Drug trio found to block tumour resistance in pancreatic cancer
69 points
2 hours ago
| 8 comments
| drugtargetreview.com
| HN
ngriffiths
1 hour ago
[-]
IN MICE. (To be fair, also IN SOME OTHER BETTER MICE).

https://jamesheathers.medium.com/in-mice-explained-77b61b598...

(mostly a joke, but I'd be in favor of adding context to the HN headline if possible)

reply
davidhs
18 minutes ago
[-]
Mice have the best drugs.
reply
apparent
49 minutes ago
[-]
This isn't quite as bad as the garden variety "in mice" studies:

> The combination therapy also led to significant regression in genetically engineered mouse tumours and in human cancer tissues grown in lab mice, known as patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDX).

reply
ramesh31
39 minutes ago
[-]
>"The combination therapy also led to significant regression in genetically engineered mouse tumours and in human cancer tissues grown in lab mice"

Required XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1217/

reply
apparent
37 minutes ago
[-]
Is PDX considered to be illegitimate? Would be curious to know if prior studies that showed success with PDX methods ultimately resulted in useful therapeutics.
reply
tiahura
30 minutes ago
[-]
Vorinostat
reply
rossant
45 minutes ago
[-]
I opened the comments fully expecting the top reply to be “In mice.” Bingo.
reply
lenerdenator
31 minutes ago
[-]
There really has never been a better time to be a critically-ill mouse. They've got something for you.
reply
jonshariat
1 hour ago
[-]
I've been playing to much pokemon with my kids, read this as "Dugtrio"
reply
j-bos
1 hour ago
[-]
Same, I'll never look at them the same again.
reply
JohnMakin
1 hour ago
[-]
me too
reply
tansey
8 minutes ago
[-]
For all the folks complaining about "it's only in mice! things never work in humans!" -- I work at MSK and we definitely have seen success treating PDAC in humans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06063-y

"Why don't I see these treatments hitting the general public?" Because trials like these are phase I/II. Then you need a phase III that takes a long time to recruit a large cohort and has overall survival as an end point so you need a long time to measure the actual outcome you care about. And most trials fail in phase III because the surrogate end points used in phase II studies, like progression free survival (ie how long did patients go before their disease advanced in screens), are not necessarily great predictors of improved overall survival.

Specifically for cancer vaccines, this paper was a driving force behind MSK establishing a cancer vaccine center to scale up these personalized neoantigen mRNA vaccines. It's very very difficult to do and extremely expensive right now.

reply
reenorap
1 hour ago
[-]
I keep reading about these advancements in pancreatic cancer like early detection or possible treatments, but nothing ever seems to make it to daylight. Is there a reason why there's such disparity between this?
reply
kens
28 minutes ago
[-]
In the past decade, the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer has nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%. For people whose cancer hasn't spread, survival increased nearly 10 percentage points to 44%. So it's wrong to say that nothing ever seems to make it to daylight.

Source: https://www.uchealth.org/today/slow-but-steady-progress-impr...

reply
ngriffiths
1 hour ago
[-]
Because research on real humans and real diseases is exceptionally difficult. Clinical research is notoriously expensive, results are likely to differ from non-human (preclinical) models, and trials take forever to get started, gather enough data, and get a drug actually reviewed and approved. So even when everyone is excited by the preclinical data, there are so many barriers (both scientific and non-scientific) that getting to an approved drug is pretty unlikely.
reply
dyauspitr
1 hour ago
[-]
We really should be able to grow human bodies without a brain for testing purposes. It’s gruesome but realistically victimless at the end of the day.
reply
dekhn
17 minutes ago
[-]
This sounds ethically questionable to me. I wouldn't rule it out entirely, but I'd want to see a well-reasoned argument, both technical and moral, that it was likely to lead to greatly reduced suffering for patients. Even then.... growing a body without a brain likely would not produce a model organism with predictive ability for human diseases.
reply
stevenwoo
33 minutes ago
[-]
The anti abortion and anti birth control contingent would never let even a little of that happen in countries with significant fundamentalist and Catholic voters. There are plenty of examples where these people force babies to be born without a brain on principle. Just recently https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-woman-carryin... One can go back to something like Terri Schiavo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
reply
ngriffiths
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't think the biology is there, let alone consensus on the major ethical questions involved
reply
giardini
42 minutes ago
[-]
Can you imagine the political/religious push-back were you to do that?!

Growth of single human organs or organ tissue is easier, cheaper and less fraught with political peril.

reply
baka367
36 minutes ago
[-]
As someone whose mother died to pancan, I could really care less on any of the brainwashed old farts in their churches or parliaments. None of that matters to me or the people suffering from cancers, it’s al Knut a selfish obstruction attaching religion to the research material
reply
lenerdenator
29 minutes ago
[-]
I hear ya. I don't care what they think either.

Unfortunately, they can vote.

reply
kens
23 minutes ago
[-]
A more practical option is using brain-dead humans for medical testing. This was discussed recently in the journal Science, using the term "physiologically maintained deceased". As they say, this "traverses complex ethical and moral terrain".

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt3527

reply
mft_
1 hour ago
[-]
1. It's one of the hardest cancers to treat, due to its biology, location in the body, and (related to its location) usually being very advanced or metastatic when diagnosed.

2. Mice =/= humans, as noted.

However we're heading into a new era of treatments for some cancers including pancreatic. New agents targeting RAS/KRAS pathways will likely deliver the first meaningful treatment advances in decades.

Daraxonrasib (which was used in the linked study) is leading the charge, but there are multiple other drugs (including agents that are a little more targeted, and therefore likely slightly better tolerated, like pan-KRAS or KRAS G12D inhibitors) in development too.

reply
Projectiboga
1 hour ago
[-]
Here are the three simultanious things targeted in this experment.

Triple inhibition strategy Pancreatic cancer remains notoriously difficult to treat, with very poor survival rates and limited effective therapies. The new research aims to combat this by targeting RAF1, EGFR family receptors and STAT3 signalling – nodes that are crucial for tumour growth and survival.

reply
boh
1 hour ago
[-]
It's funny how many years of "X found to be effective in fighting cancer" stories have filtered through HN and then you never hear about it again.

The research at treating mouse cancer has been making great strides--people cancer still has a long way to go though.

reply
delecti
16 minutes ago
[-]
I have absolutely no idea what the current frontline treatment drugs are for literally any form of cancer, and would bet the same is true for almost everyone else here. Most of the exceptions are people who know the frontline treatment drugs for one or two forms of cancer that impacted them personally. "And then you never hear about it again" is subtly implying that the drugs behind headlines never proceed beyond that point, but I didn't hear about it when the current frontline became the frontline treatment for any form of cancer. Most people just aren't in the loop about the evolution of the field of oncology, beyond pop-sci headlines.

And yes, most headlines like this don't result in changes to the care provided to anybody outside of clinical trials, but some do, and you and I probably won't hear about those either.

reply
dekhn
13 minutes ago
[-]
I think this is one of the expected outcomes of "Science by Press Release" (universities motivated to maximize their grants and IP), combined with media/press that wants clicks (articles that talk about cures for cancer get clicks).
reply
adrianN
39 minutes ago
[-]
People cancer outcomes have improved a lot in recent decades. Many forms of cancer are essentially cured if you detect them early enough.
reply
lazarus01
1 hour ago
[-]
I was wondering what preclinical models meant. It would be more accurate to call it animal models. I read roughly 3% - 5% of compounds move from preclinical cancer therapies to fda approval. That’s a tough success rate.
reply
apparent
54 minutes ago
[-]
> These agents together were tested in orthotopic mouse models of PDAC, where tumour cells are implanted in a location that closely resembles their natural environment in the pancreas.

Ugh, of course: "in mice"!

> The combination therapy also led to significant regression in genetically engineered mouse tumours and in human cancer tissues grown in lab mice, known as patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDX).

OK, maybe "in human tissue grown in mice" isn't so bad.

Fingers crossed. Pancreatic cancer is terrible.

reply
gus_massa
1 hour ago
[-]
> The results demonstrated the therapy not only reduced tumour size but also entirely stopped tumour growth with no evidence of tumour resistance for more than 200 days after treatment.

More details in https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2523039122/suppl... See page 25

In mice, N=12.

1 survived 200 days without cancer and was euthanized for 'ocular ulcers'.

5 survived 50-150 days, without cancer but were euthanized for other health problems

6 survived 50-150 days, and still had a smaller tumor and were euthanized for other health problems

My take away: Interesting, but the press article is overselling the result by a lot.

reply
apparent
39 minutes ago
[-]
Apparently 50 mice days is equivalent to about 5 human years, so even if these other causes of death here directly caused by the treatment (not alleged), surviving this much longer (5-20 years) would be pretty incredible for humans.
reply