Talk Cancer

Question:

Oooops, I ment to say the much delayed Thank You for the answer to my question.  Could this be chemo brain?  LOL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Lance, Soooo sorry for the much delayed answer to my question.  It is very informative.  I have been fighting depression lately and have just read your responce. Thanks again, Karen No, what makes Gleevec (was Glivec or STI571) so exciting is the reason it won’t work with BC. Gleevec is designed from the very start for CML and nothing else. The very successful trial shows that our understanding of cancer and the available technology has reached a point where it is possible to produce designer drugs targeting specific cancers. This is the first (some would say second) time anyone has been able to do that. I don’t know how long Gleevec has been in development, 10-15 years? Previously, developing chemo drugs was mostly a hit-or-miss affair. The taxanes (Taxol & Taxotere) were developed this way. Way back in the 1950’s-60’s the NCI tried out thousands of potential chemicals found in nature for anti-carcinogenic properties and found a few that looked promising. They probably just squirt some plant extract into a petri dish with some cells, watched what happened then did that a thousand times again with other stuff. Just now, after 40 years of experimentation, have the taxanes become prominent chemo drugs. Incidentally, this is also why people in the know don’t get very excited over experiments in a petri dish or mouse, they know there’re several more decades of experiments ahead for those few chemicals that turn out to be winners. Many other chemo drugs today (like cyclophosamide or Cytoxan) are highly tuned derivatives of mustard gas used way back in World War One. Observing it’s anti-cancinogenic properties was pure luck and weren’t widely known until after World War Two. This may be why chemo got such a bad reputation. Can you imagine receiving the first-generation "kinder, gentler" version (nitrogen mustard) of mustard gas? No wonder some people declined those very early chemo therapies and took their chances on surgery alone. So that’s what makes Gleevec exciting. The researchers studied the cancer, purposely designed a drug to fix it, built the drug and, by George, it worked! Lance ***** What is up with the new cancer pill?  Can it help us with BC?   Karen

Response:

Lance, Soooo sorry for the much delayed answer to my question.  It is very informative.  I have been fighting depression lately and have just read your responce. Thanks again, Karen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, what makes Gleevec (was Glivec or STI571) so exciting is the reason it won’t work with BC. Gleevec is designed from the very start for CML and nothing else. The very successful trial shows that our understanding of cancer and the available technology has reached a point where it is possible to produce designer drugs targeting specific cancers. This is the first (some would say second) time anyone has been able to do that. I don’t know how long Gleevec has been in development, 10-15 years? Previously, developing chemo drugs was mostly a hit-or-miss affair. The taxanes (Taxol & Taxotere) were developed this way. Way back in the 1950’s-60’s the NCI tried out thousands of potential chemicals found in nature for anti-carcinogenic properties and found a few that looked promising. They probably just squirt some plant extract into a petri dish with some cells, watched what happened then did that a thousand times again with other stuff. Just now, after 40 years of experimentation, have the taxanes become prominent chemo drugs. Incidentally, this is also why people in the know don’t get very excited over experiments in a petri dish or mouse, they know there’re several more decades of experiments ahead for those few chemicals that turn out to be winners. Many other chemo drugs today (like cyclophosamide or Cytoxan) are highly tuned derivatives of mustard gas used way back in World War One. Observing it’s anti-cancinogenic properties was pure luck and weren’t widely known until after World War Two. This may be why chemo got such a bad reputation. Can you imagine receiving the first-generation "kinder, gentler" version (nitrogen mustard) of mustard gas? No wonder some people declined those very early chemo therapies and took their chances on surgery alone. So that’s what makes Gleevec exciting. The researchers studied the cancer, purposely designed a drug to fix it, built the drug and, by George, it worked! Lance ***** What is up with the new cancer pill?  Can it help us with BC?   Karen

Response:

What is up with the new cancer pill?  Can it help us with BC?   Karen

Response:

No, what makes Gleevec (was Glivec or STI571) so exciting is the reason it won’t work with BC. Gleevec is designed from the very start for CML and nothing else. The very successful trial shows that our understanding of cancer and the available technology has reached a point where it is possible to produce designer drugs targeting specific cancers. This is the first (some would say second) time anyone has been able to do that. I don’t know how long Gleevec has been in development, 10-15 years? Previously, developing chemo drugs was mostly a hit-or-miss affair. The taxanes (Taxol & Taxotere) were developed this way. Way back in the 1950’s-60’s the NCI tried out thousands of potential chemicals found in nature for anti-carcinogenic properties and found a few that looked promising. They probably just squirt some plant extract into a petri dish with some cells, watched what happened then did that a thousand times again with other stuff. Just now, after 40 years of experimentation, have the taxanes become prominent chemo drugs. Incidentally, this is also why people in the know don’t get very excited over experiments in a petri dish or mouse, they know there’re several more decades of experiments ahead for those few chemicals that turn out to be winners. Many other chemo drugs today (like cyclophosamide or Cytoxan) are highly tuned derivatives of mustard gas used way back in World War One. Observing it’s anti-cancinogenic properties was pure luck and weren’t widely known until after World War Two. This may be why chemo got such a bad reputation. Can you imagine receiving the first-generation "kinder, gentler" version (nitrogen mustard) of mustard gas? No wonder some people declined those very early chemo therapies and took their chances on surgery alone. So that’s what makes Gleevec exciting. The researchers studied the cancer, purposely designed a drug to fix it, built the drug and, by George, it worked! Lance ***** – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is up with the new cancer pill?  Can it help us with BC?   Karen

Response:

<snip Many other chemo drugs today (like cyclophosamide or Cytoxan) are highly

Oops, that should be cyclophosphamide. I wonder why my spell checker didn’t catch it Lance *****

Response:

What about the new cancer vaccine? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip Many other chemo drugs today (like cyclophosamide or Cytoxan) are highly Oops, that should be cyclophosphamide. I wonder why my spell checker didn’t catch it Lance *****

Response:

What about the new cancer vaccine?

There are more than one. And more than one "type".  The basic approach attempts to "educate" the immune system to see a receptor site on an abnormal cell. Once identified as foreign, the killer cells and cytokine stystems will attempt to destroy the cancer cell in a like manner to other foreign invaders. This is not easy science and not every immune system responds appropriately to kill the cancer. Is th eproblem the immune reponse or the cancer cell itself?  In microbiology vaccines – we havetrouble making a vaccine that "unmasks"  HIV. The virus is tricky and hides itself with a variety of methods fooling the immune system and carrying on. The cancer cell is far smarter than the HIV virus particle. There have been some good responses, but they are not the perfect answer. Simply another tool that may help some of us — and if you are one of them – the statistics are perfect for you. Cole LaFrance

Response: