'Cure' is found for skin cancer, claim scientists

Published: 12:25AM BST 11 Apr 2010
A vaccine being tested in the UK has helped been shown to help some patients fully recover from melanoma, even in its advanced stages.

It attacks tumour cells, leaving healthy cells undamaged and carries agents that boost the body's response to skin cancer.

Dr Howard Kaufman, of Chicago's Rush University Medical Centre, said: "Our study shows we may have a cure for some advanced melanoma patients and a drug which has real benefits for others.

"This will save thousands of lives a year."

Over the past 25 years, rates of melanoma in Britain have risen faster than any other common cancer and 2,000 die from the disease every year.

A study of 50 patients with advanced melanoma who had been given no more than nine months to live found that 16 per cent of them recovered completely with the vaccine. They have been disease-free for more than four years.

Another 28 per cent saw the size of their tumours more than halved.

more

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7576456/Cure-is-found-for-skin-cancer-claim-scientists.html

Unfortunately, it didn't work for him.

A tumor growth blocked his colon in less than 8 weeks and he had to get a stent put in. Too weak for more surgery. And then standard colon cancer chemo to try to slow things down and buy some time.

He died Feb. 26th, in Santiago, Chile, 12 hours before the earthquake.

But we had high hope for the trial because Mutated B-RAF colon cancer really doesn't respond to standard colon cancer chemotherapies.

But I hope they get the kinks out and come up with a treatment approach that works for these people.

He was black Irish but very light skinned - never could tan. He had a birthhmark that should had been removed when he was a child. One Dr told him don't remove it until it begins to grow. By that time it was too late!!!

... that your husband's birthmark was never properly attended to, but his cancer in that spot may or may not have been related to sun exposure. Who knows, who knows.

As for treatment -- every successful cure comes too late for a lot of people. Researchers just keep trying until something works, don't they? Then there's hope for the future.

:hug:

Hekate

to be calling this a cure for anything. 50 people have been given this compound and that's a start but there is a long way to go.

The doctors said they "MAY" have found a cure for "SOME" cancers. It's also confusing that the article refers to it as a vaccine. According to the doctors it is a drug to treat melanoma; they make no mention of prevention.

There is a whole category of vaccines that is used to treat a disease, not prevent it. The principle is similar in that it activates an immune response in the patient.

Lets see how soon they hide this!

prevention is what they'd prefer to avoid.

.

How come my company is looking at ways to DECREASE the dosages that is necessary for treatment WITH THEIR OWN MEDS?

his cure and sell it to those who can pay. He nearly destroyed the March of Dimes, thank God for other childhood diseases.

No, there's no profit in cures, long-term treatment is where the bucks are.
:sarcasm:(?)

is doing research on similar compounds..IE antibodies. In fact thats all they do look at immune system treatments IE CURES for things like cancer, Lupus, Asthma and other chronic diseases. Oh and helped with the HPV VACCINE to PREVENT cancer.
Stop with the fucking nonsense.

I just thought I'd be the first idiot to post it. People who do what I did, in a serious manner, make the rest of us who think something needs to be done about the pharma companies ( the banks, the agribusinesses, corporations ) look like a joke.

And I'm tired of it.

hopefully further research shows similar results.

Wonder if the vax contains thimerosol...

Sid

Here's to others not having to die young. Bravo scientists!!

I'm a redhead, frequently sunburned as a kid and young man. Now, decades later, I've had both squamous cell and basal cell carcinoma. I hope this pans out.

if it pans out.

Thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/health/research/24trial.html

People with advanced melanoma DID recover, astonishingly. But then the Melanoma mutated and killed them anyway.

think that physician is still working on the ingredients and dosages

Ozone.

And our genes tend to wear out. The ozone has surprisingly less to do with this than pure genetics. Everytime you go out in the sun your DNA gets damaged. The older you get, the less efficient your DNA is at repairing itself.

Our ancestors didn't live long enough to develop melanoma.

:sarcasm:

Astounding how, no matter how good the news is, some folks reflexively complain. I guess no news is good news, not even good news.

