Monday, March 30, 2015

David KrollContributor
I cover drugs, education, and the science affecting our daily lives.full bio →
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

What 60 Minutes Got Right And Wrong On Duke's Polio Virus Trial Against Glioblastoma

An engineered version of the poliovirus has been in development for more than 20 years as a treatment for one of the most difficult-to-treat cancers, a brain tumor called glioblastoma multiforme, abbreviated GBM. A human safety trial of the virus, called a Phase I study, is ongoing at Duke University’s Brain Tumor Center in Durham, North Carolina. The patients who’ve been enrolled have the toughest form of this disease: GBM that has returned after previous surgery and treatment.
Last night, the CBS News program 60 Minutes devoted two segments of the broadcast to correspondent Scott Pelley’s 10-month-long glimpse into this clinical trial. (Disclosure: I have held an unpaid adjunct faculty appointment in Duke University’s Department of Medicine since 2002, was a paid faculty member there in 2001, and did a year-long research sabbatical there in 2000 while I was a pharmacy professor at the University of Colorado.)
The segment, called “Killing Cancer,” was produced by Michael Radutzky and Denise Schrier Cetta and did a responsible job of illustrating the potential power of this new treatment with the sober realities of the challenges presented by a cancer whose prognosis is measured in months. The program, the entire transcript, and supplementary materials are available at the 60 Minutes website.
Using the virus that causes the childhood paralytic disease called poliomyelitis to treat cancer seems outrageous. We’ve been trying to eradicate the virus from the planet since the 1950s, when two types of vaccines were developed by Drs. Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin. The Americas were declared polio-free in 1994 and the disease only remains in three countries: Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
But the way that the polio virus infects cells and what it does afterwards are the precise actions that Matthias Gromeier, MD, thought could be harnessed to treat cancer. Gromeier has been at Duke for the last 15 years painstakingly shepherding his studies from lab to clinic. But the German-trained molecular biologist began this work in earnest 25 years ago when he came to the States to work with the renowned virologist, Eckard Wimmer, at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Some technical background
Detailed in this seminal 1996 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Gromeier and colleagues in Wimmer’s lab replaced a segment of the poliovirus’s RNA genome with a corresponding piece from a human rhinovirus, a type that causes the common cold (The virus is still known in the literature and on Duke’s webpage by the cumbersome name, PVS-RIPO.)
They found that this recombinant (or chimeric) virus could still infect cells that had the poliovirus receptor, but that the virus didn’t replicate. Many cancer cells, including glioblastoma, overproduce the poliovirus receptor (known as CD155 or Necl-5). So, by using the right amount of this designer virus, the researchers could selectively kill glioblastoma cells in culture without affecting normal neuronal cells. For this reason, this virus is called an oncolytic virotherapy, meaning that it causes lysis or bursting open of cancer cells.
But that’s not all. The way that cancer cells make proteins is different from that of normal cells. So even when the virus gets into some normal cells that have the receptor, it’s not as damaging. This two-part difference between cancer cells and normal cells is the basis for trying to treat human glioblastomas by directly infusing very small amounts into the tumor through a one millimeter diameter catheter that’s inserted into the tumor through the skull, guided by 3-D imaging. That part of the work is done by Duke neurosurgeon, John Sampson, MD.
But once in the brain, the normal protective triggers the body’s immune response against the tumor cells. In fact, the patient’s own immune response is probably more important than the initial bursting of the cancer cells.
As Gromeier explained on 60 Minutes, “So cancers, all human cancers, they develop a shield or shroud of protective measures that make them invisible to the immune system. And this is precisely what we try to reverse with our virus. So by infecting the tumor, we are actually removing this protective shield. And telling the– enabling the immune system to come in and attack.”
But the immune response must be carefully manipulated because too much virus can cause a massive swelling of the brain. So that’s why the goal of this first Duke trial isn’t to determine the virus’s effectiveness. The purpose is to get to the right dose, as explained by the Brain Tumor Center’s deputy director, Henry Friedman, MD.

