Comment by headmelted | Hacker News Reader

Comment by headmelted | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

actually promotes recurrence in some cases

With a therapeutic like the one described in the post I'd be really interested to know the cold, honest numbers on recurrence - not to be negative, just to understand where this falls with regards to other treatments.

Obviously it can take years for recurrence rates to shake out and become evident, but I feel like in the last few years we've been hearing a lot about promising therapies (CAR-T, Harvard CD-47 trials, this) that ultimately fall off the common radar.

It could be that these therapies are the real deal and are quietly saving lives now (I know CAR-T has shown real promise in liquid tumors), but it's worrying when news around this research falls silent as it makes it seem like they aren't providing lasting cures.

Some chemotherapy drugs list cancer as a possible side effect, which I thought was funny when they told me. Recurrence is different as it's generally hiding cancer "stem cells" that cause this. There's actually a drug in the works that attempts to activate these and make them more susceptible to standard chemo that I think is cool, but it's a few years before that reaches human trials.

As for lasting results, most aren't cures, it's about improving the overall survivability, meaning time until the next treatment option opens up. A lot of these options give you a few months at most which is a big improvement and gives you a chance until the next thing comes out. The reason for this is that we're commonly talking about late stage cancers (3/4). Early stage cancers that haven't spread are cut out before they spread which is the best possible option as it's the highest likelihood of a cure.

Skepticism is very warranted here. And as I mention in your sibling comment, “promotes cancer recurrence” was a poor choice of term. “Permits,” due to the time between doses, would have been more accurate.

There are a lot of fly-by-night stories like this for a variety of reasons, be it ongoing research, funding seeking, or otherwise. I do believe the Benzimidazole class of medication mentioned is worth taking a deeper look at however—it seems to be a common thread over many of these.

Sometimes the reason something hasn’t seen use is more than the question of whether it’s clinically viable or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com