The bigger deal about this is that KRAS was considered an "undruggable" target.
Recent advancements have allowed us to design biologics to do things we previously thought impossible, which broadens the horizons for other treatments in the future.
Horrible disease. We just buried my wife’s father because of stage 4 pancreatic cancer. A month ago, he was still living his life as usual. Then he developed abdominal pain, was diagnosed, and died three weeks later.
I think we should also invest more in better diagnostics and early cancer detection. That could save many lives too.
My mother's cousin just died from pancreatic cancer on Monday. She was in a trial for this drug and failed. Trying to figure out how I feel about this or how my family would.
Personally, I have epilepsy and am increasingly aware that while some paradigm-shifting treatments are on the horizon, they are a decade or so away and likely won't come to market in time to fully help me (particularly reverse small but accumulating damage caused by seizures). And that's a weird feeling.
Failing a treatment that has held promise for so many others and been heralded as paradigm-shifting is such a weird place to be. There's comfort in knowing others won't suffer, but loneliness is knowing you or a loved one still is.
Please remember that science is under attack in the United States - new proposals would gut the nih even beyond the horror that is ongoing. As a scientist I am horrified and I truly hope that we don’t abandon the usas historically strong investment in the future.
1. Trump has been trying to cut Science budgers by larger percentages for a while now. Congress has not let them.
2. NIH funding notice of awards has slowed to a crawl since Trump did not get his wish to cut Science funding.
3. Putting scientific funding under political control, instructing them to ignore the reviews conducted by peer scientists.
4. Have practically made international collaborations on grants impossible. An expert in Canada or Europe that would be great? Pretty much, too bad.
5. Pushing policies that make grants cancelable at any moment without need to have a justified reason, including potentially for exercising free speech, disagreeing with Administration doctrine, etc, or because you're ugly. This and the funding uncertainty makes planning difficult...just like business, stability/predictability matters.
6. Pushing policies that prevent funds to help cover costs of dissemination, including conference costs.
100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice. Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts.
Can you cite any stats or studies that show that this is happening in any substantial amounts? This seems to be one of those "it just makes common sense" when the underlying data is ignored or assumed.
I'm pretty sure only a small fraction of grants gave this issue, and the cuts have meanwhile being very wide, without any sort of intelligent approach (I know ppl doing stuff like material science at nasa that now have nothing to do because they cut costs of various inputs, while the very expensive lab equipment is sitting there now unused)
>100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice.
Prove it. Prove this happens at a large scale. This is just nonsense talking points.
I'm sure the average person was completely fed up with the federal grant process for medical issues and it was a driving force in their voting decision. Excellent proof.
It's called the 2024 election. People have listened to so much propaganda aimed at destroying the anyone with credibility that can challenge whichever "truth" the propagandist chooses to push.
This should go without saying, but the person you're replying to obviously wants you to prove instances of scientists receiving grant money because they know someone or are part of a group. They are not asking you to prove the support of the people.
> 100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts
I doubt "10s of millions of Americans" can describe the core functions of the NIH
> when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice.
How do you think new appointees and hires in the NIH/HHS are selected? Political loyalty seems to be a better predictor than scientific impact or output.
> Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts.
The cuts and changes are dramatically impacting research support. Grant money is not being disbursed at the same rate since the new review changes began. You can more plainly characterize the changes as harmful to research in general than focused on removing whatever specific things you don't like.
You know so little about this, ad it is terribly frustrating to me. Scientists have been made out to be villains, when, on the whole, these are some the hardest working, most motivated people you will ever encounter.
They have absolutely no idea what they are destroying or why. An entire generation of scientists will be lost. It is breathtaking to watch what will surely be someday labeled as one of the greatest acts of intentional, national self-destruction ever.
The political right is obsessed with minimizing Type II error. They feel it's better to miss good research results than to have the wrong people performing the research or chasing the wrong ideas to start with (a false negative) and the further to the right they are on the spectrum, the more important minimizing the wrong people and ideas becomes. This leads to less discovery and successes because more research gets falsely rejected at the funding level.
The political left, of course, is the opposite and obsesses over Type I error. Accepting the wrong people and ideas is less important than getting good results. This leads to things like Lysenkoism, but also tends to reject less successful research, given the other checks and balances built into a healthy system.
If the first point of comparison you reach for is the Soviet Union in the mid 20th century, that would suggest that the American political left has not in fact, in recent times, been interfering with science to the same extent as the Trump administration currently.
Could you explain how much the US spends on its science budget compared to peers? It would help us really understand how much he's cutting it and harming our science base if we knew the numbers. For example if we're spending 50% less than EU or Canada.
> Kindly share more details (about your claim that science is under attack in the United States)
Is of public knowledge that the National Science Foundation and funds for thousands of scientific projects were gutted by DOGE in 2025.
Each one of the research lines cut needed typically 10 years to grow, so Trump and GOP had destroyed an incredible amount of years of research just on 2025, with consequences probably extending into 2035 or so. Without any visible benefit for Americans, that had still seen their debt sky-rocketing while their taxes are spent in pools and sinks.
Trump has also assured to engrave into the brains of the whole scientific community that US is now an hostile place for students and researchers. The whole planet had seen the main universities attacked by Trump (with Harvard resisting, and Columbia losing their pride), the foreign students targeted by ICE and the department of Education eviscerated
Also the thousands of workers in USAID and Health and Human Services fired for fun. Without mentioning the DOGE mess done at the national nuclear safety administration with 400 essential workers fired and then asked to return to the job ASAP, please, please.
It pleases their voters. All the MAGAs I know think scientists are scammers, funded by Bill Gates, brewing up "fake" viruses to reduce the population and insert nanobots to track their movements.
They are all about science and research. What they don’t want is for scientific discoveries to be publicly available, because then it is harder to leverage them for absurd profit margins.
Another ongoing HN thread from yesterday around some exciting cancer treatment breakthroughs, this time with a CRISPR Cas12a2 mechanism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505231
This subthread there is a fascinating explainer about one user's journey into funding and incentivizing research into their own rare form of blood cancer, and how they are able to push forward the state of the art: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48506997 - something of a modern-day (and more accurate) Lorenzo's Oil!
I’m surprised Michael Levin’s research hasn’t expanded much beyond a certain YouTube media bubble. They’re able to start and stop cancer growth with only voltage changes between cells, likewise they can also trigger regeneration or anatomical changes using voltage changes. His research seems to suggest a lot of important anatomical plans are stored in an electric field around the body, not in the DNA. This model’s explanation for cancer is that some cells become disconnected from this field and start growing independently of the overall body plan.
