Cancer Vaccine?

I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html

"GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message
news:FKB_g.2670$hK.969@trnddc02...
>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>
>
>

Yes it is. Don't hold your breath

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:RLD_g.175729$R63.46690@pd7urf1no...
>
> "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message
> news:FKB_g.2670$hK.969@trnddc02...
>>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes it is. Don't hold your breath


I won't. I know how the pharmaceutical companies work in this world...

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:RLD_g.175729$R63.46690@pd7urf1no...
>
> "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message
> news:FKB_g.2670$hK.969@trnddc02...
>>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>>
> Yes it is. Don't hold your breath
If I held my breath since you send this message, I'd already be nearly room
temperature. So, I assume the metaphor can be extracted out to longer
periods of times. Certainly not hours, days or weeks. Probably not months.
Are you thinking years or decades?

--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:t4M_g.17675$Cq3.13646@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>
> "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> news:RLD_g.175729$R63.46690@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message news:FKB_g.2670$hK.969@trnddc02...
>>>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>>>
>> Yes it is. Don't hold your breath
> If I held my breath since you send this message, I'd already be nearly room temperature.
> So, I assume the metaphor can be extracted out to longer periods of times. Certainly
> not hours, days or weeks. Probably not months. Are you thinking years or decades?

Here's the scientific abstract for the publication describing the
research: http://tinyurl.com/sw4jd


Injecting people with genetically engineered viruses is not
something that is done without a lot of preliminary research.
What would happen, for example, if this virus proved to be
dangerous, and it started spreading from person to person?
So I'm guessing that there will be numerous additional
mouse studies and a lot of analysis of the mice before the
first clinical trial in humans.

However, if the mouse studies continue to look good, I'm
thinking a few years to the first clinical trial in a small number
of (probably) Korean patients. Then a couple more years
before the first larger clinical trial. And a couple more for
a big trial that would be easy to get in to.

Another problem with this for those of us who might need
it is that I notice that prostate cancer was not one of the
cancers that the mice were treated for. I believe it is common
for these kinds of trials to be done only on the cancers for
which they think it's most likely to be beneficial, then extended
to try on other cancers later.

So, all in all, I'm not optimistic about anything happening for
prostate cancer patients in less than a decade - assuming
that something comes out of it at all.

However there is another effect of this kind of research.
Other researchers read it and, if they think it's promising,
they start work on it too. So maybe things could happen
a little faster than I'm projecting.

Alan

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:40:21 GMT, "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote:

>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>
>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>
Sounds like ONYX-15 all over again. ONYX-15 was a similar virus
targeted at cancer cells, but it eventually failed miserably and the
company behind it has now halted all its development. In trials it
managed to shrink the tumors, but it never completely wiped them out.
The shrunken tumors quickly grew back to the former size and larger.
On of the reasoens for the failure was probably that immune system
started attacking the virus and destroyed it before it had a chance to
finish its job. Is there any reason to think that this new virus would
be any better than ONYX-15?

ONYX-15 links:

Skyscape Content: ONYX-15 washes out premalignant oral dysplasia
Originally published: September 1, 2001
<http://mediwire.skyscape.com/main/Default.aspx?P=Content&ArticleID=4494>

BBC News | HEALTH | Virus that kills cancer unveiled
Tuesday, 9 April, 2002
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1918447.stm>

"A genetically engineered virus which is directly injected into
tumours could be effective in treating cancer, research
suggests.

Onyx-15, is a cold virus altered so that it infects and kills
only cancer cells and leaves healthy cells alone.

COMPANY NEWS; ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS STOPS CANCER VIRUS EXPERIMENT - New
York Times
Published: January 28, 2003
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B03E3D71339F93BA1575 2C0A9659C8B63&n=Top%2fNews%2fHealth%2fDiseases%2c% 20Conditions%2c%20and%20Health%20Topics%2fCancer>

"Onyx Pharmaceuticals said yesterday that it would halt
development of an experimental cancer-killing virus and cut a
quarter of its work force to focus efforts on a separate anti-
cancer compound it was developing with Bayer. The company said
it was immediately stopping research on ONYX-15, a cold virus
genetically engineered to home in on and kill cancer cells, as
a treatment for head and neck cancer and had shelved plans for
a midstage colon cancer trial. The moves are intended to help
Onyx focus on the Bayer venture, a drug called BAY 43-9006,
which is designed to fight liver and colon cancer."



