E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Food and Drug Administration approved a new "smart bomb" drug on Friday that can help women with one of the most hard-to-cure types of breast cancer.
The new drug added several months of life to women with a type of breast cancer called HER2-positive breast cancer, whose tumors had spread despite treatment. While it wasn’t a cure, it did add some healthy months of life to patients whose outlook was otherwise hopeless.
The drug is called Kadcyla, and it works in an unusual way. It combines an older drug, Herceptin, with a highly toxic type of chemotherapy called DM1. The Herceptin hones in on the tumor cells, which absorb the package and are then destroyed by the DM1, which is too strong to deliver like standard chemotherapy. It’s a member of a new class of drugs called antibody-drug conjugates or ADCs.
A drug called Kadcyla is offering hope to women diagnosed with HER2-positive breast cancer, one of the most aggressive forms of the disease. The drug is not a cure but does extend life by an average of 9.6 months. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
“Kadcyla delivers the drug to the cancer site to shrink the tumor, slow disease progression and prolong survival," Dr. Richard Pazdur, director of the FDA's office of hematology and oncology products, said in a statement.
In a trial of 991 women with advanced HER2 breast cancer, those who got Kadcyla lived on average 5.8 months longer than those getting more standard chemotherapy, researchers reported last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. It meant about 2 ½ years of life after diagnosis, compared to two years for those on standard therapy.
“Only a few studies in metastatic breast cancer have shown an improvement in overall survival. It’s tough to do,” Dr. Sunil Verma of the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre in Toronto, who led the study, said in a statement on the National Cancer Institute’s website.
Genentech, which makes the drug, is now focusing on the ADC formula. The hope is it can cause fewer side-effects than ordinary chemo, which can affect healthy tissue. Herceptin is a synthetic immune system protein or monoclonal antibody called trastuzumab.
“We currently have more than 25 antibody-drug conjugates in our pipeline and hope this promising approach will help us deliver more medicines to fight other cancers in the future,” Dr. Hal Barron, the company’s chief medical officer, said in a statement.
It's not cheap. A nearly 10-month course of therapy costs $94,000, Genentech says.
Genentech promised the FDA it would help patients pay for it. “People who do not have health insurance, or who have reached the lifetime limit set by their insurance company, might qualify to receive Kadcyla free of charge,” the company said in a statement. Herceptin alone costs more than $4,000 a month.
The drug is not without side-effects. It can damage the heart, liver and lungs and pregnant women can’t take it.
Breast cancer is the biggest cancer killer of women, after lung cancer. It’s diagnosed in about 235,000 U.S. men and women every year and kills 40,000, according to the American Cancer Society.
About 20 percent of cases are known as HER2-positive breast cancer. That means the tumor cells make extra amounts of a protein called human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. It makes for a very aggressive type of cancer and it’s more likely to come back after treatment than other breast cancers.
Women newly diagnosed with HER2 breast cancer should still be treated first with Herceptin alone for a year, the National Cancer Institute says. But doctors may test the new drug in some volunteers to see if it works better.
Related links:
Smart bomb therapy helps breast cancer patients
Leave a Comment:
this is good news , that is cheap tho , somethings cost 12k in one visit , keep up the good work,
Any drug that isn't incredibly expensive is quickly abandoned and becomes an orphan drug. They only pursue drugs that treats a disease and is expensive, and never anything that can actually cure a disease for good.
Not true, Gawker. New drugs are priced based on several factors. 1. The cost of the many years of research. For every drug that is FDA approved, you can bet that thousands were tested in vitro, and several made it to animal or human trials, only to wash out. 2. The cost of making it. Drugs based on antibodies are inherently expensive because you need either live animals or tissue culture to produce them. 3. The rarity of the disease. If a disease is rare, few people will buy the drug and they will have less opportunity to recoup their costs. This makes the cost of the drug higher. Over time, the cost of any drug will drop. Pharmaceutical companies do need to make a profit in order to fund research. They are not non-profits. If you want cheaper drugs, encourage lawmakers to fund the NIH better. That's where universities get their research money, and universities don't need to recoup research costs. They are also free to research treatments that aren't patent-able, which a drug company won't touch.
NEVER A CURE . Always something that extends life a few months. With the billions that are spent where is the cure? The last cure was penicillin and how long ago was that? Is the real object to just extend life a few months and collect the money? I know, I know curing anything would add to the population, put to many people out of work and hurt the drug companies bottom line. How many times have we heard of a promising drug and then never hear about it again?
I have asked myself the same questions! Maybe one question we should ask is what would happen to the healthcare industry if a total cure for cancer was found?
Take my word for it when I tell you that the oncologists and
surgeons and researchers involved in breast cancer DO WANT
a cure. They want it as quick as possible. When ever you can
donate to this research please take the time to do it. It's these
new drugs that are tested that will eventually lead to more control
of the cancer if not a cure. Triple negative breast cancer is everybit
as dangerous as HER2. Research is being done and drugs are being tested
everyday on patients. The cost of a cure should at no time be a reason for
slowing research. And the research has to come before the cure.
Not familiar with Testicular cancer, several types of childhood leukemia and lymphomas are you, I guess you've never heard of sarcomas either-all cured.
Back in the middle of summer (August?) 2005, I was up late playing online poker. It was around 2:30 or 3am that I read the ticker going along the bottom of my TV. I am not sure what channel I had on for background 'noise' as I played. The story was about a wine making scientist in England that had killed 12 of 13 cancers that he was experimenting on...not merely slowed their progression. Knowing this was big (It may have been FOX?) I readied my VCR to record it when it came back around.....I never did! WTF!? Ive searched online, frequently then and not as much now for evidence of what I read. Nothing.
@ckneeley
Actually I am. Especially primary CNS lymphoma! It killed my wife 10 years ago.
My comment was directed at the original poster who claimed that there are no cures for cancer and the last cure was penicillin, apparently he/she is also unfamiliar with polio.
I think his point is those diseases I believe were cured by individuals not affiliated with any drug or medical company for profit.
Why do we spend so much money on treatments vs prevention? There is no money in prevention. Only saving money. We can deny it all we want, but there is an industry behemoth in big pharm.
And there is further and further proof (via lawsuits) that most drugs and their side effects are causing many diseases and cancers along with many environmental factors.
There are so many mechanisms of cancer, genetic and environmental, some of which aren't even understood. Cancer can target many different organ systems. There will never be some broad-spectrum "cure for cancer" that so many people wish for. It is a biological impossibility. Each instance, and each individual, must be assessed and treated for their specific cancer.
I don't think Marijuana can be considered "New"
While it may seem exciting, adding a couple of months to the end of the road may not be something some women would want, especially with the price tag. Don't get me wrong. . . still baby steps but, the cure should be the goal. U of Minn recently made some fantastic discoveries for the cure but it, at best, is no less than 10 years out.
My sister would be glad for every extra month she gets to spend with her kids. Also, they first tested it in the most hopeless cases (this is always how it works- wouldn't want to risk making a healthier person sicker). The drug may work better in people with earlier stage cancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvYHdIlqHTA <--- I would check out this video. medicines are not a cure. there will always be side effects with medicines. go with veggie diet and excercise, let your body heal itself.
There is no "healing" with cancer. Anyone who says this is lying.
@Happy in Ca......How do you know that? Did God tell you that ?? Do you know anything at all or are you just a ray of sunshine??
One definition of cancer is "a wound that never heals", this idea comes from the fact that cancers create a chronic inflammatory environment which recruits or differentiates local immune cells into a wound healing mode characterized by a host of inflammatory cytokines (e.g. Il-6, Il-10, bFGF, EGF, IIGF, etc.) and terminally differenciated immune cells (e.g. M2 type macrophages, T regulatory cells), not to mention angiogenic signal molecules, most importantly the VEGF family. Maybe "happy" is just well read.
Hahahahahahahaha- My sister ate a very healthy diet (lots of veggies, hardly any fat) and exercised daily. She didn't smoke and was not a bit overweight. She still got breast cancer. She continued to eat healthy and exercise, plus took lots of supplements, had people pray for her, etc. Did it cure her cancer? Of course not! If it were that easy, we wouldn't have people dying of cancer. There are no "secret" cures or "miracles that your doctor doesn't want you to know about". If you read those words, it's guaranteed horse hockey.
