Thanks for the good summary and making it understandable, Tomas.
It would be good to have a way to volunteer for this type of study. Ethics seem to have been taken to the extreme in medicine these days (I understand the pros of this) but I like the analogy from the last article about the car industry.
And I think the pharmaceutical industry have a little too much invested in treating vs curing illnesses.
Interestingly, there is a well-known method (or perhaps not so well-known) that involves using bacteria instead of viruses. This approach is referred to as bacterial immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer, as opposed to viral immunotherapy, as mentioned in this article/interview. For example, see the Wikipedia entry on Coley's toxins: [Coley's toxins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coley%27s_toxins).
I am aware that the Wikipedia article suggests this therapy is ineffective, but that view overlooks many positive cases reported by the original proponent, William Coley, and certainly warrants a fresh investigation. A rigorous study could be conducted with two cohorts: one treated conventionally and the other with Coley's toxins.
It's also worth considering that cancer treatment is a significant industry, and despite decades of research since Nixon's "war on cancer," there have been few if any revolutionary breakthroughs.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I acknowledge that cancer immunotherapy represents a conceptual breakthrough. However, it hasn't yet translated into a meaningful reduction in overall cancer mortality. And while some types of cancer do have a very good prognosis, these are often quite rare.
There is one important requirement in this scenario that has not been recognized until recently. Dendritic cells need so-called danger signals to become maximally activated. Cancer cells do not produce the right signals to activate them; but certain classes of bacterial and viral components do. They are called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP).
PAMP is the name for a collection of chemically diverse substances found in parts of biological invaders such as the lipopolysaccaride in bacterial cell walls or the flagellin in bacterial propellers. PAMP also includes double-stranded RNA found in viruses and parts of infectious fungi, such as mannan or zymosan. They bind to the same protein family in the human body as do adjuvants in vaccines: so-called Toll-like receptors (TLR), which dendritic cells employ. No other class of substances is known to induce maturation of dendritic cells as efficiently as PAMP. That ability may explain how bacterial infection, in the presence of fever, can mobilize immune attacks against cancer.
Secondly, does this mean that anyone diagnosed with cancer should run around trying to catch as many viruses as possible in the hope that one of them attacks the cancer?
No, the virus was injected straight into the tumor, and was chosen to be a strong candidate to attack it. I think that probably made a huge difference.
I’m no expert, but could I suggest that injection of the virus before surgery would result in a much higher reproduction of virus because of the sheer volume of cancer cells, and therefore produce a much more concentrated virus environment after the surgery…?
Really interesting topic and interview.
Thanks for the good summary and making it understandable, Tomas.
It would be good to have a way to volunteer for this type of study. Ethics seem to have been taken to the extreme in medicine these days (I understand the pros of this) but I like the analogy from the last article about the car industry.
And I think the pharmaceutical industry have a little too much invested in treating vs curing illnesses.
I’ll be watching this topic with interest.
Interestingly, there is a well-known method (or perhaps not so well-known) that involves using bacteria instead of viruses. This approach is referred to as bacterial immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer, as opposed to viral immunotherapy, as mentioned in this article/interview. For example, see the Wikipedia entry on Coley's toxins: [Coley's toxins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coley%27s_toxins).
I am aware that the Wikipedia article suggests this therapy is ineffective, but that view overlooks many positive cases reported by the original proponent, William Coley, and certainly warrants a fresh investigation. A rigorous study could be conducted with two cohorts: one treated conventionally and the other with Coley's toxins.
It's also worth considering that cancer treatment is a significant industry, and despite decades of research since Nixon's "war on cancer," there have been few if any revolutionary breakthroughs.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I acknowledge that cancer immunotherapy represents a conceptual breakthrough. However, it hasn't yet translated into a meaningful reduction in overall cancer mortality. And while some types of cancer do have a very good prognosis, these are often quite rare.
What would be the oncolytic effect?
There is an American Scientist article from 2009:
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/healing-heat-harnessing-infection-to-fight-cancer.
Just one relevant citations:
There is one important requirement in this scenario that has not been recognized until recently. Dendritic cells need so-called danger signals to become maximally activated. Cancer cells do not produce the right signals to activate them; but certain classes of bacterial and viral components do. They are called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP).
PAMP is the name for a collection of chemically diverse substances found in parts of biological invaders such as the lipopolysaccaride in bacterial cell walls or the flagellin in bacterial propellers. PAMP also includes double-stranded RNA found in viruses and parts of infectious fungi, such as mannan or zymosan. They bind to the same protein family in the human body as do adjuvants in vaccines: so-called Toll-like receptors (TLR), which dendritic cells employ. No other class of substances is known to induce maturation of dendritic cells as efficiently as PAMP. That ability may explain how bacterial infection, in the presence of fever, can mobilize immune attacks against cancer.
Secondly, does this mean that anyone diagnosed with cancer should run around trying to catch as many viruses as possible in the hope that one of them attacks the cancer?
No, the virus was injected straight into the tumor, and was chosen to be a strong candidate to attack it. I think that probably made a huge difference.
I’m no expert, but could I suggest that injection of the virus before surgery would result in a much higher reproduction of virus because of the sheer volume of cancer cells, and therefore produce a much more concentrated virus environment after the surgery…?
This is what they did