One of the amazing things about science and biology is coming across amazing photos and microscopic shots like these, before and after treatment of lung cancer from the Government website Ocean Explorer.
Continuing the recent theme of new and interesting technologies in cancer therapeutics, today’s blog post looks at neolipid technology and examines how a novel Trojan horse strategy might make existing chemotherapy more efficient and effective.
Tumor cells need to consume large amounts of fat to sustain their rapid growth (angiogenesis). Neolipid technology takes advantage of this by entrapping anti-cancer agents inside liposomes, which are microscopic membrane-like structures created from lipids (fats). The tumour then eats the liposome and absorbs the anti-cancer agent at the same time.
A fascinating article in the New England Journal of Medicine caught my eye this morning basically saying that a genetic cause has been found for severe congenital neutropenia. The German study found that severe congenital neutropenia can arise from mutations in the gene for glucose-6-phosphatase.
Studies in five patients from two interrelated families of Middle Eastern descent revealed that all were heterozygous for the same mutation in the gene.
“Thinking is the hardest work there is. Which is probably the reason why so few men engage in it.”
Henry Ford
I found this fascinating quote today:
"Recent research suggests that lung cancer risks are higher among trucking industry workers because of diesel fume exposure. According to a new study published in the January issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, workers in the trucking industry with an estimated 20 years on the job have an elevated risk of lung cancer with each increasing year of work due to their diesel fume exposure."
Lung Cancer, whats that got to do with Delivery Drivers
This is a logical approach in the same way that number of pack years is relevant to the risks of developing lung cancer from smoking. What does other research say? Is there anything to back this assertion up?
Today's blog post is much later than usual due to ongoing consulting commitments, but when an alert flashed up on my email with the above header, I couldn't resist taking a break and reading it:
Wow, that got my attention. Here's a link to the letter published in Nature.
Patients undergoing treatment for cancer with chemotherapy may often not receive the optimal drug combination or dosing for a number of reasons. These include debilitating side effects, high interstitial fluid pressure, leaky vessels or the development of tumour resistance.
In recent years, researchers have started to look at novel ways of making treatment more effective. On such way is to change the formulation, develop more targeted agents that specifically inhibit the abnormal protein or better sequencing of available therapies. Some of these have had mixed success as the stories of Gleevec, Tarceva, Iressa and Avastin have shown, albeit in some, but not all patients.
The value of new drugs is dropping – Jan 8th
"In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration approved 24 brand new
medicines, the most in three years. But medicines approved through June
produced lower sales than had been seen in the preceding decade." And yet in oncology, the prices (and presumably revenues) have been rising over the last 5 years. Interesting, perhaps it reflects the number of novel compounds rather than the me-toos seen in the consumer markets.
Skin cancer ups the risk of further cancers – Jan 8th
"Researchers studying nearly 23,000 cases of people treated for skin
cancer found that melanoma, the most severe form, was linked to double
the risk of having another primary cancer."
The recent financial crisis and market meltdown that led to a credit crunch will have impacted many start-ups and baby biotechs, many of whom will have a year or less of cash to survive.
This creates new opportunities for buyouts from larger pharma companies with cash in their pockets looking for good deals – Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and GSK are all known to have reserves as do medium sized biotechnology companies such as Celgene. Baby biotechs with good products and data will not have a problem finding a suitor but it in the current depressed market they may be forced to consider this option earlier than anticipated and for a lesser price. Such is life.