A Cancer Breakthrough

Photo: Dr. Carl June / Penn Medicine

Photo: Dr. Carl June / Penn Medicine

Eryn Brown reports for the LA Times that in early results from a clinical trial, genetically engineered T cells eradicate leukemia cells and thrive. Two of three patients studied have been cancer-free for more than a year:

In a potential breakthrough in cancer research, scientists at the University of Pennsylvania have genetically engineered patients’ T cells — a type of white blood cell — to attack cancer cells in advanced cases of a common type of leukemia.

Two of the three patients who received doses of the designer T cells in a clinical trial have remained cancer-free for more than a year, the researchers said.

Experts not connected with the trial said the feat was important because it suggested that T cells could be tweaked to kill a range of cancers, including ones of the blood, breast and colon.

“This is a huge accomplishment — huge,” said Dr. Lee M. Nadler, dean for clinical and translational research at Harvard Medical School, who discovered the molecule on cancer cells that the Pennsylvania team’s engineered T cells target.

Findings of the trial were reported Wednesday in two journals.

To build the cancer-attacking cells, the researchers modified a virus to carry instructions for making a molecule that binds with leukemia cells and directs T cells to kill them. Then they drew blood from three patients who suffered from chronic lymphocytic leukemia and infected their T cells with the virus.

When they infused the blood back into the patients, the engineered T cells successfully eradicated cancer cells, multiplied to more than 1,000 times in number and survived for months. They even produced dormant “memory” T cells that might spring back to life if the cancer was to return.

On average, the team calculated, each engineered T cell eradicated at least 1,000 cancer cells…

[continues in the LA Times]

, ,

  • wanted

    i liked this

  • wanted

    i liked this

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002096392169 LB Zhang

    I am not surprised at this so called breakthrough, because my research
    has clearly proved the immune system has the potential to eradicate
    tumors, even solid tumors as long as a strong enough anti-tumor immune
    response was induced.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002096392169 LB Zhang

    I am not surprised at this so called breakthrough, because my research
    has clearly proved the immune system has the potential to eradicate
    tumors, even solid tumors as long as a strong enough anti-tumor immune
    response was induced.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Connor-Gilbert/1083847413 Jack Connor Gilbert

      hello lb zhang, i would love to discuss your research with you, may i contact you somehow?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002096392169 LB Zhang

        Sure, I’d like to discuss my research with you. I have got some amazing results and I hope more people will realize the importance of these results.

  • Wastelandindustrial

    its funny. Every few months I see a study that is a huge breakthrough for cancer or AIDS treatment but you never hear about it again.

    • Jin The Ninja

      Of course, cancer drugs/hiv drugs are HUGE profits, any kind of cure will promptly be defunded and left in an obscure medical journal collecting dust.

    • Antibreeder

      That is so true, same goes with the discovery of a new energy or fuel source, but what else is new?

  • Wastelandindustrial

    its funny. Every few months I see a study that is a huge breakthrough for cancer or AIDS treatment but you never hear about it again.

  • Anonymous

    Of course, cancer drugs/hiv drugs are HUGE profits, any kind of cure will promptly be defunded and left in an obscure medical journal collecting dust.

  • Anonymous

    Of course, cancer drugs/hiv drugs are HUGE profits, any kind of cure will promptly be defunded and left in an obscure medical journal collecting dust.

  • Antibreeder

    That is so true, same goes with the discovery of a new energy or fuel source, but what else is new?

  • Voidthought

    Resident Evil

  • Voidthought

    Resident Evil

  • theajames

    Cancer makes too much money to ever be cured, watch this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac&feature=related.

  • theajames

    Cancer makes too much money to ever be cured, watch this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac&feature=related.

  • Zycerin

    I have to say I am quite surprised that no one here has mentioned “Hemp Oil”, as a possible cure…of course for my own personal reasons I BELIEVE it’s a cure, but everyone else needs that word “possible” thrown in there. So in hope of bypassing any rude unwanted comments about how Hemp Oil as a cure for any illness is BS, I will say it’s a “possible” cure.
    None the less when given our medical systems’ options of hoping the chemo and/or radiation kills the cancer cells before completly destroying you, (and let’s not forget that most will still end up dying in 5yrs from taking the chemo and radiation in the 1st place), it seems to me that trying a non toxic plant as a  chance is more than acceptable.
    For anyone interested here are a few links…

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/?page=1
    -Dr.Tashkins’ actual report is here
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full

    http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid
    (The Gov. has patented cannabis as a medicine…)

    http://phoenixtears.ca/   (This is Rick Simpsons’ site, as far as I can tell this man has really tried to push this information and seems to genuinely care and want to help people.)