A personal aside
While I was on sabbatical at Duke in 2000, Gromeier had joined the faculty in microbiology and immunology in the same building where my mentor, Ken Kreuzer was located. I remember when Gromeier’s first independent grant was funded through the National Cancer Institute’s RAID program, a funding mechanism that allowed unique cancer treatments discovered in academia to be cultivated for clinical trials using the preclinical toxicology, medicinal chemistry, and biologics expertise of the NCI Developmental Therapeutics Program to produce clinical trial-quality study agent.
When I ran into Gromeier a few years into the process, he said that the level of detail required to get the product even made was tortuous. When they were using cholesterol in the mix to originally help the virus into the cells, he said that NCI and FDA were concerned about the source of the cholesterol being cattle and that they had to be sure that the preparation didn’t have any miniscule amount of the virus that causes mad cow disease. Every step of the process had to overcome this degree of scrutiny. And even when the clinically-qualified batches of virus were made, the FDA required seven more years of safety testing, up to and including administration to three dozen monkeys, before the first human subject was permitted in 2011.
My near-teenage daughter just walked past the computer as I’m writing this and I was struck by the fact that Gromeier has been working on this at Duke a couple of years longer than she has been alive. The rigor with which the safety of this approach is being evaluated is remarkable.
I encourage you to watch both parts of the 60 Minutesstory. Knowing some of the folks involved but also putting on my critical hat as a scientist and writer, I have a few thoughts on how the story was presented.
What I liked:
1. The program was careful to note that the effectiveness of the virus in three of the study volunteers interviewed was offset by an equal number of patients who are no longer alive. Eleven of the 22 volunteers have succumbed to their disease.
2. The program gave time for Henry Friedman to say that a clinical effect of the study agent is not the goal of a Phase I study.
3. Annick Desjardins, MD, the neurooncologist who followed the patients and evaluated their post-surgical functioning, showed the true level of compassion and teamwork that forms the nucleus of the Brain Tumor Center’s reputation.
4. Even when Scott Pelley pushed Friedman and center director, Darell Bigner, MD, PhD, to use the word “cure” or “miracle,” both were very measured and guarded but still conveyed a sense of optimism. In Friedman’s 34 years at Duke and Bigner’s 49 years, they’ve seen a lot of death. But they’ve also made significant contributions in So for them to both say that the recombinant poliovirus approach was the most promising agent they’ve seen for glioblastoma in their careers, it’s hard not to be excited.
5. Both the program and Duke made it very easy for prospective patients to have their questions answered about potential eligibility for the trials: Editor’s Note: For more information on the Duke University polio trial or other brain cancer trials, click here or call 919-684-5301. The Duke page is very easy for interested subjects to navigate for referrals and information on this and other clinical trials at the Brain Tumor Center. The site was clobbered last night and was unreachable for the first two hours after the program aired, but it has been available every time I’ve clicked this morning.
What I liked less:
1. At the outset, Pelley made it sound like very few advances have been made in cancer treatment over the last 100 years: “The long war on cancer has left us well short of victory. Radiation flashed on in the 19th century, chemotherapy began to drip in the 20th but, for so many, 100 years of research adds up to just a few more months of life.” That’s partly true, but partly nonsense. Tremendous strides have been made within many cancers, from childhood leukemia cures to cancer survivors who are counting decades since their treatment. The program needn’t have denigrated how far we’ve come to show the promise of the viral therapy. It’s impressive enough on its own.
2. Pelley: “Duke went to the FDA for approval of this new Frankenstein virus.” Frankenstein? No, no, no, no. Moreover, the virus wasn’t approved. It was granted Investigational New Drug status to begin clinical trials.
3. The emotional power of the two people who are in remission, particularly the first recipient, Stephanie Lipscomb, was so positively overwhelming that I don’t think the risks were fully balanced by the story of another patient who did not do well and withdrew from the study. The positive anecdotes were very compelling and a viewer hoping to get into subsequent trials might be overly optimistic. While I mentioned above that I liked the fact the the 11 of 22 response statistics were a valuable inclusion, the amount of time given to that point led to its underrepresentation.
4. For Forbes readers, there was a paucity of information on the intellectual property considerations of the polio virus therapy and detail on how the drug will ultimately be commercialized. The program mentioned briefly that the investigators have a financial stake in the drug’s success, as with many clinical trials. But there was no discussion of the fact that the first patents on the therapy were granted to Gromier with Wimmer and the Research Foundation of SUNY-Stony Brook. Issued in 2003 and 2006, we don’t know if any hurdles exist for Duke’s commercialization of the technology (I have no inside information on this; I’m just raising it as a viewer who expected the issue to be addressed.).
5. While interviewing Gromeier, Pelley led him to speak about the use of the virus against other cancers. I don’t think the program made clear that the work in prostate, breast, and pancreatic cancer, among others, was still in the experimental phase.
6. The program only briefly touched on other therapies that exploit the immune system for cancer but didn’t mention that viral approaches are being taken by quite a few other research teams and companies. Forbescontributor, Arlene Weintraub, has a more comprehensive discussion this morning.
7. Without knowing Henry Friedman, one might think that CBS was being disrespectful to him because he chooses not to dress as a typical physician: He was wearing a Duke hoodie and jeans and Pelley said that’s how Friedman’s brain thinks about fashion. Indeed, his dress is most often casual but I know that it breaks down barriers with his patients, most who are coming from far away and freaked out about their disease. Friedman is a fierce advocate of every facet of Duke and has contributed immensely to the brain cancer treatment internationally. Moreover, I admire him most for his establishment of a program (with neurosurgery colleague, Allan Friedman, MD – not related) for Duke’s women athletes who wish to pursue medical school and his strong support of Duke women’s basketball. Perhaps that’s just me.
Why the absence of the Tisch name?
And my final observation was one that just struck me as odd. The Duke Brain Tumor Center, originally established in 1937, was renamed the Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center after the Tisch family donated $10 million for research at the Brain Tumor Center and the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center. Yet the 60 Minutes program made no mention of this name.
The late Bob Tisch was treated at Duke for his brain cancer, living for 14 more months after he was given a two-month prognosis in New York. Bob Tisch was the brother of the late Larry Tisch, CEO of the CBS network from 1986 to 1995. During his tenure, Larry Tisch slashed jobs in the news division and one can’t help but think that the remaining old-timers at 60 Minutes might hold some grudge. Alternatively, they might not have wanted to cloud the story with this two-steps-removed association with the Duke Brain Tumor Center.
In any case and for whatever reason, the omission was glaring. CBS has not responded to a request for information.
Also on Forbes:
For more health and pharmaceutical news and commentary, follow me on Twitter @DavidKroll, or here at Forbes.com.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Cancer treatment and fertility