--
Matti Narkia

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:05:25 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:40:21 GMT, "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote:
>
>>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>>
>>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>>
>Sounds like ONYX-15 all over again. ONYX-15 was a similar virus
>targeted at cancer cells, but it eventually failed miserably and the
>company behind it has now halted all its development. In trials it
>managed to shrink the tumors, but it never completely wiped them out.
>The shrunken tumors quickly grew back to the former size and larger.
>On of the reasoens for the failure was probably that immune system
>started attacking the virus and destroyed it before it had a chance to
>finish its job. Is there any reason to think that this new virus would
>be any better than ONYX-15?
>
The mother of all the cancer targeted viruses is probably a naturally
occurring avian Newcastle Disease Virus, which also infects humans and
prefers to replicate in cancer cells, and the vaccine MTH-68 made from
it. This treatment originated in Hungary and I believe it is still
available only there, although now there seems to be a clinical trial
in Israel:

Clinical Trial: Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) for Cancer Patients
Resistant to Conventional Anti-Cancer Modalities
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui...3EB63E?order=1

There seems to have been limited success with some cancer types, for
example with some brain cancers.


Links and references:

What is Newcastle Disease Virus?
http://www.enotalone.com/article/7354.html

MTH-68
Cancer Center - Complementary and Alternative Therapies
http://cancer.ucsd.edu/Outreach/Publ...CAMs/mth68.asp

Biologic/Organic/Pharmacologic Therapies:
MTH-68/Newcastle Disease Virusx
M. D. Anderson Cancer Center - CIMER - MTH-68
http://www.mdanderson.org/department...od=displayFull

MTH-68 (Newcastle Disease Virus Vaccine)
Mesothelioma/Asbestos Update - Avian Virus
http://www.mesothel.com/pages/avian_virus_pag.htm

Scientific Interest in Newcastle Disease Virus Is Reviving
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 91, No. 20, 1708-1710,
October 20, 1999
http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjour...nci;91/20/1708

Park MS, Garcia-Sastre A, Cros JF, Basler CF, Palese P. Newcastle
disease virus V protein is a determinant of host range restriction.
J Virol. 2003 Sep;77(17):9522-32.
PMID: 12915566 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/77/17/9522

Newcastle Disease Virus - National Cancer Institute
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/cam/NDV

Newcastle Disease Virus - National Cancer Institute
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...thprofessional

Fiola C, Peeters B, Fournier P, Arnold A, Bucur M, Schirrmacher V.
Tumor selective replication of Newcastle disease virus: association
with defects of tumor cells in antiviral defence.
Int J Cancer. 2006 Jul 15;119(2):328-38.
PMID: 16470838 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...5675/HTMLSTART

Csatary LK, Moss RW, Beuth J, Torocsik B, Szeberenyi J, Bakacs T.
Beneficial treatment of patients with advanced cancer using a
Newcastle disease virus vaccine (MTH-68/H).
Anticancer Res. 1999 Jan-Feb;19(1B):635-8.
PMID: 10216468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Schirrmacher V, Haas C, Bonifer R, Ahlert T, Gerhards R, Ertel C.
Human tumor cell modification by virus infection: an efficient and
safe way to produce cancer vaccine with pleiotropic immune stimulatory
properties when using Newcastle disease virus.
Gene Ther. 1999 Jan;6(1):63-73.
PMID: 10341877 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=10341877>

Lorence RM, Reichard KW, Katubig BB, Reyes HM, Phuangsab A, Mitchell
BR, Cascino CJ, Walter RJ, Peeples ME.
Complete regression of human neuroblastoma xenografts in athymic mice
after local Newcastle disease virus therapy.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Aug 17;86(16):1228-33.
PMID: 8040891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=8040891>

Wagner S, Csatary CM, Gosztonyi G, Koch HC, Hartmann C, Peters O,
Hernaiz-Driever P, Theallier-Janko A, Zintl F, Langler A, Wolff JE,
Csatary LK.
Combined treatment of pediatric high-grade glioma with the oncolytic
viral strain MTH-68/H and oral valproic acid.
APMIS. 2006 Oct;114(10):731-43.
PMID: 17004977 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=17004977>

Hrabak A, Csuka I, Bajor T, Csatary LK.
The cytotoxic anti-tumor effect of MTH-68/H, a live attenuated
Newcastle disease virus is mediated by the induction of nitric oxide
synthesis in rat peritoneal macrophages in vitro.
Cancer Lett. 2006 Jan 18;231(2):279-89.
PMID: 16399229 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=16399229>

Csatary LK, Bakacs T. Use of Newcastle disease virus vaccine
(MTH-68/H) in a patient with high-grade glioblastoma.
JAMA. 1999 May 5;281(17):1588-9. Erratum in: JAMA 2000 Apr
26;283(16):2107.
PMID: 10235150 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/281/17/1588-a>

Csatary LK, Gosztonyi G, Szeberenyi J, Fabian Z, Liszka V, Bodey B,
Csatary CM.
MTH-68/H oncolytic viral treatment in human high-grade gliomas.
J Neurooncol. 2004 Mar-Apr;67(1-2):83-93.
PMID: 15072452 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=15072452>
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/m6q6520201838761/>


--
Matti Narkia

Steph wrote:

> "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message
> >I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
> >
> > http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
> >
>
> Yes it is. Don't hold your breath

What's amazing, Steph?

J

"Matti Narkia" <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
news:720qj2dpetue9e5mh1estgad4035g7khvr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:40:21 GMT, "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote:
....
> Sounds like ONYX-15 all over again. ONYX-15 was a similar virus
> targeted at cancer cells, but it eventually failed miserably and the
> company behind it has now halted all its development. In trials it
> managed to shrink the tumors, but it never completely wiped them out.
> The shrunken tumors quickly grew back to the former size and larger.
> On of the reasoens for the failure was probably that immune system
> started attacking the virus and destroyed it before it had a chance to
> finish its job. Is there any reason to think that this new virus would
> be any better than ONYX-15?

Matti,

I've deleted the other newsgroups and am just posting this to
alt.support.cancer.prostate. I hope you see it.

I thought that the concept here was that the virus infects the
cells and the immune system detects the infection and destroys
the infected cells. That seems to be the strategy of the MTH-68
vaccine that you referenced in your other post.

I guess the trick is to get the infection into the tumor cells quickly
enough that the immune system doesn't have time to destroy it
before it reaches them. I'm sure that gets harder and harder after
the initial infection since the immune system adapts to it and, in
a few days, begins to flood the patient with antibodies to the virus.

We could probably suppress the immune reaction - but if we did
that, it wouldn't kill the infected tumor cells either.

Catch-22 isn't it.

Alan

"J" <ercent@anon.inv> wrote in message
news:453D4160.80918E5C@execulink.com...
> Steph wrote:
>
>> "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message
>> >I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>> >
>> > http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>> >
>>
>> Yes it is. Don't hold your breath
>
> What's amazing, Steph?
>
> J
>

The fact that the "cure for cancer" is announced every 2 years, and has been
for as long as I've been in the trade, and people still lap it up.

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:V6udnbMGOYAERqHYnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t4M_g.17675$Cq3.13646@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
>> news:RLD_g.175729$R63.46690@pd7urf1no...
>>>
>>> "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FKB_g.2670$hK.969@trnddc02...
>>>>I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....ms2asupj.html
>>>>
>>> Yes it is. Don't hold your breath
>> If I held my breath since you send this message, I'd already be nearly
>> room temperature. So, I assume the metaphor can be extracted out to
>> longer periods of times. Certainly not hours, days or weeks. Probably
>> not months. Are you thinking years or decades?
>
> Here's the scientific abstract for the publication describing the
> research: http://tinyurl.com/sw4jd
>
>
> Injecting people with genetically engineered viruses is not
> something that is done without a lot of preliminary research.
> What would happen, for example, if this virus proved to be
> dangerous, and it started spreading from person to person?
> So I'm guessing that there will be numerous additional
> mouse studies and a lot of analysis of the mice before the
> first clinical trial in humans.
>
> However, if the mouse studies continue to look good, I'm
> thinking a few years to the first clinical trial in a small number
> of (probably) Korean patients. Then a couple more years
> before the first larger clinical trial. And a couple more for
> a big trial that would be easy to get in to.
>
> Another problem with this for those of us who might need
> it is that I notice that prostate cancer was not one of the
> cancers that the mice were treated for. I believe it is common
> for these kinds of trials to be done only on the cancers for
> which they think it's most likely to be beneficial, then extended
> to try on other cancers later.
>
> So, all in all, I'm not optimistic about anything happening for
> prostate cancer patients in less than a decade - assuming
> that something comes out of it at all.
>
> However there is another effect of this kind of research.
> Other researchers read it and, if they think it's promising,
> they start work on it too. So maybe things could happen
> a little faster than I'm projecting.

Thanks Alan. As always, much more helpful than "don't hold your breath."

--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:44:52 -0400, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Matti Narkia" <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
>news:720qj2dpetue9e5mh1estgad4035g7khvr@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:40:21 GMT, "GoMavsGo" <gomavz@mavvz.com> wrote:
>...
>> Sounds like ONYX-15 all over again. ONYX-15 was a similar virus
>> targeted at cancer cells, but it eventually failed miserably and the
>> company behind it has now halted all its development. In trials it
>> managed to shrink the tumors, but it never completely wiped them out.
>> The shrunken tumors quickly grew back to the former size and larger.
>> On of the reasoens for the failure was probably that immune system
>> started attacking the virus and destroyed it before it had a chance to
>> finish its job. Is there any reason to think that this new virus would
>> be any better than ONYX-15?
>
>Matti,
>
>I've deleted the other newsgroups and am just posting this to
>alt.support.cancer.prostate. I hope you see it.
>
>I thought that the concept here was that the virus infects the
>cells and the immune system detects the infection and destroys
>the infected cells. That seems to be the strategy of the MTH-68
>vaccine that you referenced in your other post.
>
>I guess the trick is to get the infection into the tumor cells quickly
>enough that the immune system doesn't have time to destroy it
>before it reaches them. I'm sure that gets harder and harder after
>the initial infection since the immune system adapts to it and, in
>a few days, begins to flood the patient with antibodies to the virus.
>
>We could probably suppress the immune reaction - but if we did
>that, it wouldn't kill the infected tumor cells either.
>
>Catch-22 isn't it.
>
You described what I've been thinking, just in more detail and more
accurately. That antibody production could be the decisive factor in
turning the initial success into failure, although I'm no expert in
immune system nor medicine.


--
Matti Narkia

GoMavsGo wrote:
> I was reading this and it sounds fairly amazing.
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1...19102114.ms2as

Dear all,

I don't know if this is apples and oranges but I would like to mention
something on the subject of a cancer vaccine.

Cancer vaccine trials have been around for at least 8 yrs. bec. my
husband was enrolled in one. He had had a melanoma removed from his
chest and was placed in a 5-yr study at New York University Hospital
presumably to test a preventative vaccine. I don't know about
injecting viruses -- I just assumed they gave them some diminished
form of the original melanoma cells to stimulate the immune system.
(That's what they called it actually, "immunotherapy").

NYU Hosp. was considered the best for dermatology and the researcher in
charge of the study had an excellent reputation. Believe it or not,
this Dr. Bysztryn got himself and his study written up in People mag of
all places. This was after about a year and they said prelim. results
were good. I might add that people came from around the world to
participate.

Well, what happened was that after 1 1/2 or 2 yrs. they suddenly
announced that they were aborting the study for lack of funds. I found
this unbelievable because NYU Hosp. is a very rich institution and I
just couldn't believe they just ran out of money.

At the time I mentioned this all to my own doctor who is excellent and
he was a bit skeptical as well. He said could be there were some neg.
side effects or maybe there was evidence the protocol just wasn't
working. Obviously, if there were any the subjects should have been
informed. In any case I will never know and if anybody from NYU is out
there I am still waiting for an explanation?

I just hope this aborted study had nothing to do with Him getting pca.
It's unlikely I know. The doctors swear there is no relaitonship bet.
the 2 cas.

I'm a little confused about a vaccine involving a virus. Wouldn't such
a vaccine be effective only with cas like cerv. ca which we know is
caused by the pap virus?

In any case I am optimistic that they will come out with a ca virus
some day but the cure for ca in my humble opinion will be manipulating
the cell's genetic material before they become cancerous.

all the best.

Leah

callalily wrote:
>
> I'm a little confused about a vaccine involving a virus. Wouldn't such
> a vaccine be effective only with cas like cerv. ca which we know is
> caused by the pap virus?
>
>
The virus is effectively just the delivery system for a drug. The take
a regular virus and engineer it to produce the drug, then inject it into
the tumour.

Obviously this approach is only effective against large accessible
tumours, you can't cure mets like that. And there is the question of
where it goes once it's finished killing cancer.

There is research into engineering viruses to the holy trinity of
simultaneously a) seeking out cancer cells, b) delivering a lethal
payload into it, and c) evading the immune system, but that is rather
more difficult. This one only achieves b.


Tim Jackson

Tim Jackson wrote:
> callalily wrote:
> >
> > I'm a little confused about a vaccine involving a virus. Wouldn't such
> > a vaccine be effective only with cas like cerv. ca which we know is
> > caused by the pap virus?
> >
> >
> The virus is effectively just the delivery system for a drug. The take
> a regular virus and engineer it to produce the drug, then inject it into
> the tumour.

That's one possibility. Another is that the virus functions as a
target for the immune system. The human immune system
will kill cells that have been infected by a foreign organism.
If the virus is capable of only infecting tumor cells it can be
a great way to mark those cells for destruction.

> Obviously this approach is only effective against large accessible
> tumours, you can't cure mets like that. And there is the question of
> where it goes once it's finished killing cancer.

Again, we need prostate cancer specific viruses, or viruses that are
known to be not too dangerous and easily destroyed. The
adenovirus, the one that causes the common cold, is the one they
used in this research.

Perhaps they will have some agent in the future that spreads throughout
the body and infects prostate cells wherever it finds them. If so
we'll still have the problem of how to keep the immune system from
destroying the organism or virus before it has a chance to infect
the prostate cells. Our adaptive immune system is so good at
adapting that, after the initial infection, subsequent treatments
might no longer work because we'll already have antibodies to the
virus.

> There is research into engineering viruses to the holy trinity of
> simultaneously a) seeking out cancer cells, b) delivering a lethal
> payload into it, and c) evading the immune system, but that is rather
> more difficult. This one only achieves b.
>
> Tim Jackson

Maybe our sons or grandsons will have this.

Alan