    Rick Simpson is helped by Christian Laurette who runs a youtube page with loads of other info and links..-
    http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek

    Here is a biochemist that comes from working at MDAnderson that has cured his stage 4 prostate cancer with the oil.
    http://web.me.com/dbhill/cure/Home.html

    And an interview with him.
    Pt1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ytJu4Zcrk&list=PLA164FC21F00053D0&index=38
    Pt2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxSQZZKIgs&list=PLA164FC21F00053D0&index=39
    (Those interviews have the WORST music ever btw…)

    And a personal fav of mine, here is a father that cured his toddlers cancer with the oil. This made me cry, I just watched my father in law go through the exact same process. He wouldn’t take the oil and what this little boy went though I watched and all I can say he is SO lucky that his dad tried the oil and ignored the doctors…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmviQBB5DHs&list=PLA164FC21F00053D0&index=36

    Hope this info helps someone. Believe me there is actually A LOT of information out there, valid, solid info that all shows marijuana has definite cancer fighting properties and not just cancer but a whole slew of other ailments as well.

  • Zycerin

    I have to say I am quite surprised that no one here has mentioned “Hemp Oil”, as a possible cure…of course for my own personal reasons I BELIEVE it’s a cure, but everyone else needs that word “possible” thrown in there. So in hope of bypassing any rude unwanted comments about how Hemp Oil as a cure for any illness is BS, I will say it’s a “possible” cure.
    None the less when given our medical systems’ options of hoping the chemo and/or radiation kills the cancer cells before completly destroying you, (and let’s not forget that most will still end up dying in 5yrs from taking the chemo and radiation in the 1st place), it seems to me that trying a non toxic plant as a  chance is more than acceptable.
    For anyone interested here are a few links…

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/?page=1
    -Dr.Tashkins’ actual report is here
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full

    http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid
    (The Gov. has patented cannabis as a medicine…)

    http://phoenixtears.ca/   (This is Rick Simpsons’ site, as far as I can tell this man has really tried to push this information and seems to genuinely care and want to help people.)

    Rick Simpson is helped by Christian Laurette who runs a youtube page with loads of other info and links..-
    http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek

    Here is a biochemist that comes from working at MDAnderson that has cured his stage 4 prostate cancer with the oil.
    http://web.me.com/dbhill/cure/Home.html

    And an interview with him.
    Pt1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ytJu4Zcrk&list=PLA164FC21F00053D0&index=38
    Pt2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxSQZZKIgs&list=PLA164FC21F00053D0&index=39
    (Those interviews have the WORST music ever btw…)

    And a personal fav of mine, here is a father that cured his toddlers cancer with the oil. This made me cry, I just watched my father in law go through the exact same process. He wouldn’t take the oil and what this little boy went though I watched and all I can say he is SO lucky that his dad tried the oil and ignored the doctors…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmviQBB5DHs&list=PLA164FC21F00053D0&index=36

    Hope this info helps someone. Believe me there is actually A LOT of information out there, valid, solid info that all shows marijuana has definite cancer fighting properties and not just cancer but a whole slew of other ailments as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Connor-Gilbert/1083847413 Jack Connor Gilbert

    hello lb zhang, i would love to discuss your research with you, may i contact you somehow?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Connor-Gilbert/1083847413 Jack Connor Gilbert

    hello lb zhang, i would love to discuss your research with you, may i contact you somehow?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002096392169 LB Zhang

      It is true that some very promising treatments in animal models failed when using in cancer patients, but that failure can not be explained only with  the difference between human and mice. According to my opinion, the real reason is that the researcher who did the study only know their treatment works in their animal model,but not know why it works. I am sure if they change a different tumor animal model, their treatment would probably also fail, just like in cancer patients.

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • mikejim

    I’m pretty sure the reason for that is less to do with there being some conspiratorial pharmaceutical specter that strikes down cancer breakthroughs before seeing fruition, and more to do with the fact that research typically takes 8-15 years from the lab to the bedside. This leukemia research is currently in a Phase I FDA trial, it has a long time to go before it makes it through all 3 phases and becomes the standard of care. The bulk of the standard of care in the industry today probably comes from research done in the 80s and 90s. It’s an extremely slow and expensive process, it can cost a company  a billion dollars to move a drug through the trials…and most drugs end up not making it thru the trials. Another thing to consider is the fact that all the basic preclinical research is done with non-humans, who have very different immune/vascular/micro-extracellular environments than humans…so research that is very promising and often cures cancer in rats in the labs initially, ends up performing less than promisingly when they start testing it on humans in clinical trials.  I think people are too cynical of the industry intentions in their estimation of the lack of progress in cancer treatment and not nearly enough respectful and humble about about our deficient understanding of our extremely complex biology, or how difficult cancer can be to treat.  With our current knowledge and technology we are unable to address the underlying cause of the vast majority of diseases that afflict humankind, yet people feel we’re “holding back”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002096392169 LB Zhang

    Sure, I’d like to discuss my research with you. I have got some amazing results and I hope more people will realize the importance of these results.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002096392169 LB Zhang

    It is true that some very promising treatments in animal models failed when using in cancer patients, but that failure can not be explained only with  the difference between human and mice. According to my opinion, the real reason is that the researcher who did the study only know their treatment works in their animal model,but not know why it works. I am sure if they change a different tumor animal model, their treatment would probably also fail, just like in cancer patients.