Living with cancer blog

Cancer treatment and fertility

By Sheryl M. Ness, R.N. March 24, 2015
Are you thinking about having a family? Certain cancer treatments and surgeries can affect fertility or cause sterility. Cancer treatment often is urgent and fertility may not be the first thing on your mind.
However, it's important to ask good questions and find out more about your individual situation prior to treatment when it comes to preserving your fertility options for later.
Cancer treatments may have temporary or permanent effects and may depend on your cancer type and your age. Common causes of infertility in cancer patients include:
  • Chemotherapy — can depend on drug dosage, length of treatment and type. Chemotherapy drugs called alkylating agents (such as busulfan, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and melphalan) are a class of drug that can have major effects on fertility.
  • Radiation — varies depending on the location and dose of radiation. The most severe damage occurs if radiation is given in the area of the ovaries or testicles.
  • Surgery — removal of the testicles for men and ovaries, uterus and cervix for women.
  • Age — women older than age 40 are more likely to go into early menopause as a result of cancer treatment.
To preserve fertility prior to treatment:
  • Both men and women should ask about chemotherapy effects and discuss options that may decrease the chance of permanent damage.
  • Women may want to explore embryo freezing, ovarian transposition and radiation shielding.
  • Men may want to discuss sperm banking prior to treatment and radiation shielding.
Fertility measures after treatment is completed may include:
  • Using frozen embryos or donor eggs
  • Pregnancy surrogate
  • Conception with the help of a fertility expert
  • Adoption
  • Testicular sperm extraction
  • Donor sperm
If you'd like to learn more about fertility options, resources include:
  • Mayo Clinic (www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/getting-pregnant/in-depth/fertility-preservation/art-20047512)
  • Fertile Hope (www.livestrong.org/fertilehope)
  • Oncofertility Consortium (www.myoncolfertility.org)
It's important to know that you may have options to preserve or protect your fertility. Feel free to bring this topic up early in the conversation with your treating doctor so that it can be addressed as part of your treatment plan.
I'd love to hear back from you. Please share your experiences on this topic.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

How Exercise May Aid Cancer Treatment

Photo
CreditGetty Images
Phys Ed
PHYS ED
Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.
In a new study involving mice, aerobic exercise slowed the growth of breast cancer tumors and made the cancer more sensitive to chemotherapy. The results raise the possibility that exercise may change the biology of some malignant tumors, potentially making them easier to treat.
Scientists and clinicians have known for some time that solid tumors can create their own, peculiar ecosystem within the body. As a tumor grows, it sends out biochemical signals that prompt the creation of additional blood vessels to provide the expanding tumor with more oxygen. Oxygen is, of course, important for cell health, including in normal tissue.
But in some tumors, these new blood vessels begin to proliferate so wildly that they create a “jumble and tumble” of tubes that can curl around and choke one another, reducing blood supply and oxygen to the tumor, says Mark W. Dewhirst, the Gustavo S. Montana Professor of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine and senior author of the new study.
As a result, the tumor becomes hypoxic; it exists in an environment with little oxygen.
That condition might seem desirable, since it is fundamentally unhealthy for living tissue to be starved of oxygen. But unfortunately, Dr. Dewhirst says, hypoxia also can make tumors relatively impervious to treatment. Chemotherapy drugs and radiation work better in conjunction with oxygen.
“It’s a bad sign from a clinical perspective when a tumor is hypoxic,” Dr. Dewhirst says.
For years, he and his colleagues have been looking for ways to increase oxygen flow to tumors. There have been trials in animals and people of substances that alter the biochemical signals from the tumors and lead to slower, more normal blood vessel growth to the tumor and reduced hypoxia. But the benefits of this approach have so far been fleeting; eventually the blood vessels leading to the tumor tend to overgrow again like untended vines and hypoxia returns.
So Dr. Dewhirst and colleagues from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City began to consider exercise.
Aerobic exercise is known to increase the flow of oxygen-rich blood to tissues. It’s one of the hallmarks of the activity.
So for the new study, which was published this month in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the scientists decided to formally test exercise as a means of altering tumor hypoxia. They began by surgically implanting mouse breast cancer cells into female mice. The scientists did not use human cells, because they would have had to dial down the animals’ immune systems to avoid rejection and wanted to be able to observe interactions between exercise and the animals’ normal immune response.
The mice were then divided into groups that either remained sedentary after surgery or ran at will on wheels in their cages.
In both groups, the tumors took hold and grew, but the growth was significantly slower in the runners. Additional testing showed that the blood vessels feeding the tumors in these animals were healthier than in the sedentary mice. As a result, the runners’ tumors were less hypoxic.
Next, using another group of mice with breast cancer, the scientists had a quarter of the animals remain sedentary. Another quarter of the animals ran on wheels. A third group received a standard drug used in chemotherapy treatment of breast cancer while remaining sedentary. And the final group exercised and received the chemotherapy drug.
After 12 days — a lengthy period in the life of an adult mouse — the animals were reassessed. The tumors in the sedentary animals were, as expected, large and hypoxic.
But exercise and chemotherapy each had slowed tumor growth. The group that had exercised had smaller tumors than did the sedentary mice. So did the animals that had received the chemotherapy drug.
However the mice that simultaneously had exercised and received chemotherapy showed the best outcome, with the smallest tumors by a significant margin.
That result suggests, Dr. Dewhirst says, that exercise had made the breast cancer tumors in the mice more amenable to the chemotherapy. By making the tumors less hypoxic — and paradoxically healthier, he says — exercise “also had made those tumors easier to kill.”
At the same time, exercise seems to have fought the tumors independently of the chemotherapy drugs. In the animals that ran but did not receive chemotherapy, Dr. Dewhirst says, the scientists found blood markers indicating a high degree of tumor cell death, although just how exercise was prompting cancer cells to die remains unclear.
Of course, this study was small and involved mice, not people. There is not yet scientific evidence showing that exercise affects tumor biology in people as it did in the mice in this study.
Still, exercise is advisable and generally tolerable for people undergoing cancer treatment, says study co-author Lee W. Jones, an exercise scientist at Memorial Sloan Kettering whose lab creates customized exercise regimens for patients undergoing treatment at the center. The American Cancer Society also recommends exercise to improve the quality of life among cancer survivors. Obviously, though, consult with your physician before starting any program.
Meanwhile, Dr. Dewhirst has begun follow-up mouse experiments using a different type of breast cancer cell that grows more slowly than the cells used in this study and is a better approximation of human breast cancer, he says. He also hopes to study other types of cancerous tumors in future studies.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/how-exercise-may-aid-cancer-treatment/?ref=health

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Road to Cancer Treatment Through Clinical Trials

