 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2006Has anyone read this?
Scott & White Cancer Research Institute on it's way to making history Updated: Mar 2, 2006 11:54am Researchers here in Central Texas are conducting the first clinical study of its kind in the world where a drug targets prostate cancer cells. The cancer research institute at Scott and White in Temple is on the road to making history. The FDA recently gave researchers at Scott & White the green light to test a new drug that could radically change the way doctors treat prostate cancer. "If we can direct our therapy to the prostate area then that's more efficacious and safe fro the patient because they don't have to effects upon other organ and parts of the body," said Dr. Scott Coffield. Dr. Scott Coffield is a Urology Oncologist at Scott and White Hospital. He says the current method of treating prostate cancer involves surgeries, radiation and hormonal therapy, even chemotherapy, all of which can harm other parts of the body. In the clinical trial a serum would be injected into the prostate killing cancer causing cells. "Directing the therapy to the prostate is an exciting option for those patients who've failed other therapies," said Dr. Coffield. The drug will only be administered to patients with recurring prostate cancer. Dr. Arthur Frankel is the director of the cancer research institute and says if the study succeeds not only will the drug revolutionize treatment for the second deadliest cancer among men but it would also make Scott & White a leader in drug development as well as treatment. "We've now finished the work that led to the development and the approval by the Food and Drug Administration for testing and are fortunate the company Protox has selected Scott & White and our center to be the main site in the world," said Dr. Arthur Frankel. The clinical trial is already in its first phase, but it can take years to determine if the drug is successful in killing prostate cancer cells. > Scott & White Cancer Research Institute on it's way to making history > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The drug will only be administered to patients with recurring prostate > cancer. Perhaps I'm just being dense today, but if it is only administered to patients after they have failed other therapies, then what is the point? I.e., if you have a failed RP with rising PSA, what is the point in putting this drug in the prostate area? If that is the only place where the cancer cells are, then salvage radiation should kill them. If the cancer has already spread to elsewhere in the body, then this treatment seems pointless. Ed Friedman >> ... The drug will only be administered to patients with recurring prostate >> cancer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If the cancer has already spread to elsewhere in the body, then this treatment seems > pointless. I did some research on this on the web. It's not for men who have had RP and now have recurrent cancer, but for men who have had radiation and now have a recurrence. Those men can't get more radiation because it would do too much damage. Alan Ah, the hospital of my birth. I wish them good luck. > Scott & White Cancer Research Institute on it's way to making history > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > to determine if the drug is successful in killing prostate cancer > cells. > Scott & White Cancer Research Institute on it's way to making history > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cells. > ... Here's some more info on it. http://www.protoxtherapeutics.com/102005.php A description of the drug from that article says: "PRX302 is a genetically engineered form of the bacterial protoxin, Proaerolysin which is injected directly into the prostate where it is converted to the active toxin Aerolysin, by the serine protease, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). Aerolysin oligomerizes to form a stable heptamer, which inserts into the cell membrane of healthy and cancerous prostate cells to produce channels in the cell membrane leading to leakage of cellular contents and cell death." If I understand it, it's saying that the injected drug is benign. However PSA catalyzes a reaction that turns the drug into a toxin that cuts holes in cell membranes, leading to the death of the affected cells. So, if you've got cells producing PSA, this drug will kill them while leaving other cells alone. That's seems to be the theory anyway. It sounds intriguing and different from other therapies under study. Now we need some adventuresome souls to help them try it out. Alan So why can't we use the therapy as our first line of defense, instead of using it after radiation has failed. Considering...the drug targets only "affected" cells, why not use it as a preventative??? Help me out here, > > Scott & White Cancer Research Institute on it's way to making history > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Alan > So why can't we use the therapy as our first line of defense, instead of > using it after radiation has failed. > Considering...the drug targets only "affected" cells, why not use it as a > preventative??? > > Help me out here, As I understand it, one problem is that the FDA will not allow unproven experimental therapies to be used in cases where proven effective therapies are available. The problem is, we don't yet know