Cancer’s Super-Survivors: How Immunotherapy Is Transforming Oncology
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
A key idea in medical treatment research is to look for an "endpoint" that actually matters for the patient. When the researchers looked for tumor shrinkage, they sometimes didn't find it soon enough to think that the patients were benefitting from treatment, but the patient Tom Telford named in the story reported feeling better during treatment, even when his tumor still appeared to be huge on scans of the tumor. When the researchers looked for the "hard endpoint" of patient survival, they found out these new treatments are better than they had realized at first. Proxy endpoints never beat hard endpoints in evaluating a treatment.
One more comment about how the story is presented. I will be really glad when doctors speaking to reporters, who are trying to talk in conversational, understandable language, and the reporters themselves get out of the habit of personifying or anthropomorphizing cancer cells, immune system cells, tumors, or even autonomous human body functions. Cancer cells and immune system cells are not knowing agents. They adapt (that is, successful cells survive while others die) but they don't "learn."
I think that currently with these treatments complete remission is luck of the draw. Although many of these treatments (trastuzumab, cetuximab) were designed to block a growth factor from signalling on the cancer, what they ALSO seem to do is to recruit the immune system to the cancer and basically paint the cancer with a giant target.
Now, there is basically a competititon here; is your immune system powerful enough to kill the cancers painted by the antibodies faster than the cancer can adapt (usually by short-circuiting the growth signal). This sounds hokey, but for patients on these class of antibodies (ADCCs "antibody-directed, cell-mediated cytotoxicity"), I'd say it's important to keep a positive attitude, eliminate stress from one's life, and other things that strengthen the immune system. Unfortunately there are a lot of chemotherapeutics which are coadministered with these antibodies that throw a wrench into the immune system, as does radiation, etc.
As for the future, I think that there are some sneaky tricks that we can do to make ADCC drugs more powerful. Right now there is actually batch-to-batch variation in the power of these drugs, again going back to the 'luck of the draw'.
I also see some potential for ADC ("antibody-drug conjugate", not to be confused with ADCC) as well, this is attaching a warhead to an antibody and just directly killing the cells, although I think the ADCs that are being designed are not potent enough. But that is another story.
Finally, there will be a class of general chemotherapeutics that don't touch the immune system (I work on one through my nonprofit, there is one in Phase III - SJG-136) which I think will make for a nice 'sweeper' system to clean up any cells that have snuck out of whatever the antibody target is.
In short: I see a future where ADCCs are combined with ADCs and next-generation chemotherapeutics.
The other big challenge is that it's kind of very expensive to make antibody drugs. I think there are clever ways of bringing the cost down, and I might be working on that too.
As the article details, it took 15 years to bring this drug to market, and the process has been and continues to be very research intensive. That money also pays for failures, it's not cheap to produce, and it's sold in small quantities for a currently small number of patients.
Yeah, it's not wonderful, but every time I hear that sort of thing, I also hear the sentiments that are (not so?) slowly shutting down new drug development.
You'll see this play out rather starkly as bacteria become continue to become more resistant to the usual antibiotics.
And those numbers will only go up.
Also, Federally-funded research at NIH continues to push the envelope at relegating cancer to a chronic disease (if not cured altogether).