I love his work (even though I know little more than what he says in interviews). I am also surprised it's not more widely known / applied. I am very skeptical of conspiracy-minded thinking, so I'd much rather assume his and his team's work hasn't reached escape velocity from obscurity. Especially with larger industries, it takes time and significant breakthroughs to become "a household name", so to speak.
They are working on getting in vivo studies going from what I remember - it's going to take a positive result in a trial on real patients to get attention - that's just how medicine works. You have to show it actually improves longevity and/or patient quality of life before anyone has a reason to care.
It is more than plausible that spending money on AI is spending money on healthcare. I believe with little certainty that AI will help us find new ways to fight disease, improve our health and live longer lives.
i remember so much excitement around radioligand therapies like 177Lu-PSMA-617 being better than chemo and with way way less sides . And great improvements in pfs and os.
didnt seem to have lived up to the promise. seemed to have accelerated prostate cancer for my father who passed away in mere three months after first dose.
As is often the case, the title is hyperbolic. The discovery applies to 20% of tumors, and "one of cancer's significant defenses" or "a key weakness of cancer" would be more accurate.
That said, I'll happily take "we discovered a key weakness in 20% of cancers," please and thank you.
Cancer is not one thing, it's a huge zoo of many many many ways that cells start to break the social contract and divide in an uncontrolled manner.
One of the most commonly observed broken mechanisms is mutation in the gene KRAS that turns this on/off growth switch into the permanently on position.
This has been known for decades, of course. And there have been huge amounts of effort to try to develop drugs that target KRAS in cancer, but for decades it's always been thought of as 'undruggable' because of the difficulty of finding any molecules that would affect it.
This new drug, that finally treats KRAS mutated cancers, goes about it in a new way. Instead of trying to gum up the works of a single protein by sticking a small chemical in it, it effectively "glues" the KRAS protein to another protein, CypA, which keeps the switch away from reaching the normal areas where it's "on switch" activity works.
So this new drug means two things: 1) a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for, 2) there's an entire new class of drug activity that everybody is chasing at this very moment, so in 5-25 years we'll likely have a huge number more of these sorts of treatments.
>a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for,
Can you help disambiguate this? Are there treatments now, or are there potential treatments with trials in 1-5 years?
I think the meaning is that because we can see success with KRAS mutation of pancreatic cancer, we can now begin clinical trials for other cancers that may have KRAS mutation (colorectal, lung) and see if there is success there. If there is success in treating other cancers during clinical trials, it could be fast tracked through FDA to be more generally available and then become part of the national treatment option (ideally in 1-5 years after clinical trials).
The next 1-5 years will tell us which cancers this new drug will work well on, right now it's only been tried in pancreatic cancer when people have failed their first treatment. The new drug from the article, daroxonrasib, has nine trials i see currently, here:
The first two are the trial that just completed and showed success: people that have pancreatic cancer that failed other treatments, then a "trial" that is meant to give quick access to more people now that it's been shown to work.
Then there's a trial for using it as the first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer, one for lung cancer (NSCLC), and also various combinations with other drugs. I expect we'll see a ton of new trials registered in the coming year. Especially something in combination with colon cancer, because a common drug resistance mechanism in colon cancer is to develop KRAS mutation.
The thing is that we don't really know which cancers it will work well in until we try. And there's limited number of people with cancer that enter clinical trials, and we want to give each person their very best chance at survival, and then there's the massive expense of running the clinical trial itself, so learning happens slowly, one month of survival at a time, or one cancer recurrence at a time, or one death at a time. Patients that take part in clinical trials really are the heroes here. (Especially with the side effects of this new drug, which are horrible. It is a revolutionary drug, but we need to learn how to manage the other things it does as well, and that's going to take time.)
But that's not a cure. If they don't take that drug, assuming it works, they still have the original mutation in the cancer cells.
> Patients that take part in clinical trials really are the heroes here.
Are they?
To me personally, putting people into a permanent state of requiring drugs to survive, is not really cure. It's just maximizing income for those selling those drugs. And none of those drugs work exceedingly well; people still die, even if to other disease or frailties. I don't understand this hype in general.
Wow, this is such a wildly pessimistic and cynical take. Are you okay?
> But that's not a cure. If they don't take that drug, assuming it works, they still have the original mutation in the cancer cells.
The person you're replying to called this out specifically:
> and also various combinations with other drugs.
Why do you think they try it in combination with other drugs? You might be right that this drug alone might not be a cure, but if it inhibits cancer growth, then it empowers other drugs to work more effectively.
> people still die
So what... We do nothing, then? This is your complaint? That we can't be immortal, so why bother trying to cure anything?
>However, even though the overall number of cases rises as the population grows, fewer people are getting and dying from cancer. Between 2000 and 2021, the incidence rate — or the rate of new cancer cases per 100,000 people — declined by 5.7%, while the annual mortality rate fell by 27.5%.
Cancer is a broad term encompassing many sorts of malfunction and nearly 40% of Americans will be diagnosed with it at some point because if you survive other hazards and maladies cancer is often what gets you.
This is just a failure of understanding. This particular advancement is part of a decades long slog which taken together allows a substantial number of people to live meaningful additional durations every single year. 6 months average by itself means that John got another 3 years even if Jane only got 3 more days.
If I pulled one person out of a burning building it would be newsworthy. Doctors are and have been pulling train loads every day.
I support doctors. They're doing great work. I understand that in today's US I probably should have said that explicitly, as many Americans seem to have joined the side of the cancer, viruses, etc., and now oppose doctors (or even blame doctors for the diseases). I'm not one of those irrational people.
I agree that 6 extra months (on average) means some patients get much more time than that. I agree that a statistically significant improvement on the survival rate for this terrible cancer is a very promising result longer term.
My disagreement was much narrower than that. I disagree that 6 extra months is equivalent to 5 extra years. I disagree that people living an extra 6 months on average is equivalent to one person living 3 extra years and one person living 3 extra days. I think 3 days and 3 years average out to about 1.5 years, not to 6 months.
Think of me as a living fossil who takes it for granted that everyone appreciates how much medicine improves our lives.
In my comment I pointed out that "5 years" was a bit of an exaggeration compared to the results in the article (6 months). That seemed unfortunate to me. To me 5 years seems much better than 6 months.
I can understand being frustrated and cynical with the pharmaceutical industry, but I have never worked with a single doctor that approaches patient care with the goal of getting them "hooked" on something for life.
The pharmaceutical companies are not the ones making clinical decisions - in this case, it's a shared medical decision between a patient and their oncologist.
