only cancer cells.
Connie Burnett-West, a lung cancer survivor who has been cancer-free for eight years since receiving gene therapy treatment, also will speak.
*
"The Promise of Cancer Gene Therapy for the Treatment of Lung Cancer" will be held April 16 at 7:15 p.m. at the Bruce Museum, 1 Museum Drive, Greenwich. Admission is free; reservations are required. Call 358-8000, ext. 349; or e-mail fyoung@acgtfoundation.org.
- Camilla A. Herrera
. . . . . . . . .
(Stamford Advocate, April 8, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
Mustang P51
in HOPE
Hello There, Ernie,
THAT had to have been FUN.
Clicking onto the slide show gave a much closer look at what must have been an exhilarating flight.
The photos are great.
Keeping positive,Barbara
-
Dear Carole,
That is exactly what I have been thinking with regard to being "chronic."
Of course, it usually takes some time before "semantics" is given a rest. Does it matter? It probably doesn't.
Yes, we can be in palliative care toward whatever, and we can be in palliative care to elongate our survival.
I have been so involved with this over these three plus years, that only those with the disease, or with someone special who has it, can fully understand the nuances of what palliative care can mean and internalizing that meaning for themselves.
A couple of years ago, I read somewhere (lots of reading) that there were those who had received palliative care and had not only survived, but had been CURED).
I believe, if I recall correctly, that the study was done in Australia.
Does that happen often? It probably doesn't, but hey, let's go for it - if need be.
Luv,
Barbara
-
Thank you for posting to let us know about this, Randy, It is a beautiful idea.
In fact, it would be an excellent gift for any occasion of celebration.
It has given me a few ideas for gifts for the special women in our lives.
Barbara
-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/357 ... apy07.html
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
By TOM PAULSON
P-I REPORTER
Researchers at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center are trying to trick a strain of the cold virus into killing several kinds of cancer, including a notoriously difficult-to-treat brain tumor.
"There are not many options out there for these patients," said Dr. Hans-Peter Kiem at Fred Hutch, noting that most people with this kind of tumor, glioblastoma multiforme, die within a year of diagnosis.
So far, the scientists have only been able to use the viruses to attack the brain tumors in mice.
The concept of employing viruses as biological anti-cancer smart bombs, though it may sound bizarre, has been around for quite a while.
"It's not a new idea," said Dr. Andre Lieber, a researcher at the University of Washington and a leader in this field. But Lieber and others are using innovative genetic techniques to retrain the common cold virus, known as adenovirus.
Some say the notion of enlisting infections to fight cancer first took hold back in 1912, when a rabid dog bit an Italian woman who had advanced ovarian cancer. Italian doctors injected the woman with a weakened rabies virus, a vaccine, to protect her against the deadly infection. And after the immunization, to everyone's surprise, her aggressive ovarian tumor also shrank back.
This is often cited as the first scientific report of the possibility that viral infections or vaccinations might somehow work against cancer. There had been earlier anecdotal stories about people with cancer being cured after getting this or that bug, but not much hard evidence.
"It wasn't until the 1950s and '60s that it really took off," Lieber said. Scientists in the '50s and '60s tried injecting cancer patients with all sorts of live viruses such as mumps or the cold virus, he said, but without really knowing exactly what was going on inside the body.
If you consider what cancer really is and what viruses do, it makes perfect sense. Cancer is the uncontrolled proliferation of cells in the body. Viruses selectively kill cells.
"The trick is to make them kill only the cells you want them to kill, the cancer cells," Lieber said.
Lieber, Kiem and their colleagues have focused on a strain of cold virus, adenovirus serotype 5 (or Ad5). The cold virus achieves its purpose in nature by injecting its genes into our cells, forcing our nasal passage cells or whatever else is infected to produce new viral offspring. Eventually the nose or lung cells that are infected burst, which helps explain why we cough and our noses turns red.
Catching a cold means your cells have been hijacked. Lieber and Kiem, in turn, are hijacking the cold virus to redirect it against cancer.
"Andre has modified the viruses so they can selectively target the tumor cells, replicate inside them and kill them," Kiem said. "And they can only replicate inside the tumor cells."
