Clues to why 'vaccine' for prostate cancer works
A new vaccine for prostate cancer “could save thousands of lives”, The Daily Telegraph reports.
The paper says that “scientists at Nottingham Trent University believe they have found a vaccine that can effectively ‘switch-off’ cancerous tumours by spurring the immune system into overdrive”.
This news story is based on research in mice designed to learn more about how Provenge – a new vaccine treatment for advanced prostate cancer – works. The vaccine “reprogrammes” the man’s own immune cells to attack the prostate cancer cells. It does this by training the immune cells to recognise a specific protein (PAP) that is found in most prostate tumours, and trigger an immune response to it.
The researchers in the current study wanted to see exactly which areas of the PAP protein prompt the immune response, as this information may help in designing improved vaccines. They identified three parts of the PAP protein that can prompt an immune response. The immune response to one of these sections of the protein prevented tumour growth in the mice. Therefore, the vaccine may have its effect by targeting this part of the protein.
Previous studies comparing the vaccine with an inactive placebo have demonstrated that it improves survival by a few months in a specific group of men with advanced prostate cancer. Earlier this year the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which regulates medicines in Europe, recommended that the vaccine is granted marketing authorisation for men with these specific disease characteristics.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Nottingham Trent University and was funded by a programme grant from the John and Lucille van Geest Foundation. The study was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Immunology.
I would provide the link but Yahoo apparently deletes the messages with links.
you are now on the ignore...this is great news, that they have good quality control that they are rejecting this defective antigen. This is about quality of care to the patients you idiot.
As the CEO said the competition is now evolved, Provenge is the best treatment on the market. Zytega/Prednisone takes 18 months for any survial benefit compared to placebo+prednisone and the survival benefit which did not level of significance is also highly suspect because it is possible that it takes 18 months for Prednisone to ware down the placebo patients immune system. The Xtandi has only a 2 month benefit. There is significant cross resistance to Xtandi and provenge usage and finally Provenge is going to be the standard of therapy followed by Xtandi if necessary. Huber is also proven to be the fool that she was, and now with a record, and she is lucky she made a deal with the feds or she and her boyfriend would have had to spend a few years in jail. The sun is beginning to from the clouds and the CFO said we are driving share holder value and I am seeing value here. And by the way, there are 69 million shares short that have to cover and every time DNDN goes up 10% they have to deposit 20% to maintain margin.
M-K curve did not separate for 18 months, in other words it took 18 months to wear down the immune of the placebo arm by prednisone. In my opinion without prednisone in the placebo arm Zytega would have been an utter failure.
Zitiga/predinisone vs prednisone did not reach statistical significance so that data is meaningless, beside since the placebo patients receied prednisone any survival data comparing to a known immuno suppresant is meaningless.
From MEDIVATION press release it is only 2.2 months and not 2.4 months
The percentage of patients alive in the enzalutamide arm was 72% as compared with 65% in the placebo arm at the time of the interim analysis data cut-off date. Treatment with enzalutamide resulted in a calculated point estimate for median overall survival of 32.4 months (95% confidence interval, 31.5 months-upper limit not yet reached) versus 30.2 months (95% confidence interval, 28.0 months-upper limit not yet reached) for patients receiving placebo. Because the trial will be stopped early with the majority of patients still alive, the estimated median survivals are not as precise as the hazard ratio. The hazard ratio takes into account available information about the trial endpoint from all patients whereas the median is a single point estimate of a much smaller number of patients at risk.
MF just strives for clicks, just ignore them. We know XTANDI had only a 2 month survival benefit and Zytiga/prednisone did not reach statistical significance and furthermore the placebo patients were on prednisone a known immunosupressant. Xtandi and Zygiga sequencing has in single digit percentage response rate, the insurance companies will never cover that sequencing.
We have some SEC enforcement: She and her boyfriend not only bought puts to the tune of 100,000 of thousands of dollar but also the beach bought an undisclosed amount of puts in her mother's account. The next investigation should be how a respected paper agreed to publish her garbage-science.
Here is an excerpt from the beach's web site:
I have no financial interest, nor other conflicts of interest related to anything discussed in this website. The reason I didn't look for a new job and pursue publication while working for a firm that allowed me to, was to free myself from (perfectly understandable) accusations of having a conflict of interests. I did not want ad hominem arguments to distract from the facts of a debate in which thousands of lives are at stake. For those interested in my motivations or the path which led me to this decision, I have written the sections below.
Since neither I, nor my former employer, has any financial interest in the fate of Provenge, some readers might be wondering “why?”. I have tried my best to sharemy motivations, both for quitting my job to publish the JNCI paper, and for investing the time and energy into creating this website, here: Why.pdf