Having seen how horrific pancreatic cancer is, how difficult it is to treat, and the decades of slow research done by academic scientists to get to this point, I am elated that we have a tool to give patients more time with their families even if their cancer can't be "cured" with this particular drug.
This may seem unsatisfying, but it's real, measurable progress. KRAS has been known about since the earliest days of cancer research, so it's a true breakthrough to finally have a drug targeting it.
Pharmaceutical companies do make clinical decisions, it just isn't called a clinical decision. But they decide what research to pursue, and thereby decide which drugs exist for the doctor to choose.
They influence clinical decisions by adding to treatment options, but they do not make clinical decisions. If we believe that a drug's potential risks outweigh its benefits, clinicians will not prescribe it.
My wife died of aggressive melanoma. Immunotherapy would likely have helped her if not for some complications that delayed it.
Today, only 4 years later, there are two therapies, one RNA based and one CART that would have been usable in her situation. She’d be alive today most likely.
Frankly, you have no idea what you’re talking about as you spew toxic bullshit. 5 year survival would meant being there for her son through high school. That survival rate was 65% in 2022 and closer to 80% now in recent trials.
Normally I’d scroll on, but in these degenerate days it is important to counter bullshit before it becomes policy.
I know this is a popular "well actually" to do, but it is not always useful in a conversation. Yes, all cancers are different, but yes, cancer is also one thing: unchecked, harmful division of cells.
Bacteria are also all different, but still they are "one thing", and despite their diversity, antibiotics exist that can deal with many species of them at once. It is reasonable to talk about bacteria and antibacterial medications, it is also reasonable to talk about cancer and cancer treatment. I truly hope cancer will meet its "penicillin" one day (yes I know this is unlikely).
It seems relevant here because the question was “How will this potentially help me if I get cancer?” and the answer is “Not at all unless you get a particular form of cancer that this applies to”.
> Bacteria are also all different, but still they are "one thing", and despite their diversity, antibiotics exist that can deal with many species of them at once.
Except people don’t ask “what if I get bacteria” the way they ask about cancer. If the story was about a new antibiotic that only affected 20% of common infectious bacteria strains and someone asked “in laypersons terms, how will this help me if I get a bacterial infection”, it would be appropriate to clarify that it only applies to some bacteria.
> Except people don’t ask “what if I get bacteria” the way they ask about cancer.
Yeah, but doctors also don't tell people "you have bacteria" or claim "we found a cure for bacteria". The lack of nuance on average is largely due to a lack of nuance from experts. The media treats cancer as one big thing and bacteria and viruses as separate things. Thus the average joe inherits 'treating cancer as one big thing' from the media.
Oncologists are actually way more specific than even that. Because there are many forms of breast cancer and different treatments depending on the type.
But yeah, oncologists aren’t telling people “you have cancer” the way they might say “you have MRSA”.
Yeah, it's WAY more specific. We got a genetic breakdown, multiple pamphlets on the drugs being used, what they are targeting, and why they work (along with the risks).
Honestly, I think people probably get false impressions because cancer usually hits old people and old people are, frankly, often not reliable narrators.
I agree with you about the media. Cancer is often presented as a monolithic thing by the media. I don’t agree at all about experts. Doctors and scientists who research cancers do not lack nuance.
I understand where you are coming from here, but I think it is helpful for people to overtly grasp that there are very different cancers, very different treatments, and indeed very different outcomes.
Without this understanding it becomes a quick jump from "we're spending all this money on cancer" to "we've made no progress"
An example of the nuance plays out in the common cancers (like breast and prostrate). These have between 90 and 100% 5 year survival rates. Others (like the one in this article, pancreatic) have very poor survivability.
As you note, it's very unlikely that we'll "cure cancer". But we already "cure" (for some definition of cure) some cancers. Progress is slow, methodical, and incremental. It can feel like a lost cause when viewed from afar, but up close very real progress is being made. And that's an important message to pass along.
The other part that is simply missing is that cancer, very unfortunately, evolves and mutates. That's how you go from a cancer that responds to treatment to one that is treatment resistant.
Like you said, for a lot of common cancers we have multiple treatments. It's usually not just one magic drug, but rather the doctors working with the most effective treatments down to the least effective treatments.
Depressing: evolution has discovered a universal cure for cancer, and it's reproduction. You make a whole new human without the bad bits. Other humans have to evaluate which bits are bad.
Which is why we got ecchemo.. where the cancer affected pathways get seperated from the regular ciculatory system via shunt and then get fed the chemo seperately and get a little wash before reconnection to the full circulation. It would be even more ideal if you had the whole navel setup in two entirely seperated systems.. sorry, a man can dream..
> We have penicilin that works against all human cells.
Penicillin works against bacteria, in particular gram-positive bacteria; to a lesser extent gram-negative bacteria too (this depends on the cell membrane structure of bacteria; there are other penicillin derivatives that are also more effective on gram-negative bacteria than penicillin is, but by and large the main target will be gram-positive bacteria). It does not work against human cells. If your comparison is about drugs in general, then of course cytotoxic drugs will have an effect; simplest example I can remember off-hand is colchicin. Of course it should work against cancer cells and non-cancer cells, unless there are some mutations where colchicin could no longer bind to, but that seems very very rare, due to the natural target of colchicin involved in cellular division.
It was an analogy. Just like penicillin kills a broad variety of bacteria we also know substances that kill a broad variety of cancer cells. Arsenic, for instance, and shotgun bullets. The problem is they usually select for all cells or all human cells, not cancer cells more specifically.
Cancer cells, by definition, are not a uniform mass. It will depend on the cancer type, which in turn is defined by the properties those cells have. And mutations happen all the time, often more in cancer cells when their repair systems also have mutations, e. g. are less efficient. By that definition alone, there can never be a wonder-cure for all cancer types. At best you can find some proteins more important (p53 for instance) and while more than 50% of cancer cells have some form of mutation in p53, others simply don't. By that definition there will never be a penicillin-equivalent to all cancer types.
The correct way to read the sentence is “all cancers do not have the same causal mechanism” but people don’t talk like that because it’s off putting. Language is fluid and it’s generally on the reader to infer meaning from context. If we can do so reasonably, we do it, and we don’t need to then write additional posts chiding people over an interpretation that’s highly unlikely to be the intended one. I don’t mean to be pushy about this, btw. It’s just that pedantry can be valuable, but only if it isn’t abused.
The golden panacea for this would be a gene editing mechanism that will work in every cell in the body. Once we have something we can do whole hog gene replacement, most human health problems would be solved forever.
