Jump to content

New vaccine for lung cancer: encouraging results

Recommended Posts

Cuba for long pioneered cancer vaccines but this one comes from France and targets patients with failed first and second line treatments (advanced or relapsed): https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/09/13/new-cancer-vaccine-could-improve-patient-survival-for-some-lung-cancers-study

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "vaccine" is a little confusing for me. Aren't they really talking about a new immunotherapy, aimed at HLA-A2?

I'll go back to my lab results, but I don't recall seeing anything about HLA-A2.

It'd be interesting to have more details on what specific types of lung cancer this applies to. If you find anything, I'd like to know. 

Here's the press release itself: https://www.ose-immuno.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EN_230911_Annals-of-oncol-Tedopi.pdf


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed vaccines are one type of immunotherapy. While a drug like Keytruda is part of immune checkpoint inhibitors, vaccines introduce antigens. A nice summary may be here for those needing some info: https://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/how-cancer-treated/immunotherapy-and-vaccines/what-immunotherapy#:~:text=The different types of immunotherapy,Oncolytic virus therapy

I don’t know if this is hype because the developer was a European company vs a country to which the West is hostile. Lung cancer vaccines existed in Cuba for a long time, e.g. CimaVax-EGF, so it is hard to discern politics from scientific breakthroughs. I need to learn more. 

Will update if I get to know more details. Much of the info I saw on this new press release so far is layman level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very saddened by the difficulty we have these days in discerning science from politics. In science, there are no absolutes. Nothing is settled. Ever! Period! We learn from postulating hypotheses and subjecting hypotheses to tests and investigations (called experiments) to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Proving does not establish an absolute truth and does not stop the scientific process. Proving yields a theory, but a theory is not an absolute fact. All theories are subject to further scientific exploration. 

Anyone who tries to convince you that science is settled is a politician. And political science is an oxymoron! Even worse than oxymoronic politicians are broadcast journalists who are just plain dumb!

Stay the course.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LilyMir said:

Thanks @Karen_L, modest results compared to what I saw on media but good news nonetheless. Here is to hoping such therapies will one day become a cure.

I have been following the science on the various types of “vaccines”, since I was offered a stage 1 trial rsa one when first diagnosed. I genuinely think there is grounds for optimism in this field. Some of the trials I have followed have incredibly positive results, with up to 40% complete response rates (the papers I have are in Danish video format so can’t share). The big issue so far is that in order to get proper results, patients’ immune systems need to be strongly suppressed, so it comes with a massive dose of chemo. So only very strong patients can benefit at this stage. But the technology is really moving fast, so worth keeping track of. My oncology team also seem to have high hopes for it.

(and as a political scientist, I would think this isn’t the most appropriate forum to cast doubts on an entire field of study or science in general).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your experience @RJN. I did not know about the chemo component, as the limited info I had read suggested it was just multiple vaccine injections with little side effects for this one but maybe I missed something sinceI was not reading extensively.

I am not sure if the 'doubt casting' was a comment addressed to me since, as a scientist and university Professor, that is something that is the antithesis to my life long knowledge and career. Press releases of a for-profit company on commercial TV station is something one looks deeper into (difference in scale of impact was palpable when I compared 'TV blurb' with their actual published data). Even my oncologist discusses such angles with me when we talk about any new medication or trial. Me wondering about politics of this is not doubt, it is prudence as similar vaccines have been approved and used in multiple other countries for years but I never heard about them on TV, at my cancer centre, or any literature given to me here. Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.