Submitted by AdmiralKurita t3_y5cewv in Futurology
AdmiralKurita OP t1_isivp4t wrote
Article states that the vaccine may be available in ten years or so. A potential use for these vaccines is to vaccinate those with a predisposition for cancer, such as those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or those who had cancer and are at risk for re-occurrence, as oppose who have advanced cancer.
Oddly enough, the article agrees with my negative assessment on the progress of oncology over the last few decades:
>A breakthrough like that can’t come soon enough, say breast cancer
advocates. “I was diagnosed in 1987, and I wasn’t treated much
differently from what is available today, in terms of surgery and
chemotherapy,” says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer
Coalition, an advocacy organization. “Yes, there is a lot of focus on
immunotherapy, and that’s exciting from a research perspective. But it
hasn’t really made a difference in women’s lives yet.”
There are a few more targeted therapies.
RottenBananaCore t1_isjfk2r wrote
Worth reading for how progress was being made until we collectively got sidetracked by the (wrong) genetic theory of cancer : “Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer”
KFUP t1_iskn4lg wrote
At least it wasn't intentionally doctored unlike the leading theory on Alzheimer’s that caused the whole Alzheimer’s research go in the wrong direction for almost 20 years.
paulfdietz t1_isjp8xi wrote
> There are a few more targeted therapies.
Cancer is many diseases. Your complaint is like "We haven't cured illness. There are a few targeted therapies."
raynorelyp t1_isk48zs wrote
I mean… there are a lot of viruses but vaccines are effective against basically all of them except a few. And even those few we’ve basically solved at this point, we just haven’t finished the trials.
Edit: a lot of people seem to be weirdly skeptical of mRNA or are pretending we have anything remotely close to that for cancer. Ironically the closest thing to an mRNA vaccine equivalent for cancer is… a literal mRNA vaccine.
SnapcasterWizard t1_iskivrv wrote
??? It takes a lot of time and effort to develop a new vaccine. We dont have a universal "anti virus" vaccine.
raynorelyp t1_isl10sn wrote
No, but we have a near universal strategy in using traditional and mRNA vaccines. The only viruses I haven’t heard that we can use it for already have other working solutions.
We don’t have anything remotely close there that as a strategy for cancer. Chemo is insanely destructive to our bodies.
TheGoodFight2015 t1_isko8gn wrote
No this is wrong, please edit this. There are many viruses, and every novel virus requires a new vaccine to be developed and tested for safety and efficacy. That means the vaccine needs to #1 not hurt people, and #2 actually protect against the worst effects of the infection (a bonus /ideal #3 is effective prevention of getting sick and being contagious).
raynorelyp t1_isl0o54 wrote
Are you saying mRNA vaccines won’t eventually solve almost every virus and for the rest like HIV we don’t already have medicine effectively curing it in a lot of cases?
LightOfTheElessar t1_isll0zf wrote
I'm pretty sure the gist of what they're saying is that you were massively oversimplying medical research. For my own two cents, I think the development of mRNA vaccines is amazing, but it's extremely off putting to see it get held up as the one stop shop for "solving almost every virus" so soon. Pump the brakes a bit and let the research and development finish running it's course for more vaccines before taking victory laps, for lack of a better phrase, that big.
Odeeum t1_isk0v0z wrote
Wife has BRCA1...opted for double mastectomy a few years ago. No regrets as it was a huge stressor given her family history of cancers, specifically breast.
We haven't tested out daughters yet but they're aware so this is really cool news.
deedeebop t1_isko556 wrote
Interesting. How does one go about acquiring the test for BRCA1 or BRCA2… is it expensive? Or is there a way for it to be covered by ins? (Woman, 46 asking.)
Unbr3akableSwrd t1_iskruy0 wrote
Usually, if you have a family history, you can and should be tested. I believe that insurance company usually paid for it because earlier catch of the illness can save them more monies down the road.
Or I could be totally wrong.
gudfred t1_isl419y wrote
I work as a cancer genetic counselor. If you meet criteria for testing/insurance coverage, then in my experience most patients end up paying $100 or less out of pocket. There are a couple labs where you can also self-pay (and avoid going through insurance) for a flat rate of $250.