For every cell mechanism that's being abused by cancer to fuel its growth, there are other cells in the body for which that mechanism is crucial for their correct functioning. Wholesale editing every cell in the body mostly guarantees that the patient does not die of cancer -- the cure will kill them before the disease does.
How does it avoid targeting KRAS in healthy cells? Or is this another form of chemotherapy where we're trying our hardest to deliver the right amount of poison that kills the cancer before it kills the rest of you?
It doesn't. Cancerous cells have a much higher dependency on RAS signaling to survive, so it's a drug that kills everything that's replicating via RAS signaling, much like standard chemotherapy kills cells in general that are reproducing more quickly.
However this is just the first version of the drug, it can be combined with other modalities to allow more selective targeting of cancer versus not cancer cells (e.g antibody-drug conjugation). And when used in earlier stage cancers, rather than the advanced cancers in this first clinical trial, there's the possibility of lower dosing that has less strong side effects.
This is just the first attack that has ever broken through to hit a key weakness of some cancers. It's the start of learning, a breakthrough that will launch refinements, enhancements, and a ton of innovation. That sort of innovation is sometimes derided as "me-too" drugs, and not meaningful, but some of the biggest advancements in cancer care have been from taking very hard to tolerate treatments and making them more tolerable and refined and better for patients, allowing longer and more thorough killing of cancer cells. I would expect we will see a lot of that here, as well as work towards combinations with other drugs.
This drug targets cells with a KRAS mutation that locks the KRAS switch in the ON state, driving uncontrolled growth. Cells with this mutation are abnormal and predisposed to becoming cancer ... so by definition are not healthy.
evolution is a wrong concept to approach it. cancer is not a separate life form, but a bug in the regeneration system of a complicated life form. it doesn’t exist outside of it, it cannot propagate.
Cancer researchers generally refer to it as evolution, and I've never heard any complaints from the population geneticists or evo-devo folks about it, so I don't think it's a tremendously controversial way to talk about it. See for example
Absolutely, this is selective pressure at work on cells with malregulated genetics. Most typically, this is in the form of drug efflux pumps, but you can definitely get more specific resistances.
Ways to avoid specific resistance include multiple treatments simultaneously, since the probability of generating resistance to both is the product of the probability of resistance either.
Yes, and one of the hallmarks of cancer is a removal of the usual DNA damage checkpoints. Cells have sensors that detect damaged DNA and stop cell division, and once that is gone evolution happens on an extremely accelerated times scale. In lung cancer, for example, we have developed entire series of drugs to go after successive resistance mutations inside the EGFR gene.
When we first started getting good at sequencing the DNA of tumors, I remember initial reports of taking samples across the 3D space of a tumor and finding great spatial heterogeneity in the tumor genomes.
I'm actually most excited for using this drug in combination with colon cancer, where KRAS mutation is a common drug resistance evolution in response to drugs that target the gene EFGR (though cancer researchers may all have their favorites to go after, colon cancer went after my family especially hard).
It won't help... mind you this is an article from the economist. There is no such thing as a cancer "master switch", that would equal a disease master switch and that point we have solved biology.
I'm no expert, and don't know if it applies in this case, but for a cancer I had (lymphoma) I was told that aggressive can often be easier to treat or "cure" (as defined by survival rates, etc.) since it also can often be hit more brutally by the treatments.
Anyway, since many in my family have died from this horrible cancer, its fantastic news to hear of any improvements there.
Sorry, it does not apply ... this drug inhibits (for the first time) the KRAS mutation (previously considered "undruggable") that is the primary cause of 90% of pancreatic cancers and 50% of colon cancers.
Lymphoma is a bit of an outlier. In the case of lymphoma, more aggressive types indeed respond better to treatment, and given that we are now fairly good at treating lymphoma, that translates to good outcomes.
Not hyperbolic, just incomplete ... this drug inhibits the KRAS mutation that is the "master switch" for 90% of pancreatic cancers and 50% of colon cancers. KRAS was considered "undruggable" so this is a huge breakthrough which is why oncologists gave a standing ovation for nearly a minute in the middle of a talk, with some of them in tears.
https://archive.ph/d4mT2
To offer context for others:
The bigger deal about this is that KRAS was considered an "undruggable" target.
Recent advancements have allowed us to design biologics to do things we previously thought impossible, which broadens the horizons for other treatments in the future.
Baby steps.
What's next then?
Other cancers, obesity, name it.
Horrible disease. We just buried my wife’s father because of stage 4 pancreatic cancer. A month ago, he was still living his life as usual. Then he developed abdominal pain, was diagnosed, and died three weeks later.
I think we should also invest more in better diagnostics and early cancer detection. That could save many lives too.
I’m sorry for your loss. I lost my father to it. Like you said, it happened so quickly. Truly horrible disease.
My mother's cousin just died from pancreatic cancer on Monday. She was in a trial for this drug and failed. Trying to figure out how I feel about this or how my family would.
Personally, I have epilepsy and am increasingly aware that while some paradigm-shifting treatments are on the horizon, they are a decade or so away and likely won't come to market in time to fully help me (particularly reverse small but accumulating damage caused by seizures). And that's a weird feeling.
I am sorry for your loss... Someone I love was also on this drug and it wasn't effective. I hope it helps some people, this is an awful disease.
Thank you
Failing a treatment that has held promise for so many others and been heralded as paradigm-shifting is such a weird place to be. There's comfort in knowing others won't suffer, but loneliness is knowing you or a loved one still is.
The study this article references is here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06625320
Please remember that science is under attack in the United States - new proposals would gut the nih even beyond the horror that is ongoing. As a scientist I am horrified and I truly hope that we don’t abandon the usas historically strong investment in the future.
Kindly share more details
1. Trump has been trying to cut Science budgers by larger percentages for a while now. Congress has not let them.
2. NIH funding notice of awards has slowed to a crawl since Trump did not get his wish to cut Science funding.
3. Putting scientific funding under political control, instructing them to ignore the reviews conducted by peer scientists.
4. Have practically made international collaborations on grants impossible. An expert in Canada or Europe that would be great? Pretty much, too bad.
5. Pushing policies that make grants cancelable at any moment without need to have a justified reason, including potentially for exercising free speech, disagreeing with Administration doctrine, etc, or because you're ugly. This and the funding uncertainty makes planning difficult...just like business, stability/predictability matters.
6. Pushing policies that prevent funds to help cover costs of dissemination, including conference costs.
100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice. Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts.
Can you cite any stats or studies that show that this is happening in any substantial amounts? This seems to be one of those "it just makes common sense" when the underlying data is ignored or assumed.
