Crazy Positive Results in Cancer Study

[Jimmy Higgins]

If this wasn't the NY Times, I'd assume it was fake.

It was a small trial, just 18 rectal cancer patients, every one of whom took the same drug.

But the results were astonishing. The cancer vanished in every single patient, undetectable by physical exam; endoscopy; positron emission tomography, or PET scans; or MRI scans.

Dr. Luis A. Diaz Jr. of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, an author of a paper published Sunday in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the results, which were sponsored by drug company GlaxoSmithKline, said he knew of no other study in which a treatment completely obliterated a cancer in every patient.

This is hardly a set finding, but the statistical implications are definitely looking positive.

 

[steve_bank]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

This isn't a 10 tails in a row type result, it's way beyond that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

This isn't a 10 tails in a row type result, it's way beyond that.

Yeah, it's 18 confirmed critical hits in a row..

It's more along the lines of "EUA for all matching cases" territory here.

Either we might have kicked cancer in the ass or someone fixed the dice.

 

[steve_bank]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

This isn't a 10 tails in a row type result, it's way beyond that.

Statistically for a small sample size there is a probability of all positive results regardless of the overall true effectivity of a drug. That is the point.

As one of my doctors said on heart meds. Some drugs statistically are 50/50. A drug may work for d some and not others. Try one drug, if mot effect try another.

As my doctor said, randomized trials that include a range of people and conditions other than the one being tested is the best indicator of effectiveness.

 

[bilby]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

This isn't a 10 tails in a row type result, it's way beyond that.

Yeah, it's 18 confirmed critical hits in a row..

It's more along the lines of "EUA for all matching cases" territory here.

Either we might have kicked cancer in the ass or someone fixed the dice.

The odds favour the latter explanation.

At least until this result is independently repeated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

This isn't a 10 tails in a row type result, it's way beyond that.

Yeah, it's 18 confirmed critical hits in a row..

It's more along the lines of "EUA for all matching cases" territory here.

Either we might have kicked cancer in the ass or someone fixed the dice.

More likely we have kicked one type of cancer in the ass. I do agree on a EUA being a reasonable response.

 

[ramoss]

I will also point out that all of those patients had a specific gene mutation that was linked to the cancer, and only 4% of people with that form of cancer have that mutation. They also were checking to see what happened if this treatment happened earlier, rather than later. So, it's great news as far as it goes, but more research is needed to confirm the results, and even then it will be of most benefit to people who catch the cancer early, and have that specific gene mutation.

That gene mutation is 4% of all cancers, not just rectal cancer too. It would be interesting to see it tested on multiple types of cancers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will also point out that all of those patients had a specific gene mutation that was linked to the cancer, and only 4% of people with that form of cancer have that mutation. They also were checking to see what happened if this treatment happened earlier, rather than later. So, it's great news as far as it goes, but more research is needed to confirm the results, and even then it will be of most benefit to people who catch the cancer early, and have that specific gene mutation.

That gene mutation is 4% of all cancers, not just rectal cancer too. It would be interesting to see it tested on multiple types of cancers.

For the first round I think they would have picked a narrow target. After this result they should check other tumors with that mutation. This might mean they kicked the ass of 4% of cancer.

 

[ramoss]

I will also point out that all of those patients had a specific gene mutation that was linked to the cancer, and only 4% of people with that form of cancer have that mutation. They also were checking to see what happened if this treatment happened earlier, rather than later. So, it's great news as far as it goes, but more research is needed to confirm the results, and even then it will be of most benefit to people who catch the cancer early, and have that specific gene mutation.

That gene mutation is 4% of all cancers, not just rectal cancer too. It would be interesting to see it tested on multiple types of cancers.

For the first round I think they would have picked a narrow target. After this result they should check other tumors with that mutation. This might mean they kicked the ass of 4% of cancer.

Yes, that would be very nice. It would be wonderful if they could extend something like that to other cancers besides that gene mutation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will also point out that all of those patients had a specific gene mutation that was linked to the cancer, and only 4% of people with that form of cancer have that mutation. They also were checking to see what happened if this treatment happened earlier, rather than later. So, it's great news as far as it goes, but more research is needed to confirm the results, and even then it will be of most benefit to people who catch the cancer early, and have that specific gene mutation.

That gene mutation is 4% of all cancers, not just rectal cancer too. It would be interesting to see it tested on multiple types of cancers.

For the first round I think they would have picked a narrow target. After this result they should check other tumors with that mutation. This might mean they kicked the ass of 4% of cancer.

Yes, that would be very nice. It would be wonderful if they could extend something like that to other cancers besides that gene mutation.

I doubt it--I think cancer is a category, not a disease. There's no more a cure for cancer than there is a cure for infection.

 

[ramoss]

I will also point out that all of those patients had a specific gene mutation that was linked to the cancer, and only 4% of people with that form of cancer have that mutation. They also were checking to see what happened if this treatment happened earlier, rather than later. So, it's great news as far as it goes, but more research is needed to confirm the results, and even then it will be of most benefit to people who catch the cancer early, and have that specific gene mutation.

That gene mutation is 4% of all cancers, not just rectal cancer too. It would be interesting to see it tested on multiple types of cancers.

For the first round I think they would have picked a narrow target. After this result they should check other tumors with that mutation. This might mean they kicked the ass of 4% of cancer.

Yes, that would be very nice. It would be wonderful if they could extend something like that to other cancers besides that gene mutation.

I doubt it--I think cancer is a category, not a disease. There's no more a cure for cancer than there is a cure for infection.

Maybe, maybe not. Getting a cure for 4% of cancers will be a great start though.

 

[Swammerdami]

For clarity: The mutation they speak of is not in the patient's native DNA iiuc, but specific to the cancerous cells.

Maybe, maybe not. Getting a cure for 4% of cancers will be a great start though.

Spectacular even. My wife took a mutation-specific drug (whose name also ended in 'ib') which held her cancer in check for 7 months, but then lost effectiveness. High on my list of life's biggest regrets was not discovering her cancer until it was already Stage 4.

 

[barbos]

The mutation they speak of is not in the patient's native DNA iiuc, but specific to the cancerous cells.

That very specific. I can easily imagine a drug which target cells with such mutation and 100% effective.

 

[Corona688]

Three are ongoing reports of the media making one claim or another based a study somewhere. The news segments begin wit something like 'A new study has made an astinng link betweenn...'

Flip a coin enough times and you might get 10 tails in a row.

Large scale randomixed trails screen out variables.

If true I'd think it woud be a case of 'it merits further study'.

This isn't a 10 tails in a row type result, it's way beyond that.

Yeah, it's 18 confirmed critical hits in a row..

It's more along the lines of "EUA for all matching cases" territory here.

Either we might have kicked cancer in the ass or someone fixed the dice.

Or some sort of systemic testing error. Selecting for patients most likely to naturally regress, etc.