Though the research is limited to mice in the U.S., Lieber is working with British researchers to do clinical testing soon of his modified cold virus in a dozen people with late-stage, incurable colon cancer.
There are still plenty of obstacles, however, to making this an approved cancer therapy -- beginning with the immune system's tendency to fiercely attack and destroy viruses.
"That's a big problem," Lieber said. One way to get around it, he said, is to use immune-suppressing drugs until the anti-cancer virus finishes its attack on the tumor.
Another concern is that the virus could stimulate an adverse immune response in the patient, he said, or that the altered virus would evolve and revert to its disease-causing natural "wild type" -- or perhaps turn into something even worse.
"Andre is an incredibly creative guy, but he does tend to focus on problems," joked Dr. Stephen Russell, a researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., widely considered one of the world leaders in the field known as oncolytic (cancer-killing) virotherapy.
Russell and his team have altered measles viruses to attack ovarian cancer, multiple myeloma and glioblastoma, and have recently launched early stage human trials.
"It's no longer a question of whether virotherapy will work so much as it is a question of what we still need to do to make it work better," Russell said.
After the field's long history of fits and starts, the Mayo Clinic scientist is nevertheless concerned about anything that might once again send this avenue of inquiry back into hibernation.
When his 17-year-old daughter came home one night to report that she just saw the movie "I Am Legend," in which Will Smith is a scientist who alters a measles virus that creates zombies and kills everyone in Manhattan, Russell was concerned.
"I thought, 'Oh no, here we go,' " he said. "We're at a very vulnerable stage in development, just moving into early stage human trials."
Russell and his colleagues monitored the Internet to see what people said about this Hollywood movie that had the altered measles virus creating zombies and depopulating New York City. Fortunately, few saw any reason to storm the Mayo Clinic and demand that the science stop. "It may have helped that the movie was pretty cheesy," Russell said.
Despite his reputed tendency to see most glasses half empty, Lieber believes the new genetic and molecular biological techniques available today do promise to finally make virotherapy an effective, incredibly accurate and safe way to rid the body of cancer.
"These viruses have evolved over millions of years to figure out how to get into cells," he said. "They have an inherent ability to take over specific cells and kill them."
. . . . . . . . .
(Seattlepi.com, By Tom Paulson, PI Reporter, April 6, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/n ... l?d=139597
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
Hana Biosciences (Nasdaq:HNAB), a biopharmaceutical company focused on strengthening the foundation of cancer care, today announced that active cancer patient dosing has commenced in the company's Phase 1 clinical trial of topical menadione lotion for the treatment and/or prevention of the rash associated with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors (EGFRIs). Currently, there are no products or therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat this pervasive skin toxicity that may cause the reduction, interruption or discontinuation of the EGFRI treatment.
"EGFRIs have proven to be very effective in the fight against numerous types of cancer and are used in over 100,000 patients annually. However, a majority of patients develop the rash associated with these therapies, affecting their quality of life and leading to possible reduction or cessation of their anticancer therapy, which can affect survival. I am excited to work with Hana Biosciences in the clinical evaluation of topical menadione, which may have the potential to offer relief from this terrible side-effect to patients during their cancer treatment," said Mario Lacouture, M.D., Assistant Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, and the principal investigator for this study.
"Initiating this Phase 1 trial of menadione represents an important opportunity for Hana Biosciences. It is a first-in-class, locally-targeted formulation that may play a major role in the management of a large and growing population of cancer patients. The ability to obtain patient data so early in development will help us to push forward with an aggressive development timeline," stated Steven R. Deitcher, M.D., President and CEO of Hana Biosciences. "We look forward to working with Dr. Lacouture and other investigators in this Phase 1 clinical study and potentially reach proof-of-concept in the second half of this year."
The primary objective of the Phase 1 study is to evaluate the systemic absorption of menadione topical lotion as an emergent and pre-emergent (prophylactic) treatment for EGFR inhibitor-associated rash. Additionally, the study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of menadione topical lotion in both treatment emergent and prophylaxis patients. The Phase 1 trial is designed to enroll a total of 24 adult subjects who are about to begin treatment with an approved EGFRI for cancer. Subjects will be divided into two cohorts, run sequentially. The first cohort will consist of subjects who develop the first signs and symptoms of EGFRI-associated rash on the face, neck, and/or upper chest following the initiation of their cancer treatment. In the second cohort, subjects will receive menadione lotion prophylactically, starting one day prior to beginning their EGFRI therapy. In both cohorts, subjects will serve as their own control and apply menadione lotion on one side of the treatment area and placebo lotion on the other side, in a blinded fashion. Treatment duration will last approximately one month.
There are currently four approved EGFRIs on the market: cetuximab (Erbitux®; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Imclone), panitumumab (Vectibix; Amgen), erlotinib (Tarceva®; Genentech/OSI Pharmaceuticals), and gefitinib (Iressa®; AstraZeneca). For Hana's Phase 1 study, there are no restrictions on the brand of EGFRIs administered to patients.
The Phase 1 clinical trial is currently open and enrolling in Chicago, Illinois at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine by Dr. Mario Lacouture.
About Menadione Topical Lotion
Menadione, a small organic molecule, has been shown to activate the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway by inhibiting phosphatase activity. EGFR inhibitors, or EGFRIs, are currently used to treat over 100,000 patients per year with a variety of cancers including non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic, colorectal, and head & neck cancer. The majority of patients taking EGFRIs develop an associated skin rash. Loss of EGFR signaling has been hypothesized as a mechanism of skin toxicity in patients receiving EGFRIs. In vitro studies have suggested that topically-applied menadione may restore EGFR signaling, specifically in the skin of patients treated systemically with EGFRIs. Currently, there are no FDA-approved products or therapies available to treat these skin toxicities. Hana Biosciences in-licensed topical menadione from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York in October 2006.
. . . . . . . . .
(News Release, Source: Hana Biosciences, Inc., South San Francisco, California, PrimeNewsWire, April 7, 2008 [Contains Forward-looking Statments])
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... ave_lives/
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
A screening that would save lives
By Beverly Beckham, Globe Columnist | April 6, 2008
She is angry, but who can blame her? Her sister - "my beloved sister" - died of lung cancer, writes a reader named Barbara.
Her sister was diagnosed in April 2004 with lung cancer. She thought she had a cold. She died two years later.
Whatever the cause - radon? cigarettes? asbestos? pesticides? pollution? - nobody knows.
What is known is that her sister might not have died if her cancer had been detected sooner. A test exists, a simple test, that could save lives, advocates insist, and that test is not being given.
Mammograms, colonoscopies, screenings for prostate cancer - these are routine. But a simple low-cost, low-level CAT scan that detects lung cancer in its earliest stages is not.
This, says Barbara, is what makes her angry.
And this is what state Senator Susan Fargo, a Democrat from Lincoln, is working to change. Last November she filed legislation to establish the nation's first Lung Cancer Early Detection and Treatment Research Fund, using money from existing cigarette taxes to pay for screening for high-risk people and to research the incidence of this disease.
Here's what's startling about this initiative: It would be the first ever.
How can this be? Lung cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. It will kill more people this year than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney, and skin cancers combined. It will kill nearly twice as many women as breast cancer and three times as many men as prostate cancer.
But if found early, lung cancer can be treated. The five-year survival rate is only 15 percent (compared with 88.5, 99.9, and 64.1 percent for breast, prostate, and colon cancers) because 70 percent of lung cancers are not found until the cancer has spread, according to the Lung Cancer Alliance. And they're not found because even people who are most at risk - smokers and ex-smokers, veterans, African-American men - are not screened.
Startling, too, is that Massachusetts uses just 1.8 percent of all the revenue it gets from cigarette taxes and tobacco settlements to reduce tobacco use.
And not a single penny for lung cancer detection or research, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Massachusetts is not alone. Lung cancer research is underfunded nationwide. In fiscal year 2006, the Centers for Disease Control budgeted $204 million for breast and cervical cancer research, $14 million for prostate cancer research, and $14.6 million for colon cancer research.
And, the Lung Cancer Alliance says, nothing for lung cancer research.
Those who get lung cancer are often blamed for their illness. "Did they smoke?" people ask. And the answer?
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes no.
"You cannot discuss lung cancer without discussing discrimination," Joanne O'Connor, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Lung Cancer Alliance, explained in her testimony supporting Senate Bill 2454. "Unlike other diseases, lung cancer and its victims have the added burden of stigma and shame. . . . If you smoked, you brought it on yourself.
"My sister Kathy felt the shame," testified O'Connor. She wanted friends and family to be told she had breast cancer, the acceptable women's cancer. Kathy was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer in January 2006 and died six months later.
Cigarettes cause lung cancer. We know this. But what most people don't know is that 60 percent of lung cancers are being diagnosed in former smokers, many who quit decades ago, and in people who have never smoked at all.
National Cancer Institute statistics are clear. Black men have a 37 percent higher rate of lung cancer than white men, though they smoke less. Veterans, who have been exposed to toxins and who, until 1976, got cigarettes free as part of their K-rations, have a significantly higher rate of lung cancer than nonveterans. And women under 50, who've never smoked at all, are now being diagnosed with this disease.
The National Cancer Institute also cites studies showing that when lung cancer is found early, there is a 92 percent 10-year survival rate.
Compare this with late detection and just a 15 percent survival rate, and it's clear that screening saves live.
Fargo's bill, if it survives the legislative process and becomes law, will be the first in the nation. It will not help everyone. It's modest. It focuses on people who are high risk.
But it's a noble start, a small step in the right direction. Equally important, it says to people with lung cancer: You count.
Beverly Beckham can be reached at bevbeckham@aol.com. Listen to Beverly read and talk about her columns in her weekly podcast at boston.com/news/podcasts.
. . . . . . . . .
(The Boston Globe, By Beverly Beckham, Globe Columnist, April 6, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
http://www.cancernews.com/data/Article/589.asp
ARTICLE:
. . . . . . . . .
UCLA researchers have developed a novel type of nanomachine that can capture and store anticancer drugs inside tiny pores and release them into cancer cells in response to light.
Known as a "nanoimpeller," the device is the first light-powered nanomachine that operates inside a living cell, a development that has strong implications for cancer treatment.
UCLA researchers reported the synthesis and operation of nanoparticles containing nanoimpellers that can deliver anticancer drugs March 31, 2008, in the online edition of the journal Small.
The study was conducted jointly by Jeffrey Zink, UCLA professor of chemistry and biochemistry, and Fuyu Tamanoi, UCLA professor of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics and director of the signal transduction and therapeutics program at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Tamanoi and Zink are two of the co-directors for the Nano
Machine Center for Targeted Delivery and On-Demand Release at the California NanoSystems Institute.
Nanomechanical systems designed to trap and release molecules from pores in response to a stimulus have been the subject of intensive investigation, in large part for their potential applications in precise drug delivery. Nanomaterials suitable for this type of operation must consist of both an appropriate container and a photo-activated moving component.
To achieve this, the UCLA researchers used mesoporous silica nanoparticles and coated the interiors of the pores with azobenzene, a chemical that can oscillate between two different conformations upon light exposure.
Operation of the nanoimpeller was demonstrated using a variety of human cancer cells, including colon and pancreatic cancer cells. The nanoparticles were given to human cancer cells in vitro and taken up in the dark. When light was directed at the particles, the nanoimpeller mechanism took effect and released the contents.
The pores of the particles can be loaded with cargo molecules, such as dyes or anticancer drugs. In response to light exposure, a wagging motion occurs, causing the cargo molecules to escape from the pores and attack the cell. Confocal microscopic images showed that the impeller operation can be regulated precisely by the intensity of the light, the excitation time and the specific wavelength.
“We developed a mechanism that releases small molecules in aqueous and biological environments during exposure to light,” Zink said. “The nanomachines are positioned in molecular-sized pores inside of spherical particles and function in aqueous and biological environments.”
“The achievement here is gaining precise control of the amount of drugs that are released by controlling the light exposure,” Tamanoi said. “Controlled release to a specific location is the key issue. And the release is only activated by where the light is shining.”
“We were extremely excited to discover that the machines were taken up by the cancer cells and that they responded to the light. We observed cell killing as a result of programmed cell death,” Tamanoi and Zink said.
This nanoimpeller system may open a new avenue for drug delivery under external control at specific times and locations for phototherapy. Remote-control manipulation of the machine is achieved by varying both the light intensity and the time that the particles are irradiated at the specific wavelengths at which the azobenzene impellers absorb.
“This system has potential applications for precise drug delivery and might be the next generation for novel platform for the treatment of cancers such as colon and stomach cancer,” Zink and Tamanoi said. “The fact that one can operate the mechanism by remote control means that one can administer repeated small-dosage releases to achieve greater control of the drug's effect.”
Tamanoi and Zink say the research represents an exciting first step in developing nanomachines for cancer therapy and that further steps are required to demonstrate actual inhibition of tumor growth.
. . . . . . . . .
(Cancer News, Cancer Information, Source: UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, March 31, 2008)
Disclaimer:
The information contained in these articles may or may not be in agreement with my own opinions. They are not posted as medical advice of any kind.
-
Hello Deb, and welcome, but sorry for the reason.
Over three years ago, my husband was diagnosed with lung cancer (after being delayed through non-diagnosis - 2 digital X rays and several tests - through a pulmonologist). But, the diagnosis was made after a our GP found it through a CT scan months later.
Bill received the carbo/taxol/radiation treatment/, a concurrent regimen. Once that was established, Deb, things went pretty smoothly. It does make a difference when a plan of action is established, and treatment is in place.
We quickly learned that spending hours at the Cancer Center can be very doable. I brought extra liquid for Bill to drink - hydration is crucial. It helps to flush the chemo out of the kidneys. The nutritionist and nurses kept stressing that.
Pretty soon, I brought a bag with some food (They did serve a lunch for Bill.) but he is a snacker, so .... I became a bag-lady.
He managed all of that for over 5 weeks (chemo part was once a week) and had no untoward side effects. However, we were told that if there was any nausea there were meds for that, and they gave us a prescription. It never occurred, but we wanted to be prepared.
There are so many here if you need. This was the first site I came to when first hit with the scary news. Feel free to "sing out."
Keep posting and let us know how it is going?
Barbara
-
Hello Again, Carole,
I am soooo glad to see you here. Your attitude is fantastic, and I hope it is contagious.
Please keep posting. People with your zest for life give us a bolstering.
Sending you a warm welcome,
Barbara
-
Yes, Ned,
That is in the neighborhood of what I was thinking when I read it.
I'm glad they are moving in a positive direction with thought to more personalized care, and using the words "either/or option" as a saving grace.
I also like your idea about spending energy and the immune system.
Barbara
-
Carole,
I appreciate your sense of humor. Bill and I love to laugh. Did you know that it helps the immune system?
Ok, Joe did not even have to sit across the room - we visited out-of-doors.
Our grandson, Joseph, has grown so tall that I sm now feeling very short (I began as 5' 6 1/2," but have lost an inch over the years).
Of course, he hasn't reached his Grandpa's height yet - that of 6 feet, but he will get there, or close to it.
I will PM you with a few sites to watch - but do not worry about these things. It always gives me a kick to read all this stuff. Of course, then I often discover some of it is so dry and scientific, that it makes my eyes cross.
You could say that anything you find which seems you find interesting would, no doubt, be intersting to others.
I thank you so much Carole, for your offer of help. You are wonderful.
PS: You will find that those buttons at the top of the posting window are very helpful. Quote: reply
PM: private message email speaks for itself.
Luv ya,
Barbara
]
-
Or, Randy, we could walk around in a filtered bubble?
Who knows? We may not be too far from that.
Barbara
Keeping positive,
Bill Is Going for a Brain MRI This Morning
in MEMBER UPDATES
Posted
Thank you, Sue, for the prayers. They will do much good in keeping me at peace.
You are very kind.
We'll get back to all of you when I know more. We have to "get through" this weekend. There are some chores we need to accomplish, so not too much time for over thinking things.
Warm thoughts to you, Sue,
Barbara