You’re asking the anti science side to answer with stats and proofs, that won’t work
I'm pretty sure only a small fraction of grants gave this issue, and the cuts have meanwhile being very wide, without any sort of intelligent approach (I know ppl doing stuff like material science at nasa that now have nothing to do because they cut costs of various inputs, while the very expensive lab equipment is sitting there now unused)
>100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice.
Prove it. Prove this happens at a large scale. This is just nonsense talking points.
It’s called the 2024 election. People have had enough leftist politics in their science.
Sigh.
I'm sure the average person was completely fed up with the federal grant process for medical issues and it was a driving force in their voting decision. Excellent proof.
It's called the 2024 election. People have listened to so much propaganda aimed at destroying the anyone with credibility that can challenge whichever "truth" the propagandist chooses to push.
There is no leftist scurge I'm science.
This should go without saying, but the person you're replying to obviously wants you to prove instances of scientists receiving grant money because they know someone or are part of a group. They are not asking you to prove the support of the people.
> 100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts
I doubt "10s of millions of Americans" can describe the core functions of the NIH
> when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice.
How do you think new appointees and hires in the NIH/HHS are selected? Political loyalty seems to be a better predictor than scientific impact or output.
> Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts.
The cuts and changes are dramatically impacting research support. Grant money is not being disbursed at the same rate since the new review changes began. You can more plainly characterize the changes as harmful to research in general than focused on removing whatever specific things you don't like.
You know so little about this, ad it is terribly frustrating to me. Scientists have been made out to be villains, when, on the whole, these are some the hardest working, most motivated people you will ever encounter.
They have absolutely no idea what they are destroying or why. An entire generation of scientists will be lost. It is breathtaking to watch what will surely be someday labeled as one of the greatest acts of intentional, national self-destruction ever.
The political right is obsessed with minimizing Type II error. They feel it's better to miss good research results than to have the wrong people performing the research or chasing the wrong ideas to start with (a false negative) and the further to the right they are on the spectrum, the more important minimizing the wrong people and ideas becomes. This leads to less discovery and successes because more research gets falsely rejected at the funding level.
The political left, of course, is the opposite and obsesses over Type I error. Accepting the wrong people and ideas is less important than getting good results. This leads to things like Lysenkoism, but also tends to reject less successful research, given the other checks and balances built into a healthy system.
>This leads to things like Lysenkoism
If the first point of comparison you reach for is the Soviet Union in the mid 20th century, that would suggest that the American political left has not in fact, in recent times, been interfering with science to the same extent as the Trump administration currently.
Could you explain how much the US spends on its science budget compared to peers? It would help us really understand how much he's cutting it and harming our science base if we knew the numbers. For example if we're spending 50% less than EU or Canada.
> Kindly share more details (about your claim that science is under attack in the United States)
Is of public knowledge that the National Science Foundation and funds for thousands of scientific projects were gutted by DOGE in 2025.
Each one of the research lines cut needed typically 10 years to grow, so Trump and GOP had destroyed an incredible amount of years of research just on 2025, with consequences probably extending into 2035 or so. Without any visible benefit for Americans, that had still seen their debt sky-rocketing while their taxes are spent in pools and sinks.
Trump has also assured to engrave into the brains of the whole scientific community that US is now an hostile place for students and researchers. The whole planet had seen the main universities attacked by Trump (with Harvard resisting, and Columbia losing their pride), the foreign students targeted by ICE and the department of Education eviscerated
Also the thousands of workers in USAID and Health and Human Services fired for fun. Without mentioning the DOGE mess done at the national nuclear safety administration with 400 essential workers fired and then asked to return to the job ASAP, please, please.
I've been wondering why they attack science outside of they think it is woke and liberal.
It makes no sense to cut off the hand that saves you even as a rich billionaire who wants to control people in a fascist society.
Everyone likes to think that their opponents are evil, highly intelligent, silently scheming types like the legendary Cardinal Richelieu.
In reality, mediocre thinkers with inflated egos and little understanding of long-term consequences are pulling the strings almost everywhere.
They don’t believe in competence because they’ve never experienced it. They think everything is narrative and spectacle.
It pleases their voters. All the MAGAs I know think scientists are scammers, funded by Bill Gates, brewing up "fake" viruses to reduce the population and insert nanobots to track their movements.
They are all about science and research. What they don’t want is for scientific discoveries to be publicly available, because then it is harder to leverage them for absurd profit margins.
Another ongoing HN thread from yesterday around some exciting cancer treatment breakthroughs, this time with a CRISPR Cas12a2 mechanism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505231
This subthread there is a fascinating explainer about one user's journey into funding and incentivizing research into their own rare form of blood cancer, and how they are able to push forward the state of the art: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48506997 - something of a modern-day (and more accurate) Lorenzo's Oil!
I’m surprised Michael Levin’s research hasn’t expanded much beyond a certain YouTube media bubble. They’re able to start and stop cancer growth with only voltage changes between cells, likewise they can also trigger regeneration or anatomical changes using voltage changes. His research seems to suggest a lot of important anatomical plans are stored in an electric field around the body, not in the DNA. This model’s explanation for cancer is that some cells become disconnected from this field and start growing independently of the overall body plan.
I love his work (even though I know little more than what he says in interviews). I am also surprised it's not more widely known / applied. I am very skeptical of conspiracy-minded thinking, so I'd much rather assume his and his team's work hasn't reached escape velocity from obscurity. Especially with larger industries, it takes time and significant breakthroughs to become "a household name", so to speak.
They are working on getting in vivo studies going from what I remember - it's going to take a positive result in a trial on real patients to get attention - that's just how medicine works. You have to show it actually improves longevity and/or patient quality of life before anyone has a reason to care.
We should be spending the same amount of money on health and disease as we spend on AI. Ogogogogogo
It is more than plausible that spending money on AI is spending money on healthcare. I believe with little certainty that AI will help us find new ways to fight disease, improve our health and live longer lives.
dafuq did u just write u bot? ur negating urself
i remember so much excitement around radioligand therapies like 177Lu-PSMA-617 being better than chemo and with way way less sides . And great improvements in pfs and os.
didnt seem to have lived up to the promise. seemed to have accelerated prostate cancer for my father who passed away in mere three months after first dose.
Same. 177Lu-PSMA-617 caused severe blood cell shortage and within a month after the second dose my dad died.
Immunotherapies on the other hand seems to work wonders for many who respond to it. I regret for not trying it.
As is often the case, the title is hyperbolic. The discovery applies to 20% of tumors, and "one of cancer's significant defenses" or "a key weakness of cancer" would be more accurate.
That said, I'll happily take "we discovered a key weakness in 20% of cancers," please and thank you.
What does this mean in layman's terms? How will this potentially help me if I get cancer?
One of the many therapies that are being developed so that you can survive longer even with the most lethal tumours.
Cancer is not one thing, it's a huge zoo of many many many ways that cells start to break the social contract and divide in an uncontrolled manner.
One of the most commonly observed broken mechanisms is mutation in the gene KRAS that turns this on/off growth switch into the permanently on position.
This has been known for decades, of course. And there have been huge amounts of effort to try to develop drugs that target KRAS in cancer, but for decades it's always been thought of as 'undruggable' because of the difficulty of finding any molecules that would affect it.
This new drug, that finally treats KRAS mutated cancers, goes about it in a new way. Instead of trying to gum up the works of a single protein by sticking a small chemical in it, it effectively "glues" the KRAS protein to another protein, CypA, which keeps the switch away from reaching the normal areas where it's "on switch" activity works.
So this new drug means two things: 1) a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for, 2) there's an entire new class of drug activity that everybody is chasing at this very moment, so in 5-25 years we'll likely have a huge number more of these sorts of treatments.
>a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for,
Can you help disambiguate this? Are there treatments now, or are there potential treatments with trials in 1-5 years?
I think the meaning is that because we can see success with KRAS mutation of pancreatic cancer, we can now begin clinical trials for other cancers that may have KRAS mutation (colorectal, lung) and see if there is success there. If there is success in treating other cancers during clinical trials, it could be fast tracked through FDA to be more generally available and then become part of the national treatment option (ideally in 1-5 years after clinical trials).
The next 1-5 years will tell us which cancers this new drug will work well on, right now it's only been tried in pancreatic cancer when people have failed their first treatment. The new drug from the article, daroxonrasib, has nine trials i see currently, here:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?intr=daraxonrasib&viewType...
The first two are the trial that just completed and showed success: people that have pancreatic cancer that failed other treatments, then a "trial" that is meant to give quick access to more people now that it's been shown to work.
Then there's a trial for using it as the first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer, one for lung cancer (NSCLC), and also various combinations with other drugs. I expect we'll see a ton of new trials registered in the coming year. Especially something in combination with colon cancer, because a common drug resistance mechanism in colon cancer is to develop KRAS mutation.
The thing is that we don't really know which cancers it will work well in until we try. And there's limited number of people with cancer that enter clinical trials, and we want to give each person their very best chance at survival, and then there's the massive expense of running the clinical trial itself, so learning happens slowly, one month of survival at a time, or one cancer recurrence at a time, or one death at a time. Patients that take part in clinical trials really are the heroes here. (Especially with the side effects of this new drug, which are horrible. It is a revolutionary drug, but we need to learn how to manage the other things it does as well, and that's going to take time.)
But that's not a cure. If they don't take that drug, assuming it works, they still have the original mutation in the cancer cells.
> Patients that take part in clinical trials really are the heroes here.
Are they?
To me personally, putting people into a permanent state of requiring drugs to survive, is not really cure. It's just maximizing income for those selling those drugs. And none of those drugs work exceedingly well; people still die, even if to other disease or frailties. I don't understand this hype in general.
Wow, this is such a wildly pessimistic and cynical take. Are you okay?
> But that's not a cure. If they don't take that drug, assuming it works, they still have the original mutation in the cancer cells.
The person you're replying to called this out specifically:
> and also various combinations with other drugs.
Why do you think they try it in combination with other drugs? You might be right that this drug alone might not be a cure, but if it inhibits cancer growth, then it empowers other drugs to work more effectively.
> people still die
So what... We do nothing, then? This is your complaint? That we can't be immortal, so why bother trying to cure anything?
I don't understand your type in general.
Everyone dies. Dying 5 years later is a victory. I would go so far as saying if it was you or someone who you care about you would understand.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-have-cancer-rates-changed-...
>However, even though the overall number of cases rises as the population grows, fewer people are getting and dying from cancer. Between 2000 and 2021, the incidence rate — or the rate of new cancer cases per 100,000 people — declined by 5.7%, while the annual mortality rate fell by 27.5%.
Cancer is a broad term encompassing many sorts of malfunction and nearly 40% of Americans will be diagnosed with it at some point because if you survive other hazards and maladies cancer is often what gets you.
Unfortunately in this particular case people die about 6 months later, not 5 years. See the article.
This is just a failure of understanding. This particular advancement is part of a decades long slog which taken together allows a substantial number of people to live meaningful additional durations every single year. 6 months average by itself means that John got another 3 years even if Jane only got 3 more days.
If I pulled one person out of a burning building it would be newsworthy. Doctors are and have been pulling train loads every day.
I support doctors. They're doing great work. I understand that in today's US I probably should have said that explicitly, as many Americans seem to have joined the side of the cancer, viruses, etc., and now oppose doctors (or even blame doctors for the diseases). I'm not one of those irrational people.
I agree that 6 extra months (on average) means some patients get much more time than that. I agree that a statistically significant improvement on the survival rate for this terrible cancer is a very promising result longer term.
My disagreement was much narrower than that. I disagree that 6 extra months is equivalent to 5 extra years. I disagree that people living an extra 6 months on average is equivalent to one person living 3 extra years and one person living 3 extra days. I think 3 days and 3 years average out to about 1.5 years, not to 6 months.
Think of me as a living fossil who takes it for granted that everyone appreciates how much medicine improves our lives.
it's unfortunate that they live an extra 6 months???
In my comment I pointed out that "5 years" was a bit of an exaggeration compared to the results in the article (6 months). That seemed unfortunate to me. To me 5 years seems much better than 6 months.
I can understand being frustrated and cynical with the pharmaceutical industry, but I have never worked with a single doctor that approaches patient care with the goal of getting them "hooked" on something for life.
The pharmaceutical companies are not the ones making clinical decisions - in this case, it's a shared medical decision between a patient and their oncologist.
Having seen how horrific pancreatic cancer is, how difficult it is to treat, and the decades of slow research done by academic scientists to get to this point, I am elated that we have a tool to give patients more time with their families even if their cancer can't be "cured" with this particular drug.
This may seem unsatisfying, but it's real, measurable progress. KRAS has been known about since the earliest days of cancer research, so it's a true breakthrough to finally have a drug targeting it.
Pharmaceutical companies do make clinical decisions, it just isn't called a clinical decision. But they decide what research to pursue, and thereby decide which drugs exist for the doctor to choose.