I strongly encourage people to try and meet with a genetic counselor, as I've seen PCPs either order the wrong test or do it through a lab that costs more than necessary. Also, when other providers decide to order testing and it comes back positive, they often refer to a genetic counselor to discuss the implications of results anyway. There are genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 that we test for, but not every test is the right fit for each individual so it's important to understand your testing options and the pros and cons of those options.
Many genetic counseling clinics offer remote telehealth appointments so you don't necessarily need to travel to a hospital to be seen. Here is a good resource to locate a genetic counselor in your area: https://findageneticcounselor.nsgc.org/
deedeebop t1_islsy28 wrote
Hey thank you so much for this valuable insight! I really appreciate that you took the time to tell me (all of us) about that. I will have to look into this. There is no real family history here but I’m still curious… and as far as criteria… is that what would qualify? A family history of some kind?
gudfred t1_ismmhwb wrote
The criteria are factors of your personal and family history that are suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome. They help guide who has a higher likelihood of having one of these syndromes as they are typically quite rare and we want to focus our efforts on people with an elevated chance of benefiting from the results. Unfortunately, insurance often uses the same criteria for determining whether they will cover genetic testing.
That being said, I do see patients in clinic who don't meet these criteria but are still interested in testing and they often just pay the $250. If someone really wants the information, I'd rather they do it through a genetic counselor who can fully explain the testing as well as any results that come back than to find some other way of doing it themselves and possibly getting untrustworthy results, results they don't know how to interpret, or even the wrong test for what they were trying to learn.
I've had some patients who had gone to significant lengths to get testing done themselves and then an odd result comes up... They still end up in our clinic and may even need to get confirmatory testing at a reputable lab to confirm their initial result! My job isn't to be a barrier to testing, it's to empower patients by helping them understand what genetics can and cannot do when it comes to their risk of developing cancer. Hope that all helps!
deedeebop t1_isn930n wrote
Wow, one thing I can say it’s that you’re an amazing person! Thanks for sharing and thanks for helping so many people.
Odeeum t1_iskt8eh wrote
It was more difficult than it should have been tbh. My wife had a leg up as her aunt had a complete genetic screening a few years befire that flagged it in the family...this allowed my wife to use her paperwork to take to her PCP and get her own test done for it.
Cancer was prevalent on both sides of her family so it was a spectre lurking in her mind her whole adult life. She didn't hesitate as soon as the test came back positive...it was actually quite a relief and has zero regrets. The surgery was fully covered by our insurance as well as the follow up plastic surgery for her replacememt boobs.
This was several years ago though and I believe it's much easier to get tested. I think 23andMe actually has added it to the list of things they can test now too.
gudfred t1_isl4mfz wrote
I also replied to the above question, but read your response and figured I'd mention that 23andme does not currently have FDA approval for BRCA1 and BRCA2 full gene analysis, only for the Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations. A lot of people think they did BRCA testing through 23andme but it wasn't actually comprehensive and more testing may be recommended. Sorry to hear that your wife had difficulty in getting her genetic testing done!
Odeeum t1_isln2bf wrote
Oh awesome, thanks for the info...I signed up with 23andme really early on and loved it but haven't kept up the last couple years. Thanks for thr kind words, I can only assume things are much easier now to get tested.
[deleted] t1_islk44p wrote
[removed]
NapClub t1_isj87v6 wrote
i think the pig heart valve protein based treatment is very promising but it's still years, maybe a decade, away from being really reliable i think.
AstriumViator t1_ism1owu wrote
You know what? Ill take what we can get. If these guys ever plan on testing these on people in the future, im 100% willing to take it. Ive got a long family history of breast cancer, and theres no doubt in my mind im next at some point.
Ok_Wolverine_1904 t1_isj6dec wrote
Cancer sucks to watch and harder to deal with. They need to figure this out and share as much research as they can to beat it! Big pharma has the resources but they need to stop using chemo as the only very expensive option
A_Shadow t1_iskhzue wrote
The stopped using chemo as the only option decades ago btw.
In some cases of advanced cancer then yes, chemo would be the only or best option.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments