RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Dr. Arkady Mandel said
99942Apophis wrote: CancerSlayer as you are aware I can barely get around in medical vernacular however you wrote
The key to a durable response/cure for any solid tumor imo has to involve not only a robust cancer cell kill rate, but also a long-lasting protective immunity...for some, inducing the latter may require a form of cancer vaccine (i.e. serial boosters) or a combo treatment that engenders a more durable response. Good luck.
As said a few patients had gone through other treatments & possibly other trials would there be a chance that because of the other treatments there could be a lasting affect to the immune system’s response to the positive or negative that should be noted by the lead investigators should that previous treatment replicate same response to patients moving from each specific treatment to TLD-1433?
Sorry for the late response...busy day today. You raise an excellent point Apophis that unfortunately doesn't have a clear answer. Assuming there are enough cancer cells destroyed, any treatment will generally induce an anticancer immune response (just as BCG does). However, it would be very difficult to quantify how much a particular prior therapy would impact a subsequent one, especially when that prior therapy uses a different mode of action that can lead to a different & variable immune response.
Imo, we can assume that all of the trial participants likely have some preexisting low level of immunity or immune memory against the cancer. Considering the complexity & singularity of an individual's immune system, the robustness/protective ability of each patient's immune response will always vary. Not only can each mode of therapy elicit a different level/degree of an immune response for any given patient, each patient generates a different response for a variety of reasons (age, general health status, genetics, etc.). And as you stated, it's hard to determine whether a prior treatment will act as a sort of primer of the immune system for a subsequent therapy (i.e. offer an additive/complimentary effect) or simply offer nothing at all....in the latter case, I imagine some patients who have received so many treatments & have failed multiple therapies may be prone to having what's called immune exhaustion wherein the immune response simply becomes less robust over time...when it has chronically been exposed to a certain level of the same cancer antigen(s). This is a naturally protective phenomenon of the human body. The body also has the tendency to protect itself against a constantly stimulated or overstimulated immune system, avoiding a type of immune toxicity. This phenomenon can be seen in the treatment of many refractory/relapsing cancers. This phenomenon also highlights the importance of a treatment option that is both a rapid & efficient cancer killer & can also elicit a rapid & effective immune response, limiting the potential for cancer resistance or any relapse to develop b/o waning immunity. Maybe the above can help explain some of my excitement re: this ACT's unique potential : )
All imo.
Sorry for the long-winded answer, but this is complicated stuff & explains why many solid tumors are so difficult to cure. Fyi...I do have a medical background, but I certainly don't consider myself an expert in this particular field. Good luck...