Hope of fresh treatment for seven cancers after single antibody is found to shrink tumours from all of them

Tumours including breast, ovarian and brain cancers can be shrunk and in some cases even cured with a single antibody, scientist have found.
The tests, carried out by transplanting human tumours into mice, gave dramatic results showing the cancer either shrank or disappeared - leading the researchers to plan tests on humans within the next two years.

The Y-shaped human antibody works by unmasking the cancer cells to the body's disease-fighting white blood cells
The antibody works by masking a protein flag on the the cancer cells that masks them from macrophages, the white blood cell which fights infection, and from the other cells in the immune system.
Professor Irving Weissman said: 'Blocking this 'don’t-eat-me' signal inhibits the growth in mice of nearly every human cancer we tested, with minimal toxicity.
'This shows conclusively that this protein, CD47, is a legitimate and promising target for human cancer therapy.'
The Stanford University School of Medicine scientists achieved the findings with human breast, ovarian, colon, bladder, brain, liver and prostate cancer samples.
It is the first antibody treatment shown to be broadly effective against a variety of human solid tumors, with some overt cures in the laboratory animals, leaving the investigators eager to begin human clinical trials within the next two years.
Breakthrough: Professor Irving Weissman from Stanford University who made the finding
The antibody treatment also significantly inhibited the ability of the tumors to metastasize throughout the animals’ bodies in the study which is the first to show the importance of the treatment.
Professor Robert Weinberg, who did not work on the paper, commented: 'This is exciting work and will surely trigger a worldwide wave of research designed to convert this strategy into useful therapies.
'Mobilizing the immune system to attack solid tumors has been a longstanding goal of many cancer researchers for decades.'
Previous work by the team has shown that the antibody CD47 is normally expressed on the surfaces of circulating blood stem cells to protect them from the macrophages immune cells which patrol the body looking for signs of trouble in the form of invaders or rogue cells which sometimes latch onto the wrong targets.
CD47 prompts them to release cells they’ve grabbed by mistake.
Some types of cancer cells - particularly those of blood cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma - have figured out a way to game the system and use this “don’t-eat-me signal” to their advantage by expressing CD47 on their own surfaces.
Surgical samples of the variety of human tumours were collected and they expressed CD47 usually at higher levels of about three times more than non-cancerous cells.
People whose cancer cells express a lot of CD47 tend to have shorter life spans than people with similar cancers that express less CD47 - meaning analysis of levels could help with prognosis.

The human tumour cells were transplanted into matching locations in the bodies of mice - breast cancer tumours into the mammary fat pads, and ovarian cancer tumours into the abdomen. Once the tumors were well-established after two weeks or more they treated the animals with the anti-CD47 antibody.
Most of the established tumours begin to shrink and even, in some cases, disappear within weeks of treatment with the antibody. In one case, antibody treatment cured five mice injected with the same human breast cancer cells.

When the tumour was gone, the treatment was discontinued; the mice were monitored for four months with no signs of recurrence.
Professor Weissman said: “These results indicate that anti-CD47 antibodies can dramatically inhibit the growth of human solid tumors by blocking the ability of CD47 to transmit the ‘don’t-eat-me’ signal to macrophages.
“If the tumor was highly aggressive the antibody also blocked metastasis. It’s becoming very clear that, in order for a cancer to survive in the body, it has to find some way to evade the cells of the innate immune system.”

The innate immune system is the body’s first line of defense against pathogens like bacteria and viruses the cells of which respond non-specifically to a variety of threats.
But in some animals the antibody treatment did not work at all and shrinking the tumour with surgery or radiotherapy initially of using another antibody to stimulate the killer instinct in the cells could make the treatment more effective.
“There’s certainly more to learn,” said Professor Weissman. “We need to learn more about the relationship between macrophages and tumor cells, and how to draw more macrophages to the tumours.
“We believe these results show that we should move forward quickly but cautiously into human clinical trials for many types of solid tumours.”

The research will be published online today (Mon) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2120520/Promising-new-treatment-seven-cancers-single-antibody-shrink-tumours-them.html#ixzz1qG9txlN2

“There’s certainly more to learn,” said Professor Weissman. “We need to learn more about the relationship between macrophages and tumor cells, and how to draw more macrophages to the tumours.



Quite. Whilst cancer treatment remains a last hope for many if our immune systems can recognise early cancer warnings then many more will be saved.

if this treatment works in humans then it will be good news for thousands if not millions of people, however the downside is even more people alive using up scant resources.


thank heavens they can do trials on animals.

Flap Meister wrote:if this treatment works in humans then it will be good news for thousands if not millions of people, however the downside is even more people alive using up scant resources.


thank heavens they can do trials on animals.

the cancers that are mainly discussing are those which occur here in the west. I believe that most cancers are entirely diet related. A better diet rather than more drugs would be more beneficial.

As for animals, I believe that small rodents are used to cultivate the initial antibody. That's their real value as opposed to "testing" the resulting drug IMO

Seren wrote:

the cancers that are mainly discussing are those which occur here in the west. I believe that most cancers are entirely diet related. A better diet rather than more drugs would be more beneficial.

As for animals, I believe that small rodents are used to cultivate the initial antibody. That's their real value as opposed to "testing" the resulting drug IMO

Whilst i agree with your position on a couple of your statements (diet and these drugs being originally from rodents)........animal testing across mammals is vital and it is actually illegal in this country to put an unproven drug in a human until extensive animal testing is done.

We simply do not know how the system will react until we test on animals........and it is they that provide the ultimate sacrifice and I am grateful for that. I wish their was a different way.....but their isn't.

I do support the diet claims for adult cancers.....especially colon, throat and breast.......but not for children's cancers and leukaemias (a personal area of interest of mine)

Durham wrote:

Whilst i agree with your position on a couple of your statements (diet and these drugs being originally from rodents)........animal testing across mammals is vital and it is actually illegal in this country to put an unproven drug in a human until extensive animal testing is done.

We simply do not know how the system will react until we test on animals........and it is they that provide the ultimate sacrifice and I am grateful for that. I wish their was a different way.....but their isn't.

I do support the diet claims for adult cancers.....especially colon, throat and breast.......but not for children's cancers and leukaemias (a personal area of interest of mine)

sorry, I may have been a little ambiguous there. I was not arguing against the use of the animals in the testing but merely pointing out that cultivation of the antibodies themselves is a vital part of ongoing cancer treatment long after the initial R&D

of course there are many cancers like childhood ones which are not caused, or appear to be at least, by modern lifestyles.

but there's now a huge amount of evidence that supports the idea that our modern diets are causing these cancers

Seren wrote:

Durham wrote:

Whilst i agree with your position on a couple of your statements (diet and these drugs being originally from rodents)........animal testing across mammals is vital and it is actually illegal in this country to put an unproven drug in a human until extensive animal testing is done.

We simply do not know how the system will react until we test on animals........and it is they that provide the ultimate sacrifice and I am grateful for that. I wish their was a different way.....but their isn't.

I do support the diet claims for adult cancers.....especially colon, throat and breast.......but not for children's cancers and leukaemias (a personal area of interest of mine)

sorry, I may have been a little ambiguous there. I was not arguing against the use of the animals in the testing but merely pointing out that cultivation of the antibodies themselves is a vital part of ongoing cancer treatment long after the initial R&D

of course there are many cancers like childhood ones which are not caused, or appear to be at least, by modern lifestyles.

but there's now a huge amount of evidence that supports the idea that our modern diets are causing these cancers

there are some though that would argue against the use of animals in any capacity which is ridiculous in my view.

Although I would not object to trials being done on criminals in exchange for shorter sentences.
Especially those that require vivisection at the end.

Flap Meister wrote:

there are some though that would argue against the use of animals in any capacity which is ridiculous in my view.

Although I would not object to trials being done on criminals in exchange for shorter sentences.
Especially those that require vivisection at the end.

of course its distressing to see higher primates being used in cross species transplant research but as gene therapy continues we'll see more animal testing not less

a lot of mice in labs appear to have fairly innocuous lives though, are just fed, watered and observed daily. even the little chap who grew that ear seemed remarkably unfazed by the whole thing

what makes me laugh is those who argue against research using rodents often have cats that they regularly allow out after rain without bells to terrorise the local bird population

hypocrites

Seren wrote:



sorry, I may have been a little ambiguous there. I was not arguing against the use of the animals in the testing but merely pointing out that cultivation of the antibodies themselves is a vital part of ongoing cancer treatment long after the initial R&D

of course there are many cancers like childhood ones which are not caused, or appear to be at least, by modern lifestyles.

but there's now a huge amount of evidence that supports the idea that our modern diets are causing these cancers

Indeed you are correct on your final paragraph Seren.

If you believe the theories of evolution.....we were supposed to just eat wil fruits and veg, rabbit and fish.

We then somehow got to red meat and then processed rubbish.

It is not just cancers that are caused by our diets.....but heart disease is driven almost exclusively by cholesterol, obesity leads to diabetes frequently although not exclusively and obesity itsf causes problems for our joints, heart and lungs

Add in alcohol for the liver and pancreas and I sometimes wonder how we are living at all......never mind longer!!!

Nice to see you here BTW

Seren wrote:

of course its distressing to see higher primates being used in cross species transplant research but as gene therapy continues we'll see more animal testing not less

a lot of mice in labs appear to have fairly innocuous lives though, are just fed, watered and observed daily. even the little chap who grew that ear seemed remarkably unfazed by the whole thing

what makes me laugh is those who argue against research using rodents often have cats that they regularly allow out after rain without bells to terrorise the local bird population

hypocrites

Hahaha!!

There always a debate at the weekend similar to your final point.

I saw some hunters out at the weekend (I know not if they were chasing or had seen a fox) and then we got the usual ripping apart of animals and animal cruelty. But some of these people will eat battery hens and eggs, pigs and cows that live on bars or concrete......And my position was if you don't want animal cruelty, that's fine and I respect it......but it starts with animals I eat versus those I don't....

Durham wrote:

Hahaha!!

There always a debate at the weekend similar to your final point.

I saw some hunters out at the weekend (I know not if they were chasing or had seen a fox) and then we got the usual ripping apart of animals and animal cruelty. But some of these people will eat battery hens and eggs, pigs and cows that live on bars or concrete......And my position was if you don't want animal cruelty, that's fine and I respect it......but it starts with animals I eat versus those I don't....

like the guys who let out mink from mink farms

how many little mammals deaths did that result in, especially with lower water levels threatening lots of watervoles now

they in particular have a lot of blood on their hands


PS thanks for the hello also


Fair points about battery farming, been a supporter of CIWF for many years which strives to promote better welfare amongst livestock. Most of unwashed who demonstrate against hunting and shooting have zero idea about welfare regulations here in the UK

Seren wrote:

like the guys who let out mink from mink farms

how many little mammals deaths did that result in, especially with lower water levels threatening lots of watervoles now

they in particular have a lot of blood on their hands


PS thanks for the hello also


Fair points about battery farming, been a supporter of CIWF for many years which strives to promote better welfare amongst livestock. Most of unwashed who demonstrate against hunting and shooting have zero idea about welfare regulations here in the UK

You're welcome and once again i totally agree with your final point.

I do care for where my meat comes from.......more so than any fox........and that's why I only buy free range organic. It has meant we have had to eat less meat and consider where we buy......but I do think the standard and taste is better.

And I also feel better for what I buy!