Submitted by Homie4-2-0 t3_zx58bl in singularity

They're developing a neutrophil treatment that showed 90% tumor reduction in organoid models of late-stage solid tumors over 4 days of treatment. Apparently, the treatment works regardless of mutations, location, and type of cancer. It's also cheap and scalable. Clinical trials start in 2024. If this works, it could mean the end of cancer before 2030. (Presentation where he goes into detail)



You must log in or register to comment.

Phoenix5869 t1_j1yho5s wrote

I really hope this goes somewhere


ihateshadylandlords t1_j1zri77 wrote


!RemindMe 5 years


Babelette t1_j1z6uli wrote

Organoid models are very different from in vivo systems. I hope it goes somewhere but cancer has been cured in cell cultures and mice thousands of times over. Translation to humans is a huge hurdle.


Homie4-2-0 OP t1_j1z8bky wrote

From what I recall, there was a safety trial involving granulocytes in terminally ill patients, and it resulted in tumors shrinking up to 80%. This was done with a low dose of a weaker neutrophil than what they're using. I usually don't post much about cancer because of the concerns you addressed, but all the data I've seen from them and the universality of the treatment leave me optimistic.


Babelette t1_j1z8wmk wrote

Considering that the bar for NDAs is extending life by a few months or years, it could definitely go through.

Shrinkage isn't a cure through. I think over time cancer will become a chronic managed illness like diabetes or HIV.


Homie4-2-0 OP t1_j1zcty6 wrote

Keep in mind that those results were with a safety dose of a weaker version of the neutrophils they're currently using. Their mouse studies with stronger neutrophils and higher dosing resulted in 100% survival rates and tumor elimination. What the safety study does prove is that the mechanism of action works the same way in humans as in mice. It also proves safety. That's why I think they have a pretty good chance of succeeding. Of course, biotech is a field riddled with failure, so I may very well be wrong, but I'm optimistic. Luckily, we'll only have to wait a couple of years before we know if it works.


Blackmail30000 t1_j1zcjsn wrote

perhaps a recurring issue on the seriousness level of recurring eczema. something that keeps popping up, but easily cleared up.


AsuhoChinami t1_j22ihgy wrote

I'm optimistic too. For what percentage of people was that granulocyte safety trial effective for? If it could be re-administered repeatedly, wouldn't that just make the cancer a chronic condition rather than something resulting in death?


Homie4-2-0 OP t1_j22vjhc wrote

I managed to find the original study for you. It worked in all patients, although it was a small study. They do plan on re-administration. Treatment will involve getting an infusion every 4-5 days until the cancer is gone. They expect about 6-8 infusions in total. Keep in mind that this treatment results in immune memory of the cancer, so you won't need chronic management. Also, since posting this, I found another presentation from the company where they went into detail about the methodology of their organoid models. Those results were observed from direct killing only and with only one infusion.


Current_Side_4024 t1_j1zka9t wrote

Wouldn’t it suck extra hard to be dying of cancer right now while a cure seems to be literally right around the corner? Just shows the ultimate absurdity of life


DukkyDrake t1_j1zrg9m wrote

A few studies suggest a universal cure for cancer would only increase life expectancy by about ~3 years.


Thatingles t1_j21sikg wrote

But it would alleviate a lot of suffering. Cancer is often the final cause of death for the elderly, so the life expectancy numbers may not change much, but it is still a hard way to die.

I'll take the extra 3 years too, thanks!


AsuhoChinami t1_j22gywq wrote

It's probably more than 3 years for the people actually afflicted with cancer. The "3 year" figure is likely influenced by the fact that the majority of people never develop cancer, but rather an incredibly large minority of around 39 percent (as opposed to something like heart disease, where around 86 percent of people aged 80+ are believed to have some degree of heart disease). My paternal grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1980 at the age of 56 or 57. Treatment was successful and she never developed any other form of cancer for the remainder of her life; she died in 2014 just shy of her 91st birthday, and was in good health the entire time aside from her final year where she struggled with cardiovascular dementia (she was lucid at 89 but had some problems at 90). If she'd died from her cancer in 1980, she would have lost not 3 years, but 34.


Current_Side_4024 t1_j1zyhvr wrote

Why we gotta wait until 2024 to start clinical trials? There’s lots of ppl dying right now who would probably like to be experimented on like this today. What have they got to lose? We are so cautious with trials bc we don’t want to do harm but dgaf about harm being done by our lack of cures


Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j221xkj wrote

Because people are only allowed to take experimental medicine for diseases which arent likely to kill you apparently. But cancer? A disease which is orders of magnitude more deadly. Sorry.. you need to wait 15+ years for the research to pan out.. meanwhile dogs and other animals are being cured left and right, but you're not even allowed to take a chance..


Current_Side_4024 t1_j22336p wrote

Yea the way they do it is all fucked up. I’m surprised people can accept it the way it is. I guess they don’t really think about it


Homie4-2-0 OP t1_j22u4pm wrote

Often times people don't think about it before it's too late. My brother has a friend from college who got Glioblastoma. Luckily, he's still alive, but his opinion of the FDA and medical regulation took a nose dive once he had to experience it for himself.


Thatingles t1_j21squw wrote

Partly money, partly safety. Mostly safety. A bad medical trial can go very bad.


Current_Side_4024 t1_j21un14 wrote

Can’t be worse than dying of cancer, at least there’s a chance of surviving. I’m pretty sure we slow down medical progress on purpose simply bc our society can’t handle overly rapid change even if it’s positive change


Danger-Dom t1_j20nm8e wrote

Freaking get shit on cancer. You'll be gone in 20 years and we'll laugh you out the door.


PulsatingMonkey t1_j233nah wrote

Not an expert but a 90% reduction doesn't seem that much. It grows exponentially. If even a few cells develop resistance, then you're soon back to square one. Most treatments AFAIK wipe out huge swathes of the disease before it returns.


Smart-Tomato-4984 t1_j242296 wrote

That's a good point. I notice these publications are all from the company. Its advertisement. They are going to make it sound super good!