Breast cancer is not killing the women, its the DR that dosent know their job putting a curse on them with fear. Jesus healed that a long time ago but I know you dont want to hear that ,so keep your diseases ,let the DR have his fun with you, just hope they arenot Islamic DRs, cause you know their agend for the infidels.
NEVER A CURE. With the amount of money spent on cancer research, this is the best they can do? It's always the same. New drug comes out that extends life a few months and the drug companies collect. The last cure was penicillin and how long ago was that? With the tech we have now days your telling me that we can't find a cure, really.
I had chemo 10 years ago and would not go through it again just to add a few months to my life.everyone has a date with death we just do not know the date, so why predict it, with a few more months.
The point of this drug paradigm is that the chemo is targeted more efficiently to the Her2 overexpressing cells and will therefore inherently have less severe side effects
Maybe instead of the FDA approving another so called "safe" cancer drug maybe they should take a long hard look at the drugs that they have OK'ed for regular consumption in are food, water and medicines that they know cause Cancer among other mental and physical side affects... Instead of worrying about profit before people. So how much is your life worth these days?
However, the drug is not safe if it has so many side effects. People should have the choice, but I personally would go outside allopathic protocol and find as many immune boosters as possible.
This information is still BS. Cancer of all kinds is a chronic metabolic disease and will never be "cured." However, it can be "controlled" indefinitely with proper nutrition, as has been proven repeatedly over the last 60 years. If you don't understand why the medical community does not capitalize on this simple scientific fact, check out the lifestyles of those who are involved in on-going, self-perpetuating dead-end research. The stories behind outbreaks of scurvy during naval expeditions and of pellagra in other circumstances are much the same, so that millions have died and will die needlessly until big pharma and other vested interests can monopolize nutrition-related manufacturing and sales.
Brian, I totally agree with you that this is BS. Chemo is the only drug that the doctors get a commission on. Why don't they push LDN (Low Dose Naltrexone) which is not approved in "low dose" by the FDA but there has been studies proven that in low stages with breast cancer patients thats only had the surgery or NO surgery and NO Chemo or raditation that LDN has been proven to kill the bad cells while boosting up the GOOD cells. I know because I'm a breast cancer suvivor of almost 5 years this September. I had the surgery going into it with 4 tumors on my right breasts and a week later the surgeon said "oh, by the way, you didn't have 4 tumors, you only had 1". Bottom line is after that I walked away from traditional medicine and doctors and started seeking alternative practice. I started taking LDN after 2 more spots were found on my left breasts 4 months later. After taking 3mg of LDN for 3 months, they disappeared and I still take it to this day. I might also add that we totally changed how and what we eat. We learned about GMO's and read labels. I could go on and on about this, but people need to WAKE up and learn to be more aware of their own bodies and what you feed it. We're killing ourselves by how the food companies process our food.
Thanks for listening!
doctors try , but there has to be some type of plan, if you do something to someone what is going or could happen , this is what they should look at , before the next visit they should look to see if you have any reaction , and then you can go on with therapy , sometimes it get fore got ,
hate to say this but sometime the money is more
important then the cure they are trying to help you with,
thats when you have to have someone there looking after this for you while you are going tho this,
i got some horror storys of this,
will im out , storys i got are long , mom was half year pop was a year , so very long story about cancer and how money gets in the way of a cure,
sad but true ,
if doctors would go back to when and why they wanted to be a doctor , at 1st it was to help people , then i think they loss that along the way and money gets in the way , this is not true on some of the doctors ,
but if so take a vacation , if you have not had one in 4 or 5 years ,
The Fooded and Drugged Administration (FDA) knows something about drugs? When did that happen?
I love that people are starting to question these mainstream practices! It seems like only a few years ago there would have been absolutely no mention of Dr. Burzynksi on a post like this! I hope this momentum continues to build!
