View Single Post
Old 06-02-2019, 11:26 PM   #513
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
Any pharma company testing that would have simply discarded the substance due to it being useless and killing healthy cells better than cancer cells. Since the quacks have gotten a hold on it, I know they never, ever, discard a treatment, no matter useless, or even harmful it is.

In the CheckMate 017 trial Docetaxel (a type of chemo) was tested against Nivolumab (a type of immunotherapy) in those with non-small cell lung cancer. Forty-two percent treated with the immunotherapy are alive at 1 year vs. 24% treated with chemo. At year two its 30% vs. 10%. Not only that, but Nivolumab had a better response rate (more tumour shrinkage) and less serious/life-threatening adverse events (7% vs. 55%) https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1504627

Around 16% in the Nivolumab arm lived for more than five years, about four times what is typically expected for patients treated with Docetaxel http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0412

So yes, there are risks with Nivolumab, but the benefits on the whole outweigh them. The key is now building on this and trying to improve survival. I know some early human data on an inhaled immunotherapy combined with Nivolumab will be presented in the next few months at a major medical meeting (likely AACR). Preclinical wise the two had a synergistic effect and most mice were cured http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/78/17/4943
I presume you work in big Pharma in some capacity, and if this is correct - I have a very simple question for you.

If there was a cheap and very effective cure for cancer found that any big Pharma organisation could not profit from and render all of their products obsolete then would you welcome it?

Yes or no?

"Yes" or "no" are the only two answers allowed to my question.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote