Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Leukemia Breakthrough - Serial Killer T Cells Wipe Out Tumors In Small Trial

iJohnHenry

iJohnHenry

macrumors P6
Original poster
Mar 22, 2008
16,527
30
On tenterhooks
I'm surprised none of this smart group has started a thread yet, about this achievement.

So I will. ;)

T-Bots to the rescue?? One can but hope. :cool:

This could put the whole Cancer "industry" right on it's ear.
 
Here is the abstract from the actual publication:

Chimeric Antigen Receptor–Modified T Cells in Chronic Lymphoid Leukemia
David L. Porter, M.D., Bruce L. Levine, Ph.D., Michael Kalos, Ph.D., Adam Bagg, M.D., and Carl H. June, M.D.

We designed a lentiviral vector expressing a chimeric antigen receptor with specificity for the B-cell antigen CD19, coupled with CD137 (a costimulatory receptor in T cells [4-1BB]) and CD3-zeta (a signal-transduction component of the T-cell antigen receptor) signaling domains. A low dose (approximately 1.5×105 cells per kilogram of body weight) of autologous chimeric antigen receptor–modified T cells reinfused into a patient with refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) expanded to a level that was more than 1000 times as high as the initial engraftment level in vivo, with delayed development of the tumor lysis syndrome and with complete remission. Apart from the tumor lysis syndrome, the only other grade 3/4 toxic effect related to chimeric antigen receptor T cells was lymphopenia. Engineered cells persisted at high levels for 6 months in the blood and bone marrow and continued to express the chimeric antigen receptor. A specific immune response was detected in the bone marrow, accompanied by loss of normal B cells and leukemia cells that express CD19. Remission was ongoing 10 months after treatment. Hypogammaglobulinemia was an expected chronic toxic effect.
 
I read some articles about this. Looks exciting, but important to note the study had an N=3.

Two patients into total remission, one improved. Question is how long will the effect last. Similar techniques have been used in the past, but the cells have died out quickly.

Nevertheless, this is certainly interesting.

Would be wonderful if it worked. :D
 
Shrink said:
I read some articles about this. Looks exciting, but important to note the study had an N=3.
Click to expand...

True, but apparently they were all "advanced" cases, and were willing to take part in the limited trial.

Shrink said:
Question is how long will the effect last. Similar techniques have been used in the past, but the cells have died out quickly.
Click to expand...

If the T-bots draw their growth 'energy' from only cancer cells, they would eventually die in their absence. This would ideally prevent them from unlimited growth.

A remission failure could be readdressed, ad infinitum.

NOTE: The above idiot is not a micro-biologist.
 
iJohnHenry said:
True, but apparently they were all "advanced" cases, and were willing to take part in the limited trial.



If the T-bots draw their growth 'energy' from only cancer cells, they would eventually die in their absence. This would ideally prevent them from unlimited growth.

A remission failure could be readdressed, ad infinitum.

NOTE: The above idiot is not a micro-biologist.
Click to expand...

But I play one on TV. :rolleyes:
 
AhmedFaisal said:
Interesting, but far from market ready, unfortunately.

1. Small study group N=3. Let's see them reproduce the results in a larger, double blinded, controlled and randomized Phase II or Phase III with 100+ patients (whatever you need for a p<0.05)

2. What will it ultimately cost to do this. We are living in a world where cost per QUALI will ultimately decide if this gets reimbursed by insurance companies (and yes, this WILL happen in the US also, in fact it is already happening).

So, let's wait and see. I give it another 7-8 years before it might be market ready.
Click to expand...

Don't really see the need for the double blind trial. The results are objective rather than subjective, like a pain killer or anti-depressant. Just because someone thinks it is working will not change the results of a biopsy.
 
AhmedFaisal said:
Interesting, but far from market ready, unfortunately.

1. Small study group N=3. Let's see them reproduce the results in a larger, double blinded, controlled and randomized Phase II or Phase III with 100+ patients (whatever you need for a p<0.05)

2. What will it ultimately cost to do this. We are living in a world where cost per QUALI will ultimately decide if this gets reimbursed by insurance companies (and yes, this WILL happen in the US also, in fact it is already happening).

So, let's wait and see. I give it another 7-8 years before it might be market ready.
Click to expand...

I thought the FDA required a p < .001 for treatments, or at least I was told so in my Design of Experiments course. Is there something different about this case given the group the treatment is meant for?
 
[B said:
Dr Kevorkian94;[/B]13212695]Ah I can understand, thank you bio class. This is a nice achievement, one step foward.
Click to expand...

Considering your user name, this could be wonderful for all of us - but bad for your business. :rolleyes: :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back