whether the drug really works. Presumably it worked in a test tube and it worked in mice, but it hasn't been through enough trials with humans to be proven to work in people. If the researchers use the drug on people who have failed conventional treatment, those patients have very little to lose. But if they use it on patients who have not yet had conventional treatment, and it doesn't work, and then 1, 2, or 3 years later when it's clear that it didn't work it's too late for surgery or radiation, the patients might die of cancer when they didn't have to. Also, it may turn out that the drug works, but not as well as conventional treatment. Perhaps it will cure 25% of patients. Or maybe it will reduce the amount of cancer by 50% or 90%, but not destroy it completely. Maybe it will add a year or two to people's lives - which is very worthwhile - but not have the potential that surgery or radiation has of actually curing the disease. So for all those reasons, the FDA requires the company to get more solid data from carefully controlled trials before allowing the drug to be used in routine care. The number of new drugs that are proposed for cancer and other diseases is enormous. The great majority of them do _not_ turn out to be better than, or even as good as, the treatments we already have. They look great on paper and may work well on mice or rabbits or diseased cells in a test tube, but they don't measure up in people. Some of these drugs generate huge interest from the press (remember the anti-angiostatin drugs?) and millions of people clamor for them. But it's a disservice to the public to let such drugs be used before careful testing proves their worth. And even then, some drugs get by that shouldn't (Celebrex, Vioxx, Thalidomide, and others.) Alan > ... Some of these > drugs generate huge interest from the press (remember the > anti-angiostatin drugs?) and millions of people clamor for > them. ... That should have been "anti-angiogenesis." There was huge public interest in that one with many people believing the cure for all solid tumor cancers had been found. But, many years later, the anti-angiogenesis drugs have still not produced highly effective results. Alan >> ... Some of these >> drugs generate huge interest from the press (remember the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Alan I also presume they block an important direct benefit of aerobic exercise. One of the ways aerobic exercise helps prevent or mitigate heart attacks is by generating additional, parallel blood vessels -- angiogenesis -- which carry blood to organs when their regular blood vessels become blocked. I guess we'll never know which will save our lives until we keel over -- extra blood flow or smaller tumors. I.P. > >> ... Some of these > >> drugs generate huge interest from the press (remember the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I.P. The older we get, the more our medical treatments resemble the game of whack-a-mole. Knock down that ugly tumor - up comes congestive heart failure. Knock down that and up comes renal failure. I guess we get the absolute optimal solution when we hold off each individual failure until they all fail at once. Do we win the game if a heart attack kills us just as the first serious cancer pain is about to begin? Alan > The older we get, the more our medical treatments resemble the > game of whack-a-mole. Knock down that ugly tumor - up comes > congestive heart failure. Knock down that and up comes renal > failure. I guess we get the absolute optimal solution when we > hold off each individual failure until they all fail at once. Isn't that what life IS ... a game of whack-a-mole? The moles include tests in school, "fires" at work, then ultimately health issues. I've wondered for many years which gremlin would put an end to my sports, and now I've begun to ponder bigger and, I hope, more distant, threats. > Do we win the game if a heart attack kills us just as the first > serious cancer pain is about to begin? Or at least by the time the pain is about all that's left of our lives. I.P. >So why can't we use the therapy as our first line of defense, instead of >using it after radiation has failed. >Considering...the drug targets only "affected" cells, why not use it as a >preventative??? > > Help me out here, <snip> We, in the primitive D/Under, have ongoing Clinical Trials up to Phase III, using Dendrite Cell Immunotherapy, but our TGA (sim. FDA) will only approve candidates who have either become Hormone Refractory or have failed to respond to all other Clinical Treatments including various mixes of Hormone Blockades, IMRT and Chemotherapy. IMHO, it seems Political and would be deemed to deplete the obscene Revenue made from all the "known" Treatments that hammer the Patients! Really, this attitude "SUX" big time!! Have a nice day, unless you planned something else ;) -- Reader to complete... -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake: -- Regards -- CC >So why can't we use the therapy as our first line of defense, instead of >using it after radiation has failed. >Considering...the drug targets only "affected" cells, why not use it as a >preventative??? > > Help me out here, <snip> Correction: "DENDRITIC Cell" -- Reader to complete... -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake: -- Regards -- CC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.