FDA Rejects Replimune's Skin Cancer Treatment, Shares Sink
The US Food and Drug Administration denied the company's application to treat advanced melanoma with a combination of its immunotherapy and another cancer drug.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Common sweetener could hold untapped potential to fight aggressive cancer, study finds
A household sweetener could hold the potential to create an anti-cancer treatment. New research from Hiroshima University in Japan revealed that stevia leaf extract could help fight pancreatic cancer cells. The leaves of the stevia plant (Stevia rebaudiana) are used to make stevia extract, a naturally sweet substance commonly used as a sugar substitute. The study, published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, investigated the anti-cancer properties of stevia leaf extract when it is fermented with a certain strain of bacteria. In laboratory research, the fermented extract exhibited "significantly enhanced antioxidant activity and cytotoxicity" against pancreatic cancer cells, the researchers revealed. This led them to believe that this substance could serve as a "promising candidate for pancreatic cancer treatment." Paul E. Oberstein, M.D., medical oncologist and assistant director of the Pancreatic Cancer Center at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, shared his thoughts in an interview with Fox News Digital. "This is an interesting study because it evaluated something derived from a natural plant (stevia) and showed that it may have utility in stopping cancer cells from growing in the laboratory," he said. "As the authors point out, the actual stevia plant does not seem to have any benefit for stopping cancer, so they had to use a chemical process to change the plant and make it stronger with a fermentation process." "This is the process of how we discover new treatments – some of which turn out to be absolute game-changers." Oberstein recommended approaching this with caution, as it is unknown whether altering the plant will lead to side effects or toxicity. The study was not performed on humans, so there is "still a lot that's unknown about whether this will help patients," the oncologist added. As stevia extract alone does not have an impact on cancer cells, Oberstein said these findings most likely will not lead to any immediate changes in treatment plans. "The study suggests that if the stevia can be changed in the lab, it may have an impact, so hopefully they will further test this and determine whether this effect happens when tested in people and if it doesn't cause new side effects," he added. "I hope the researchers keep testing this in various formats and in people." Dr. Kristen Arnold, a surgical oncologist and pancreatic cancer specialist at the Orlando Health Cancer Institute, reacted to these study findings in a separate interview with Fox News Digital. "Pancreatic cancer is a very aggressive malignancy," she said. "And we know that even with the most aggressive of therapies, unfortunately, our outcomes are not good." "As a pancreatic cancer community, we spend a lot of time and there's a lot of ongoing effort into trying to find better modalities to treat this disease." Although more research is needed to confirm these preliminary findings, Arnold said she is encouraged by the study. "I think the data's very early to know if it's ultimately going to be a game-changer, but it's very exciting to know that we're finding some positive pre-clinical data," she said. "This is the process of how we discover new treatments – some of which turn out to be absolute game-changers and make dramatic changes in the lives of our patients." "Not all of it pans out, but it's a process of discovery," Arnold added. For those with pancreatic cancer, Arnold recommends seeking out appropriate clinical trial opportunities as new science develops. "The clinical trials are ultimately what determine how we treat patients on a day-to-day basis," she added. Fox News Digital reached out to the study authors for comment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Boston Scientific Stock Outlook: Is Wall Street Bullish or Bearish?
Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX), headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts, develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties globally. With a market cap of $157.9 billion, the company's products are used in interventional cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy, and more. Shares of this medTech giant have outperformed the broader market over the past year. BSX has gained 41.7% over this time frame, while the broader S&P 500 Index ($SPX) has rallied nearly 16.6%. In 2025, BSX stock is up 17.5%, surpassing the SPX's 7.8% rise on a YTD basis. More News from Barchart With UnitedHealth Under DOJ Investigation, Should You Buy, Sell, or Hold UNH Stock Now? Trump Won't Take Away Tesla's Subsidies. Does That Make TSLA Stock a Safe Buy Here? Can AMD Stock Hit $210 in 2025? Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! Zooming in further, BSX's outperformance is also apparent compared to the iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI). The exchange-traded fund has gained about 9% over the past year. Moreover, BSX's double-digit gains on a YTD basis outshine the ETF's 2.3% gains over the same time frame. BSX's strong performance can be credited to its robust product portfolio and dedicated global team. Key achievements in the second quarter include FDA approval for expanding the FARAPULSE PFA System, initiation of the ReMATCH IDE trial, and securing CE Mark for the WATCHMAN FLX Pro device in Europe. The company also finalized the acquisitions of Intera Oncology and SoniVie, enhancing its offerings in liver cancer and hypertension treatment technologies. On Jul. 23, BSX shares closed up more than 4% after reporting its Q2 results. Its adjusted EPS of $0.75 beat Wall Street's expectations of $0.72. The company's revenue was $5.1 billion, exceeding Wall Street forecasts of $4.9 billion. The company expects full-year adjusted EPS in the range of $2.95 to $2.99. For the current fiscal year, ending in December, analysts expect BSX's EPS to grow 18.7% to $2.98 on a diluted basis. The company's earnings surprise history is impressive. It beat the consensus estimate in each of the last four quarters. Among the 30 analysts covering BSX stock, the consensus is a 'Strong Buy.' That's based on 27 'Strong Buy' ratings, two 'Moderate Buys,' and one 'Hold.' This configuration is more bullish than two months ago, with 26 analysts suggesting a 'Strong Buy.' On Jul. 24, Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) analyst Jayson Bedford maintained a 'Buy' rating on BSX with a price target of $124, implying a potential upside of 18.2% from current levels. The mean price target of $124.53 represents an 18.7% premium to BSX's current price levels. The Street-high price target of $140 suggests an ambitious upside potential of 33.4%. On the date of publication, Neha Panjwani did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. says cancer screenings are too 'woke' now. As an actual doctor, I disagree.
A 6-centimeter mass. These are the words that shattered my patient's heart, but ultimately gave her a chance at saving and prolonging her life. Weeks earlier, without any worries about her health, she had seen a doctor for a checkup. Following the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, her doctor found out she was a former smoker and ordered a scan. Lung cancer was found, which is how she ended up in my hospital for chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Without the task force guidelines, my patient's primary care doctor may not have ordered this scan, and her cancer may not have been caught before it spread to Stage 4, or it was uncurable. The task force has released screening recommendations for patients over the past 40 years that have caught infections, detected cancers and otherwise saved lives countless times. However, it is now reported that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is considering removing and replacing all 16 expert members of this task force for purely political and culture war reasons. This would be a disaster for public health. RFK Jr. thinks preventing curable disease is too 'woke' The Preventive Services Task Force is tasked with providing screening recommendations for finding diseases before they become deadly. These guidelines are evidence-based and updated frequently as new scientific studies are released. Primary care doctors rely on these as they approach which diagnostic tests are most impactful and highest yield for their patients. Insurance companies use the task force's recommendations to know what studies to cover. Their work is important and essential. But we'll be in danger if RFK Jr. wants to upend this institution. Opinion: RFK Jr. is an unserious man. But his misinformed vaccine policy will be deadly. He has already done it once. In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a committee that makes recommendations on vaccine schedules, for reasons that made little sense. He replaced them with known vaccine skeptics, hampering both sound scientific work and public trust in the organization. This, by the way, at a time when measles cases in the U.S. are at their highest in 30 years. Now it's reported that Kennedy might make these removals within the Preventive Services Task Force because the members are too "woke.' Don't make America backward again in public health Keep in mind, these are individuals who are recommending things like cervical cancer screening is good, or look for post-partum depression in pregnant persons. Opinion: I'm a doctor. Trump's crusade against universities undermines the future of your health. These are sound recommendations that should be noncontroversial. What is woke in that? Some point to things like the word choice of 'persons' instead of 'women'? Don't be a snowflake, and get over yourself. These are important recommendations that are meant to reach all Americans. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Even if he doesn't go through with this purge, RFK Jr. is instilling a distrust in our expert medical and scientific institutions. If he does go through with it, he will undermine the pillar of public health that is preventative services at the same time that another pillar, access to care for the vulnerable, has been hacked away at by the Medicaid cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill. Taking these actions will not make America healthy again. It'll make America backward again in public health, and backward in the fight against cancer and disease. We need to sound the alarm to stop all these actions that are harming our fellow Americans. Dr. Thomas K. Lew is an assistant clinical professor of Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine and an attending physician of Hospital Medicine at Stanford Health Care Tri-Valley. All expressed opinions are his own. Follow him on X: @ThomasLewMD You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Kennedy is making a culture war out of cancer prevention | Opinion Solve the daily Crossword
