BS: Cancer cure de jour

Subject: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 05:17 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/18/scicanc118.xml


npr and CNN have also picked up on this story

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 05:21 PM

A friend of ours had this treatment but she died last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:41 PM

Sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: jeffp
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 08:02 AM

Three years with no evidence of disease is generally considered not sufficient to pronounce a cure. Five is the usual benchmark.

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 01:17 PM

The number of years required to pronouce cancer as "cured" or "gone" varies according to the type of cancer and the part of the body affected.

My cancer was in my neck, and I (like all successfully-treated head-and-neck-cancer survivors) was given a clean bill of health after only one year.

I was told that other cancers required "at least three yeears" before a similiar conclusion could be reached. I suppose that means that three years is enough in some cases, longer periods such as five years for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: Janie
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:56 AM

The one year survival rate for people with metastatic melanoma that has invaded 2 additonal organs is only 13%, and the three year survival rate for metastatic melanoma is no more than 3%. It sounds like this is a treatment that holds promise for at least some patients, and certainly warrants further clinical trial. From the article to which Donuel linked, it doesn't sound like this procedure is being touted unrealistically as anything more or less than a result that suggests the procedure may hold promise for some patients.

My sister, who died soon after from a very aggressive metastatic breast cancer, participated in an experimental bone marrow transplant clinical trial a number of years ago. At that time, the procedure itself was still highly experimental. I don't remember the numbers, but do recall that the survival rate of the procedure itself was less than 50%. (I think it was around 30%, but can't say that with any certainty.) She nearly died from the effects of the transplant itself.   

Since that time, it has been established that bone marrow transplant is not an effective treatment for metastatic breast cancer, but has proved effective in the treatment of other cancers and other life-threatening disorders. It is still a very risky treatment alternative, but the over-all survival rate of the transplant procedure itself has increased to around 70%. This speaks for itself to the benefit pursuing the promise of experimental treatments.

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: Janie
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:58 AM

Sorry, I lost track of the links that had the information on melanoma survival rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Cancer cure de jour
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 12:39 PM

Reports elsewhere on the single case cited indicate that the one person "cured" was the only one of several receiving the same procedure who showed a benefit from it. It is thus still necessary to find why it helped him and did not help any of the others.

It was noted in one article that he had received prior "conventional" treatment, via radiation(?) and/or chemotherapy(?); and one commenter/reviewer suggested that the prior treatment might have been a necessary condition to make the cancer susceptible to the antibody augmentation.

A "complicating factor" cited in one report was that not all of those who participated in the test remained "accessible" for follow-up, with some at least simply withdrawn by personal request, i.e. declining further participation.

Much work to be done.

John