They influence clinical decisions by adding to treatment options, but they do not make clinical decisions. If we believe that a drug's potential risks outweigh its benefits, clinicians will not prescribe it.
My wife died of aggressive melanoma. Immunotherapy would likely have helped her if not for some complications that delayed it.
Today, only 4 years later, there are two therapies, one RNA based and one CART that would have been usable in her situation. She’d be alive today most likely.
Frankly, you have no idea what you’re talking about as you spew toxic bullshit. 5 year survival would meant being there for her son through high school. That survival rate was 65% in 2022 and closer to 80% now in recent trials.
Normally I’d scroll on, but in these degenerate days it is important to counter bullshit before it becomes policy.
That was a really good summary, thank you.
> Cancer is not one thing,
I know this is a popular "well actually" to do, but it is not always useful in a conversation. Yes, all cancers are different, but yes, cancer is also one thing: unchecked, harmful division of cells.
Bacteria are also all different, but still they are "one thing", and despite their diversity, antibiotics exist that can deal with many species of them at once. It is reasonable to talk about bacteria and antibacterial medications, it is also reasonable to talk about cancer and cancer treatment. I truly hope cancer will meet its "penicillin" one day (yes I know this is unlikely).
It seems relevant here because the question was “How will this potentially help me if I get cancer?” and the answer is “Not at all unless you get a particular form of cancer that this applies to”.
> Bacteria are also all different, but still they are "one thing", and despite their diversity, antibiotics exist that can deal with many species of them at once.
Except people don’t ask “what if I get bacteria” the way they ask about cancer. If the story was about a new antibiotic that only affected 20% of common infectious bacteria strains and someone asked “in laypersons terms, how will this help me if I get a bacterial infection”, it would be appropriate to clarify that it only applies to some bacteria.
> Except people don’t ask “what if I get bacteria” the way they ask about cancer.
Yeah, but doctors also don't tell people "you have bacteria" or claim "we found a cure for bacteria". The lack of nuance on average is largely due to a lack of nuance from experts. The media treats cancer as one big thing and bacteria and viruses as separate things. Thus the average joe inherits 'treating cancer as one big thing' from the media.
Is it? I'm pretty sure oncologists will say "you have stage 2 breast cancer," but I wasn't in the room at the time.
Oncologists are actually way more specific than even that. Because there are many forms of breast cancer and different treatments depending on the type.
But yeah, oncologists aren’t telling people “you have cancer” the way they might say “you have MRSA”.
Yeah, it's WAY more specific. We got a genetic breakdown, multiple pamphlets on the drugs being used, what they are targeting, and why they work (along with the risks).
Honestly, I think people probably get false impressions because cancer usually hits old people and old people are, frankly, often not reliable narrators.
I agree with you about the media. Cancer is often presented as a monolithic thing by the media. I don’t agree at all about experts. Doctors and scientists who research cancers do not lack nuance.
I understand where you are coming from here, but I think it is helpful for people to overtly grasp that there are very different cancers, very different treatments, and indeed very different outcomes.
Without this understanding it becomes a quick jump from "we're spending all this money on cancer" to "we've made no progress"
An example of the nuance plays out in the common cancers (like breast and prostrate). These have between 90 and 100% 5 year survival rates. Others (like the one in this article, pancreatic) have very poor survivability.
As you note, it's very unlikely that we'll "cure cancer". But we already "cure" (for some definition of cure) some cancers. Progress is slow, methodical, and incremental. It can feel like a lost cause when viewed from afar, but up close very real progress is being made. And that's an important message to pass along.
The other part that is simply missing is that cancer, very unfortunately, evolves and mutates. That's how you go from a cancer that responds to treatment to one that is treatment resistant.
Like you said, for a lot of common cancers we have multiple treatments. It's usually not just one magic drug, but rather the doctors working with the most effective treatments down to the least effective treatments.
Depressing: evolution has discovered a universal cure for cancer, and it's reproduction. You make a whole new human without the bad bits. Other humans have to evaluate which bits are bad.
The problem is the similarities of cancer to normal cells. We have penicilin that works against all human cells. We call that poison.
Now, "no, i mean poisons that attack the special chemistry of cancer," oh yes, those we call chemo.
For chemo it's often "these chemicals kills cancer cells faster than they kill regular cells".
Which is why we got ecchemo.. where the cancer affected pathways get seperated from the regular ciculatory system via shunt and then get fed the chemo seperately and get a little wash before reconnection to the full circulation. It would be even more ideal if you had the whole navel setup in two entirely seperated systems.. sorry, a man can dream..
if you can separate a tumour's circulation why not just leave it permanently disconnected?
Most likely you can’t isolate the tumor but can do organ-level shunts like e.g. the whole kidney. You don’t want to throw away the healthy bits.
> We have penicilin that works against all human cells.
Penicillin works against bacteria, in particular gram-positive bacteria; to a lesser extent gram-negative bacteria too (this depends on the cell membrane structure of bacteria; there are other penicillin derivatives that are also more effective on gram-negative bacteria than penicillin is, but by and large the main target will be gram-positive bacteria). It does not work against human cells. If your comparison is about drugs in general, then of course cytotoxic drugs will have an effect; simplest example I can remember off-hand is colchicin. Of course it should work against cancer cells and non-cancer cells, unless there are some mutations where colchicin could no longer bind to, but that seems very very rare, due to the natural target of colchicin involved in cellular division.
It was an analogy. Just like penicillin kills a broad variety of bacteria we also know substances that kill a broad variety of cancer cells. Arsenic, for instance, and shotgun bullets. The problem is they usually select for all cells or all human cells, not cancer cells more specifically.
Benign cancers are a thing. They might not kill like they show in the Hollywood movies, but your quality of life will be significantly diminished.
Squamous cell carcinoma does not metastatize, but my god it can disfigure people really badly if not treated in time.
> Benign cancers are a thing.
No, they aren't. Cancer is malignant by definition.
There are benign non-malignant tumors.
"Malignant" and "benign" isn't a dichotomy, it is a loose sliding scale.
"Benign" is any cancer where wait-and-watch is a valid medical approach.
You've been downvoted but I would say you are right. It would be more accurate to say "cancer does not have one cause".
> I truly hope cancer will meet its "penicillin" one day (yes I know this is unlikely).
Penicillin blocks a specific enzyme (transpeptidase).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin-binding_proteins
Cancer cells, by definition, are not a uniform mass. It will depend on the cancer type, which in turn is defined by the properties those cells have. And mutations happen all the time, often more in cancer cells when their repair systems also have mutations, e. g. are less efficient. By that definition alone, there can never be a wonder-cure for all cancer types. At best you can find some proteins more important (p53 for instance) and while more than 50% of cancer cells have some form of mutation in p53, others simply don't. By that definition there will never be a penicillin-equivalent to all cancer types.
The correct way to read the sentence is “all cancers do not have the same causal mechanism” but people don’t talk like that because it’s off putting. Language is fluid and it’s generally on the reader to infer meaning from context. If we can do so reasonably, we do it, and we don’t need to then write additional posts chiding people over an interpretation that’s highly unlikely to be the intended one. I don’t mean to be pushy about this, btw. It’s just that pedantry can be valuable, but only if it isn’t abused.
The golden panacea for this would be a gene editing mechanism that will work in every cell in the body. Once we have something we can do whole hog gene replacement, most human health problems would be solved forever.
For every cell mechanism that's being abused by cancer to fuel its growth, there are other cells in the body for which that mechanism is crucial for their correct functioning. Wholesale editing every cell in the body mostly guarantees that the patient does not die of cancer -- the cure will kill them before the disease does.
Only cells that have the necessary signature get the edit
So the exact opposite of what you said initially.
Thanks for the explanation!
How does it avoid targeting KRAS in healthy cells? Or is this another form of chemotherapy where we're trying our hardest to deliver the right amount of poison that kills the cancer before it kills the rest of you?
It doesn't. Cancerous cells have a much higher dependency on RAS signaling to survive, so it's a drug that kills everything that's replicating via RAS signaling, much like standard chemotherapy kills cells in general that are reproducing more quickly.
However this is just the first version of the drug, it can be combined with other modalities to allow more selective targeting of cancer versus not cancer cells (e.g antibody-drug conjugation). And when used in earlier stage cancers, rather than the advanced cancers in this first clinical trial, there's the possibility of lower dosing that has less strong side effects.
This is just the first attack that has ever broken through to hit a key weakness of some cancers. It's the start of learning, a breakthrough that will launch refinements, enhancements, and a ton of innovation. That sort of innovation is sometimes derided as "me-too" drugs, and not meaningful, but some of the biggest advancements in cancer care have been from taking very hard to tolerate treatments and making them more tolerable and refined and better for patients, allowing longer and more thorough killing of cancer cells. I would expect we will see a lot of that here, as well as work towards combinations with other drugs.
This drug targets cells with a KRAS mutation that locks the KRAS switch in the ON state, driving uncontrolled growth. Cells with this mutation are abnormal and predisposed to becoming cancer ... so by definition are not healthy.
Can we end up with a situation like antimicrobial resistance, where cancer itself evolves to resist these new treatments?
evolution is a wrong concept to approach it. cancer is not a separate life form, but a bug in the regeneration system of a complicated life form. it doesn’t exist outside of it, it cannot propagate.
the single celled dog might beg to differ.
sometimes a cancer can then survive on its own back as a single celled organism
I've heard that some cancers spread by viruses. Viruses do evolve. No idea if that says anything about cancer evolving.
Cancer researchers generally refer to it as evolution, and I've never heard any complaints from the population geneticists or evo-devo folks about it, so I don't think it's a tremendously controversial way to talk about it. See for example
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1907-7
You might want to read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
Absolutely, this is selective pressure at work on cells with malregulated genetics. Most typically, this is in the form of drug efflux pumps, but you can definitely get more specific resistances.
Ways to avoid specific resistance include multiple treatments simultaneously, since the probability of generating resistance to both is the product of the probability of resistance either.
Yes, and one of the hallmarks of cancer is a removal of the usual DNA damage checkpoints. Cells have sensors that detect damaged DNA and stop cell division, and once that is gone evolution happens on an extremely accelerated times scale. In lung cancer, for example, we have developed entire series of drugs to go after successive resistance mutations inside the EGFR gene.
When we first started getting good at sequencing the DNA of tumors, I remember initial reports of taking samples across the 3D space of a tumor and finding great spatial heterogeneity in the tumor genomes.
I'm actually most excited for using this drug in combination with colon cancer, where KRAS mutation is a common drug resistance evolution in response to drugs that target the gene EFGR (though cancer researchers may all have their favorites to go after, colon cancer went after my family especially hard).
thats environmental evolution...what happens here is cell "evolution" within a specific body
It won't help... mind you this is an article from the economist. There is no such thing as a cancer "master switch", that would equal a disease master switch and that point we have solved biology.
What do you mean “it won’t help”?
It most likely will help if you get pancreatic cancer. It might help if you get one of the other types of cancers with this mutation.
And it will likely lead to new treatments for some of the worst kinds of cancer.
Aren't those 20 per cent of tumors more concentrated on the "intractable" side? If so, then the hyperbole is forgivable.
It does seem like those 20% are exactly on the nasty side. So even more impressive.
I'm no expert, and don't know if it applies in this case, but for a cancer I had (lymphoma) I was told that aggressive can often be easier to treat or "cure" (as defined by survival rates, etc.) since it also can often be hit more brutally by the treatments.
Anyway, since many in my family have died from this horrible cancer, its fantastic news to hear of any improvements there.
Sorry, it does not apply ... this drug inhibits (for the first time) the KRAS mutation (previously considered "undruggable") that is the primary cause of 90% of pancreatic cancers and 50% of colon cancers.
No reason to be sorry, that sounds like this is even better news then :)
I just meant that this doesn't apply to lymphoma, which is not caused by KRAS.
Lymphoma is a bit of an outlier. In the case of lymphoma, more aggressive types indeed respond better to treatment, and given that we are now fairly good at treating lymphoma, that translates to good outcomes.
That is not true for most cancers, though.
Only on HN can you get content like this. What a community.
You should be thankful that they're posting about a real drug that is in human trials and yet another "in mice" pipedream
20% is still a huge number. (Your comment also acknowledges this of course. That just popped out at me.)
Not hyperbolic, just incomplete ... this drug inhibits the KRAS mutation that is the "master switch" for 90% of pancreatic cancers and 50% of colon cancers. KRAS was considered "undruggable" so this is a huge breakthrough which is why oncologists gave a standing ovation for nearly a minute in the middle of a talk, with some of them in tears.
The relevant line is:
"oncologists went wild over the results of a drug called daraxonrasib."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daraxonrasib
Does anyone have a link to the conference session?
I kinda want to see a group of oncologists lose it and go wild and party like never before.
You sir are the salt of the internet
May have? It also may have not.
How many cure for cancer news we have 10 yrs ago and none of them goes online?
This is a drug that has passed phase 3 clinical trials.