Reportedly, Dr. Burzynski actually does use chemo drugs, plus his own "antineoplastons," for which he charges substantial money though they have not been the subject of clinical trials. It's usually not considered ethical to charge enough money to constitute a financial burden for a treatment whose efficacy you can't estimate. How is informed consent possible when the patient has no way of guessing whether he would consider the average benefits to be good enough to justify cleaning out his family's savings? At least with these "$100,000 for an extra six weeks" pharma drugs, patients with backbones and good reading comprehension can get online and find out how much they'll pay for how little return. Burzynski might not be able to legally do a clinical trial, which requires government permission, but nothing stops him from publishing a "complete case series" following all the patients with a particular disease seen during a certain period. Then we could see about what percentage of them get better or last longer than average historical patients. But, as far as I know, he has never done this. Instead, he makes a big deal over a few patients who have done especially well (which is meaningless, since there will be a few such people in any group of cancer patients). He also uses allegedly good results from people with one type of cancer to justify treating people with totally different types, but that doesn't follow at all. You can Google Burzynski and find a lot of criticism. Some of it comes from the rabid scientism crowd, but by no means all of it. Anyone considering spending a lot of money at his clinic might want to take a cold look at those criticisms first.
The research dollars would dry up
Look at the side effects. After all of these years of research, I'm not sure that I know what actually has been accomplished. I know there are lots of tortured innocent animals, and the research has provided false hope for lots of suffering people. Nice of Gennotech to actually give it away to the indigent, while they will probably make billions from it anyway.
Of course it has provided a steady income for some people, and advanced the income of some.
The FDA is screwing the public releasing drugs with so many side effects that most likely causes cancer in the first place. How is something that doesn't cure you, but makes you feel even worst, helping you? The only ones that comes out looking and feeling better is the drug companies that makes the crap, and the doctors who prescribes it.
Then don't seek healthcare, problem solved. Let others make their own choices.
It's always the same set of comments whenever there's news about a new cancer drug. Why can't we cure cancer? The FDA is stupid. Pharma companies are only in it for the money. We're keeping the cancer cure from the public because of greed. Damn! GIve me a break!
Some cancers can be cured. Thats a fact. But any cancer that is diagnosed at an advanced stage is very difficult to cure. We can't find a cure for cancer because cancer, a collection of many diseases with some common features, is damn hard to cure.
Everything that we've discovered about cancer in the past 15 years tells us that a cure will be very difficult for advanced cases of cancer. So the best that we can do is to make step by step progress. That's exactly what's happening. Instead of a cure for all cancers, the most realistic goal for now is to extend life and manage cancer like a chronic disease. That is why the chemotherapy era is ending. Chemotherapy drugs are toxic poisons that cannot be given indefinitely. If pharma companies could get find drugs that could be administered to cancer patients for years instead of only months they would do it, for obvious reasons.
It's interesting that the people who are supposedly hiding the cancer cure are just standing by while their loved ones die of cancer. Does anyone really believe that the executives at pharma companies and their relatives never die of cancer?
genetech drugs, and why don't you prevent br ca to begin with by informing the public about the cumulative radation damage to delicate breast tissue,which is very sensitive to radiation from mammograms, xrays , CT scans and the notorious Gadolinium metal for the magnets in MRI machines. tell them the BRCA1/2 gene and p53 gene and oncogenes. mammograms are just like the testicular radiation experiments done on prisoners by Carl Heller, Oregon, no different. XRAYS breaks your double strand DNA in 1mS in your cells. No radiation scans are safe, NONE. if they kept records on those in the 40, 50's and 1960's and 1970's, you can bet they know the doses they are giving. It accumulates. Stay away from the total body damage from cumulative xrays /fibrosis that then entraps the metal contrasts from MRI - gadolinium see mri side effects, occurs w normal kidney function, too, those skin sores, rib and hip pain , extreme fatigue, muscle pains, (it's not carpal tunnel) the metal shortens the tendons, stay away from drugs that prolong the QT interval on ekg/fainting, weakness, chest pains, and so on and on and on, You're not building better soldiers, you're making people very mad and in pain. It's not funny is it?