:shrug:

There's profit in drugs that "manage" conditions, not "cure" them.

wasn't when I had it. You either got it all in surgery, or you died.

1) If it's really big, surgery.

2) If it's not really big, freeze it off with liquid nitrogen.

3) Die.

squamous cell skin cancers is that melanoma gets into the bloodstream -- kind of burrows its way in. And once it does, it's curtains. I know that they got mine right before it entered the bloodstream, and they did a radical removal of the surrounding area (like they used to do radical mastectomies for a small lump). So surgery is only effective if it's caught in time.

The article conflates melanoma with all skin cancers.

Actual melanoma would most likely be under the "really big" part of my post, most likely requiring surgery. Though I have read of some attempts to combine surgery with freezing to make sure one 'gets all of it'.

Other skin cancers and lesions that have not yet developed into melanoma are routinely frozen. (My Dad's an ex-surfer, and he gets to visit his friendly neighborhood dermatologist every few months to freeze some more lesions.

Anyway, melanoma doesn't necessarily get into the bloodstream - if caught and treated early enough. However it will metastasize like most cancers if untreated.

but I have a feeling we won't be seeing it in the US because pharmaceuticals don't make any money from cures. They only make money by prolonging people's illnesses.

My company is doing similar research btw. But don't let the fact that we are looking for CURES to various CANCERS, asthma, lupus, and other infectious diseases stop you. Oh yeah, we also helped produce a cancer PREVENTATIVE..HPV vaccine. Shouldn't chemo be cheaper than a shot?

Don't get pissed at me for telling it like it is.

And I'm willing to bet the company you're working for is small. Small ones do care about people, but it's the bigger companies that couldn't care less about anyone but the amount of money they make.

The normal treatment for melanoma is to freeze the affected spot with liquid nitrogen.

Liquid nitrogen is not sold by drug companies, nor is it very expensive. By developing a drug, the drug companies can "get in on the action".

But don't let reality get in the way of your knee-jerk hatred.

And this isn't knee-jerk hatred. I had a chemistry prof in my undergrad years who did cancer research and he told me that big pharma companies don't care about a cure because they can't make any money off it. That's reality.

And once again, knee-jerk hatred.

Look, at the moment "Big Pharma" is, at most, tangentially related to melanoma treatment (painkillers, mostly)

Why, exactly, would they choose to continue not getting paid? Wouldn't they prefer a treatment such as this that they can actually sell, instead of dreaming of some future long-term therapy that doesn't exist? Especially a treatment that has asthetic advantages over the current treatment?

They are no angels, but lying about evil doesn't help fight it.

I hate big business that's in it for only the profits.

Like lumberjack_jeff said to your reply--the only cancer research you see, with people who are actually working on a cure, is at universities.

See the other replies to this thread. There are many who hate Big Pharma. Why do you think that is?

The point is when you immediately leap to "BIG PHARMA BAD!!!!!!!!" no matter what the story and no mater how illogical the conclusions, you weaken your argument. You become "that crazy guy ranting about drugs".

We don't need that. At least, we don't need that if you want to have any hope of changing this situation. If you're just in it for the impotent righteous indignation, then fixing this situation would actually be counter-productive for you. You'd lose the target of your rage.

Look at all the other posts in this thread attacking Big Pharma.

You're as good as any other, and had the last anti-pharma post when I started posting. And as you see in this very chain of posts, I have responded to one other (as of the time of this post).

Frankly, there's only so many people I can respond to without making DU the only thing in my life.

They make money off of many cures, that did not exist before. That's how they make any money at all - by selling drugs that relieve things that could not be relieved before.

IMO this professor sounds unsuccessful and looking for someone to blame.

Guilty as charged.

The R&D that takes place for cures is mostly universities.

Pharma loves Lipitor. Pharma loves Viagra. Pharma loves Adderall.

A cure for cancer? Not so much.

For the reasons as charged, they are so greedy and people with cancer would pay anything to be cured - that's one product that sells effortlessly. Many have to convince people to buy their products and create a market for them, but a cure for cancer would sell itself.

Frankly this is projection - you can credit no one in pharma with anything but a desire to make money. Why does that not apply to everyone, including those in whatever industry you're in?

How much can you sell a cancer pill for? How much could you sell a daily cancer vaccine for?

Some conditions are too profitable to cure.

You don't have the background information to determine that my views are projection, and the industry I'm in is irrelevant to this discussion.

do, either

the liquid nitrogen is used to remove actinic keratoses, but not melanomas

they are always excised surgically, to carefully measure the margins, the depth, and to get the proper biopsies

I was using "melanoma" to mean "all skin cancers", much like the linked article.

I have had many, many sessions at the dermatologist with the liquid nitrogen. I've had Effudex cream treatment twice, which I do not recommend as a form of entertainment. Actinic keratoses, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma can all be treated in-office during regular dermatological checkups. Basal cell is slow-growing. Squamous is more aggressive, but still not in the same category as melanoma.

If my doc EVER sees something that looks like melanoma it will be surgically excised, examined under a microscope, and if the result is bad "a wide margin of apparently normal skin will be removed" around the site. There won't be a blister, there will be a large -- and deep-- scar on my hide, such as I have seen on other people. And then I will pray I don't die of the damned thing.

Don't conflate them, please. They are different and their treatments are different.

Hekate

http://www.skincancercollege.com/Home/Patient_info/Melanoma_questions/Melanoma_options.aspx

>> Can you treat melanoma without surgery?
Can creams or freezing or curettage be used to treat melanoma?

The answer is NO.

There are emerging treatments for other skin cancers that can sometimes replace surgery. Curettage is a scraping technique. Cryotherapy involves freezing skin cells to the point they cannot survive. Creams can sometimes be used for much less serious skin cancers. Photodynamic therapy also involves a cream.

But none of these are applicable to managing melanoma. In short, if you have a melanoma it needs to be excised surgically. In the main doctors manage melanoma in two surgical stages. First an excisional biopsy is undertaken. This involves everything looking abnormal being excised. When melanoma is confirmed, a larger and wider excision is then organised. In this step a wide margin of apparently normal skin is removed around the melanoma. This is done to minimise the chances of the melanoma recurring.

There is perhaps one exception. There is some research testing whether extremely early in situ melanoma can first be treated with imiquimod cream before surgery is undertaken. This has not yet been proven to be satisfactory and would only be done in the context of a research trial. Even in this trial setting, the melanoma still eventually comes to surgery.

So melanoma needs surgical excision with a wide margin of normal skin removed around the tumour. This remains the best treatment and gives the patient the best chance that the melanoma will never recur again.

Talk to your doctor about your needs and your concerns about your melanoma. <<

I think the damn things should be outlawed, or at least outlawed for anyone under the age of let's say 25, or approximately when good sense kicks in.

Hekate

several patients, but some relapsed and some died

the physician/researcher is still working on the ingredients and strength

I work crazy hours, making crappy pay. The only condolence is that I'm doing something to make life better for some people.

It really sucks to hear about an advance like this and hear people complaining about "it's too late" or "it's big Pharma."

Maybe people are right, maybe this really sucks.

I would like people to know, though, that some of us work very hard to try and make things better. Not perfect. Better. It's very disheartening to see a breakthrough portrayed as a failure.

Losing someone to melanoma is a bigger failure, so I don't have any room to complain. :(

But can't we save the hate for the people who don't do anything about it? Must we hate the people who try and fix it?

... that it's the same place I came to 8 years ago. It's as though some people, now deprived of George W. Bush to hate, have decided to turn around and hate everybody else.

I just came by from the new thread about the Toyota Lexus SUV getting a rare "Don't Buy" from Consumer Reports, so I'm still reacting to that one. Who's getting bashed? Toyota (of course, but for their current fiasco they deserve to be, imo). CR (they never take ads or corporate money in any form, but to some they are biased corporate shills--for Toyota). People who buy SUVs (personally I think SUVs are a waste of time but I wouldn't call their owners douchebags or wish death upon them). People who can *afford* to buy SUVs (how dare they spend money I don't have myself :eyes: ).

To get back to you: thank you for your career choice. I, for one, appreciate you for what you are doing.

Hekate