Photo
CreditPaul Rogers
Personal Health
PERSONAL HEALTH
Jane Brody on health and aging.
In 1947, children who developed acute lymphocytic leukemia died. Dr. Sidney Farber, a pathologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, was so distressed doing autopsies on these children that he moved into the clinic and, against the advice of more conservative colleagues, began treating children with aminopterin, a highly toxic drug that starved their cancerous white blood cells of critical nutrients.
Miraculously, for many the disease went into remission, only to recur months later. But Dr. Farber’s last-ditch attempt to save these children began an era of ultimately remarkable progress — decades of clinical trials of progressively complex treatments that now cure nearly 90 percent of children with leukemia.
Olivia Blair of Baltimore, who will be 3 in May, is showing the benefits of this progress. After her T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia was diagnosed when she was 17 months old, Olivia has weathered more than a year of treatment at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center with about 15 different drugs plus radiation to her brain and spine.
With her disease undetectable months later, she is now in a study of an experimental drug to help maintain the remission and is back to a near-normal childhood, a thriving, happy toddler who plays with other children, goes to day care and accompanies her mother grocery shopping.
Kelly Blair, Olivia’s mother, said, “It was very hard for us to decide to participate in the new study, but we finally thought that even if it didn’t help Olivia, it’s going to help other kids.”
The tortuous road to the kind of treatments now saving more than half of all cancer patients is graphically depicted in a six-hour series, “Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies,” produced by Ken Burns, to be broadcast on public television (PBS) March 30, March 31 and April 1.
The series is based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer,” by an oncologist, Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, who provides telling commentary throughout.
“The outcome in children is so stunning because 80 to 90 percent of young patients participate in clinical trials,” Dr. Mukherjee, of Columbia University, said in an interview. “Every trial taught doctors something that led to further trials and better results.”
But only about 5 percent of adults with cancer enter a clinical trial. “That’s not nearly enough to move cancer medicine forward,” he said. “No matter what you do in the lab or in basic science, the ultimate proof of which cancer medicines work comes from clinical trials.”
Although the backbone of today’s successful cancer treatments, clinical trials are poorly understood by the public, often viewed as treating people like guinea pigs instead of as giving them the best chance for survival.
Those who participate are randomly assigned to receive the innovative treatment being studied or the current standard of care. Through such trials, for example, highly disfiguring radical mastectomies for breast cancer have yielded to simple mastectomies or lumpectomies, typically followed by radiation and chemotherapy, with less trauma and far better survival rates.
Even metastatic cancer that has spread now sometimes yields to treatments being tested in clinical trials.
Doug Rogers of Lexington, N.C., was 58 in 2011 when he was found to have melanoma that, despite the best available chemotherapy, had spread throughout his leg and adjacent lymph nodes. He then went to the National Cancer Institute, where Dr. Steven Rosenberg and colleagues are testing an immunological remedy in which the patient’s own cancer-fighting T-cells are harvested, grown in a lab to billions strong and then given back to the patient.
Mr. Rogers, who is also featured in the TV series, said that repeated scans had shown no spread of his cancer and that he was “back to doing almost everything a 62-year-old man can do.”
Although it was once challenging to locate and join a clinical trial, patients and families can now easily find studies and determine eligibility without a doctor as intermediary. The Stand Up to Cancer website offers free information about and access to about 7,000 cancer trials in the United States and Canada. Or you can call the American Association for Cancer Research at 1-877-769-4829.
The American Cancer Society, at cancer.org/clinicaltrials, maintains a clinical trials matching service that is also free and can help locate studies most appropriate to a patient’s medical and personal circumstances. And at www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials, the National Cancer Institute offers up-to-date descriptions of more than 12,000 trials currently accepting participants, as well as recent trial results by type of cancer, the costs involved and questions to ask about participation. The institute also has a 10-step guide to finding a cancer trial.
The best time to explore participation in a clinical trial is often right after a cancer diagnosis and before receiving any treatment. Some trials won’t accept patients who have already been treated, and sometimes the best chance for success lies in getting the most effective treatment first. However, there are also trials for patients already treated elsewhere without success.
Dr. Mukherjee recommends asking about a trial’s aim. Is it to test safety or effectiveness of a treatment? Why is the trial being done? What were the data that led to the trial in the first place?
“Knowing the answers to such questions allows people to manage their hopes,” he said. “If patients go into a trial with the wrong expectations, they can set themselves up for disappointment.”
Dr. Wendy Schlessel Harpham of Dallas, whose non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was diagnosed in 1990, is today a highly productive author and speaker because she participated in early trials of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody. Despite intensive chemotherapy and radiation, her disease recurred and, with no other good options, she entered three successive trials that tested rituximab first for safety, then effectiveness.
She had further recurrences, all treated with rituximab, which was approved in 1997. With her last recurrence in 2007, she is now enjoying her longest remission and credits the trials with enabling her to see her three children grow up.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/the-road-to-cancer-treatment-through-clinical-trials/?emc=edit_tnt_20150324&nlid=52389906&tntemail0=y&_r=0