Cancer is a disease of the lymphatic system. And wouldn't you know, bra straps squeeze the lymph nodes under the arms.
I've been told women who don't wear bras have the exact same breast cancer rate as men.
Do you know what the rate is for breast cancer in men???
Well that comment couldn't have been any more false. Lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system, and cancers metastasize using the lymphatic system. However, saying that "Cancer" is a disease of the lymphatic system is completely ridiculous. Cancer cells occur in people all the time...you probably have some in your body now. It's only when your immune system does not catch and destroy them that they proliferate. No two cancers are completely alike which is why it's so difficult if not impossible to find a "magic cure pill for cancer." Do more research next time you want to make sweeping comments or spread
harmful myths please. Thanks.
And as far as the age old argument that drug companies could
find a cure if they want to, but they wont because they won't make as much
money. People need to get off their high
horses and have a little faith in humanity for once. At this point in science, researchers are
starting to come to the realization that there may never be a cure. Cancer cells are quite resilient, and thereare too many complex metabolic pathways in cancer cells to even imagine. When one drug stops a pathway, some cancer cells figure out another way to grow, or a way to bypass the pathway being affected. It's called resistance, same way bacteria can become resistant to a drug. With new advance such as these, and giving people more options cancer is quickly becoming controllable in the same way diabetes is. People die of diabetes all the time and it's not curable either. But with certain drugs it can be controllable for people to live longer and enjoyable lives. Do you hear people ragging on the companies that make Metformin saying that they are purposfully not finding a cure to Diabetes? Drugs such as this Her-2 targeted therapy will be able to give people an option for more time, and yes will have less
side effects due to the nature of the drugs beign targeted therapy. Everyone just needs to understand what's right for them, and know that just because the FDA approved this drug, and it's offered to you doesn't mean you have to take it. Some people will say, "No thanks," but some people may want that extra 5 1/2 months to see a grandchild born, or a son graduate from college, or go on that vacation they always wanted to take. Understand that the world does not revolve around you and that maybe some people would give their left arm for an opportunity for some of these drugs.
The cancer drug companies are not out to swindle anyone, they just want to put out as many options as they can. That way patients can then make the best decision for them and their families. No one else can do that.
Well, real Cures not Treatments (Two VERY different things) have been around for a few decades but the "Cancer society" will never acknowledge that they're there.
To answer the question, IF they came out and started really curing people then Billions of dollars would be "lost". The conflicts of interest with the doctors and the Chemo companies are staggering to say the least. For one, oncologists get paid "commission" per treatment of chemo by the Chemo Institutions...
One of many proven cures is dichloroacetate..
No hoaxes, no rumors, this is the real deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta’s Department of Medicine have discovered a simple and inexpensive drug that is proven to kill cancer cells.
This drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), changes the metabolism of cancer cells and causes them to age and die, a feat that is alien to cancer cells and stops them from otherwise destroying the human body and is CHEAP.
And that kid named Jack
"Jack is a fifteen year old freshman in high school. He developed a paper sensor that could detect cancer in five minutes for as little as 3 cents. He conducted his research at John Hopkins University. This research could change the face of cancer and promote early detection.
Jack’s method is 168 times faster, 26000 times cheaper, 400 times more sensitive and has a 90% success rate.
And that is just a kid, and i know its not a cure but its a major feat none the less. If that young boy could figure that out without having an unlimited supply of tools or cash, just imagine what scientists that have all day, all year, Billions of dollars and unlimited Supplies at their disposal have found out or what they can really do?
It seems that everything and every service that has to do with money comes second to the actual money, which is a complete waste both of time and resources. Because if money (or the bottom line) is the "Big Picture" then everything "has" to come second, third, fourth so on and so on. I think we need to stop being lazy and dependant and start controlling our own lives and futures.....damn that does sound nuts dont it
Many of those doing cancer research are super dedicated to finding a cure because many of those people have lost a loved one to cancer. Also don't you think those big, rich pharma executives fear that they or a family member might get cancer.
Hmmm, who do I listen to some jerk saying to trust only in prayer or bongo bongo beans or some off the wall "cure" for cancer or a dedicated medical staff with years and years of education and years of work fighting cancer. DUH!
Now, no one said anything about magic beans or prayer, its still science, and if people don't want to hear or believe that there is something new and better out there, then don't even bother reading it and criticizing it.
-Innovate, don't imitate
Your info on dichloroacetate doesn't seem to be very up to date, the delay in getting it to the market comes from the fact that it's actually increased cancer growth rates in certain types of cancer. The scientists who have dedicated their lives to finding a cure seem to be a little more trustworthy than someone on the internet who can't be bothered to google. As for the money, if you are the only pharmaceutical to find a cure and patent it, it seems that would also be a trillion dollar industry if 7 billion people across the globe could potentially have to rely on your medication.
Point being is that it cures certain types of cancer, not all since they're are many different types that attack in very different ways.
Its "like" snake anti venom, one AV completely reverses the effects of one species but it wont help (or may increase the effects) for the other types of snakes. That doesn't mean that the Anti Venom that is proven to cure that one type should be completely discredited from the "cures" pile. Even IF there was only "one" type of cure per type of cancer then each cure should be used accordingly to the type of cancer it cures (common sense). To think that Chemo could "fix" different types of cancers that have many different elements for each one is ridiculous.
And if you (the only) made a cure public you could only use it once for a patient because after that they are cured, which means no more returns, which means no more cash from them, which means guaranteed profits lost over time...which in todays "world" is the worst thing possible.
So, do you have to take this for the rest of your life (like it's addictive)? Nasty side effects, but I'm sure the company has drugs which will moderate them. Of course those drugs will be either addictive, or have side effects that require even more drugs.
Enough treatments. Remember when we searched for a cure?
The THC in cannabis kills cancer...call your ignorant congresspeople and tell them to study cannabis and stop acting like stupid little twits!
I can't buy into the popular argument that the health care industry does not want a cure for cancer to be found for the purpose of securing their incomes. This world is so toxic and people do so many things to increase that toxicity, that they will never run out of patients and income. Seriously.
Well,
Hypothetically, you are a retail seller and you sold; Fancy Glue 12$, Gold Tape 10$, a silver hot glue gun (with glue sticks) 16$, and some cheap-to-make superglue 4$, but you keep the latter behind the counter where no one can see it.
People in your town are always breaking their stuff so they come in and buy what you have on display. Well the glue can come apart and not really fix the problem but just prolong the issue, so they come back to buy more. The tape can get wet or melt and not really fix the problem but just prolong the issue, so they come back to buy more. The silver glue gun can, more than the others, keep whatever it is together for a longer period of time so more people buy that, conveniently the higher priced item, BUT they will need more glue sticks at a point, so you make more and more off those as well making for a pretty good profit and an assured constant return from the customers with the problems.
Now, if by chance one day you happen to put that fantastic cheap-to-make superglue 4$ that is very good at holding things together, probably forever, then everyone would buy the cheaper superglue (common sense) and as it is very resistant to heat and water and you only need a tiny bit, the customers wont be coming back as quickly or even at all, because the problem is permanently fixed. Then at that time, all of your old profits from the glue, tape, and hot glue go right out the window and your not taking as much cash home.....
That is why they will never acknowledge the cures for cancer. Even IF they did and people still made things "toxic" they would loose Billions, Possibly Trillions of Dollars from the cancer industry.
So Would YOUR company take that big of a hit on purpose? Would any pure profit oriented company do that? Not to mention that they would have to admit that they lied to millions of cancer patients and their families about not having a real cure..
Like i have said, we are at a precipice of technological advancements vs. profits...We have had the technology to replace 80% of Americas jobs with robots/computers but that would throw the whole consumerism thing out the window. And apparently according to the economists and the money watchers, consumerism makes for about 70% or 80% of the stock market that is now collapsing anyway.
What a ridiculous and dangerous way of thinking... "lets just buy buy buy and we can make ourselves richer through stocks" That is exactly how it is, and that is incontrovertible my friends
This is VERY encouraging...
Prolong survival or prolong suffering?
Not your choice to make.