New AI test can predict which men will benefit from prostate cancer drug
Abiraterone has been described as a 'gamechanger' treatment for the disease, which is the most common form of cancer in men in more than 100 countries. It has already helped hundreds of thousands with advanced prostate cancer to live longer.
But some countries, including England, have stopped short of offering the 'spectacular' drug more widely to men whose disease has not spread.
Now a team from the US, UK and Switzerland have built an AI test that shows which men would most likely benefit from abiraterone. The 'exciting' breakthrough will enable healthcare systems to roll out the drug to more men, and spare others unnecessary treatment.
The AI test is being unveiled in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the world's largest cancer conference.
Nick James, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research in London and a consultant clinical oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS foundation trust, co-led the team that built it.
'Abiraterone has already hugely improved the outlook for hundreds of thousands of men with advanced prostate cancer,' said James. 'We know that for many men with cancer that has not yet spread, it can also have spectacular results.
'But it does come with side-effects and requires additional monitoring for potential issues with high blood pressure or liver abnormalities. It can also slightly increase the risk of diabetes and heart attacks, so knowing who is most likely to benefit is very valuable.
'This research shows that we can pick out the people who will respond best to abiraterone, and those who will do well from standard treatment alone – hormone therapy and radiotherapy.'
The test uses AI to study images of tumours and pick out features invisible to the human eye. The team, funded by Prostate Cancer UK, the Medical Research Council and Artera, trialled the test on biopsy images from more than 1,000 men with high-risk prostate cancer that had not spread.
The AI test identified the 25% of men in the group most likely to benefit from the abiraterone – for these men, the drug halves the risk of death.
In the trial, patients received a score – biomarker-positive or -negative – which was compared with their outcomes. For those with biomarker-positive tumours, one in four of the men, abiraterone cut their risk of death after five years from 17% to 9%.
For those with biomarker-negative tumours, abiraterone cut the risk of death from 7% to 4% – a difference that was not statistically or clinically significant, the team said. These men would benefit from standard therapy alone and be spared unnecessary treatment.
The study co-leader Prof Gert Attard, of the UCL Cancer Institute, said: 'This study shows, in a very large cohort of patients, that novel algorithms can be used to extract information from routinely available pathology slides to tailor these treatments to specific patients and minimise over treatment whilst maximising the chance of cure.'
James said that because fewer men than previously thought would need the drug, healthcare systems should consider giving it to men whose cancer had not spread.
It is approved for NHS use in England for advanced prostate cancer, but not for newly diagnosed high-risk disease that has not spread. However, it has been available for men with this indication in Scotland and Wales for two years.
'Abiraterone costs just £77 per pack, compared with the thousands of pounds that new drugs cost,' said James. 'I truly hope that this new research – showing precisely who needs the drug to live well for longer – will lead to NHS England reviewing their decision not to fund abiraterone for high-risk prostate cancer that has not spread.'
Dr Matthew Hobbs, director of research at Prostate Cancer UK, described the AI test as 'exciting'. He added: 'We therefore echo the researchers' urgent call for abiraterone to be made available to those men whose lives it can save – men who, thanks to this research, we can now identify more precisely than ever before.'
An NHS spokesperson said: 'Following a full evidence-based assessment, expanding access to this drug for non-metastatic prostate cancer has been identified as one of the top priorities for investment once the necessary recurrent funding is available to support its use. 'Abiraterone continues to be routinely funded by the NHS in England for several forms of advanced prostate cancer in line clinical guidance, and we are keeping this position under close review in light of emerging evidence, including recent research that may help better target the treatment to those most likely to benefit.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Axing public notices will threaten local democracy, Cleverly tells Rayner
Rachel Reeves' proposal to axe rules that require businesses to share their licence bids in newspapers would threaten the future of local democracy, Sir James Cleverly has told the Government. In a letter to Angela Rayner, the shadow local government secretary said suggestions that statutory notices could be scrapped raised 'concerning questions' about the future of local journalism. He told the PA news agency Government changes had been proposed 'without any consideration' of the effect on local press and could have the 'perverse effect of making it harder for many pubs and clubs to operate.' Last month, the Chancellor said she would look at dropping the requirement for venues such as pubs and restaurants to advertise licensing applications in local newspapers, in a bid to cut red tape for the hospitality sector. Sir James demanded the Government share its assessments of how the move would affect the press amid industry fears that it could interfere with the public's right to know and lead to revenue losses for local journalism. He said that while there was scope to reform the statutory notice regime, 'rather than embracing innovation, it would appear that the Government intends to axe support entirely'. Sir James told PA: 'Labour don't have a clue about the pub and hospitality industry. 'Labour are tying them in red tape and higher taxes. Their proposed changes to licensing rules could have the perverse effect of making it harder for many pubs and clubs to operate. 'Labour's proposed changes to notification on licensing changes has been made without any consideration on the effect on local newspapers, or how to best ensure that the public know about matters which affect their lives. 'Local democracy needs an independent free press, so empowered local representatives are held to account, and local residents have their voice listened to.' In his letter to Ms Rayner, who is Deputy Prime Minister and also Local Government Secretary, Sir James said: 'If local newspapers close down this will be to the detriment of local democracy. 'The devolution of responsibility and finance to local government needs stronger local accountability and transparency to go hand in hand with new powers, and an independent free press is essential to this.' Ministers last month announced a new licensing framework would aim to fast-track permissions for al fresco dining in dedicated areas and make it easier to open new venues. Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, Ms Reeves said she would also look at removing the 'outdated rule that means (a business) needs to advertise in locally printed press when applying for a licence'. The remarks prompted a backlash from industry figures, with the News Media Association warning the proposals would amount to a 'betrayal of local communities and the public's right to know'. 'Changing this would, at a stroke, disenfranchise local communities and deprive local journalism of a vital revenue stream,' News Media Association chief executive Owen Meredith said. 'Local pubs, like local papers, are at the heart of their communities and the Government should rightly support them. 'This proposal does nothing to help either. 'It is not a cut to bureaucratic red tape, as framed, but a damaging assault on democratic engagement.' The Government has been contacted for comment.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Democrats see weaponization blitz in moves from DOJ, intelligence leaders
Lawmakers and advocates are sounding the alarm over a series of actions taken by the Justice Department and intelligence community that they argue are both abuses of power and threats to the traditional independence held by both organizations. The FBI agreed to aid the Texas government last week in tracking down Democratic members of the state's legislature who fled in an effort to block a controversial redistricting plan. The commitment came as it fired a series of agents, including those who had worked on controversial matters related to President Trump, prompting complaints agents were facing retribution simply for taking on assigned cases. Meanwhile, the Justice Department subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for documents related to court victories against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association. The same day, DOJ also tapped Ed Martin to investigate James as well as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on allegations of mortgage fraud. DOJ on Monday also launched a grand jury investigation into Obama-era officials they've accused of engaging in a 'treasonous conspiracy' in investigating Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election. Intelligence community leaders have since come under fire for releasing a number of documents related to the claim. Democrats say the documents expose sources and methods of intelligence gathering. James, through an attorney, said she was targeted as part of 'the president's political retribution campaign.' 'Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration. If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and the law,' her attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. The other moves are likewise coming under scrutiny. Democrats sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for the legal basis under which the bureau could be involved in tracking down the Texas lawmakers. 'These reports suggest that the FBI is diverting federal law enforcement away from fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, and other federal crimes to instead harass and target Texans' duly elected representatives, and thus raise urgent questions about the legal basis, scale, and appropriateness of federal law enforcement involvement in a state-level political matter,' Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, wrote in a letter also signed by Texas Democrats Reps. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett. The group pointed to a 2003 ruling from a state judge that reviewed another incident in which state lawmakers sought to prevent a legislative quorum, determining that the Texas Department of Public Safety was limited in pursuing residents in cases where there was no crime. 'The ruling made clear that the state cannot treat quorum-breaking as a criminal offense subject to law enforcement pursuit,' they wrote. The firing of numerous agents also sparked claims the bureau's leadership was abusing its power and running afoul of civil servant protections in dismissing several career agents. Brian Driscoll previously served as acting FBI director before Patel was confirmed, and during his brief tenure rebuffed an early request from the Trump administration to turn over the names of all agents who worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters – a group that includes thousands of people. Also fired was Scott Jensen, who Patel had recently promoted to director of the Washington, D.C. Field Office, and Walter Giardina, an agent who worked for special counsel Robert Mueller and aided in the prosecution of Peter Navarro. In a final note to staff, Driscoll said he was given no reason for his dismissal. The FBI Agent's Association criticized the firing as unlawful. 'The FBI Agents Association strongly condemns today's unlawful firing of FBI Special Agents. These Agents were carrying out the assignments given to them and did their jobs professionally and with integrity,' the group said in a Friday statement. 'This action sets a dangerous precedent. It increases our vulnerability to criminal and national security threats at home and abroad. It prioritizes division over unity, stokes anger instead of solidarity within our ranks, and threatens to chill the work of agents rather than support it.' The move was also blasted by Raskin and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'These are individuals [who] have dedicated their careers to protecting the American people, and their firings are part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation and politicization at an institution charged with safeguarding national security and the rule of law,' Warner said in a statement. The FBI and DOJ declined to comment on the firings, their involvement in Texas, the launch of the grand jury, or its probe into James. But the Trump administration has broadly defended such moves, consistently arguing the FBI and the Justice Department were political tools of previous administrations while arguing their own actions help confront those abuses. 'President Trump is restoring integrity to the Department of Justice after four years of weaponization, hoaxes, and attempts to imprison him. The DOJ is upholding Lady Justice and working to execute President Trump's Make America Safe Again agenda, which is lowering crime, holding criminals accountable, and empowering our law enforcement community,' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement to The Hill. Trump has at various turns denied asking for Justice Department interventions, though he has not hid his approval of the actions. 'Pam is doing a great job,' Trump said on CNBC when asked about the grand jury investigation into Obama officials. 'I have nothing to do with it. I will tell you this, they deserve it. I was happy to hear it.' The mortgage investigation from Martin is one of the first public actions taken by the Justice Department's new Weaponization Working Group, a role he was given after senators signaled their opposition to him for a U.S. Attorney role. Schiff, through an attorney, said Martin has a conflict of interest in the matter as the lawmaker previously placed a hold on his nomination, in part due to Martin's vocal defense of Jan. 6 rioters. 'The allegations against Senator Schiff are transparently false, stale, and long debunked. Now Ed Martin, the most brazenly partisan and politically compromised person possible for the task, has been picked to investigate a political adversary. The bias here is glaring,' said Preet Bharara, a former U.S. Attorney fired by Trump who is now representing Schiff. 'Mr. Martin is a January 6-defending lawyer who has repeatedly pursued baseless and politically-motivated investigations to fulfill demands to investigate and prosecute perceived enemies. Any supposed investigation led by him would be the very definition of weaponization of the justice process.' Also sparking pushback is the decision to open a grand jury inquiry into referrals made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. A memo released by Gabbard last month accuses Obama-era officials of a 'treasonous conspiracy' she said was designed to undermine Trump. The documents she released, however, largely show officials discussing something that was never in dispute – that Russia was never able to alter vote totals. She later released a report from House Intelligence Committee Republicans casting doubt on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to help Trump win the election rather than just sow chaos in the U.S. election. Most other reviews, however, determined Russia wanted to help Trump win. The Justice Department later released a previously classified annex to special counsel John Durham's report on the 2016 election. Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said both the Durham annex and the Republican report were both 'considered so sensitive and revealing of sources and methods that, until last month, [the committee] was not even permitted to retain a copy of either document within a classified safe in our own secure facility.' 'The highly irregular declassification process you engaged in could imperil critical intelligence sources and methods—a destructive action taken in order to advance a patently false political narrative,' he wrote, adding that they failed to consider 'how foreign adversaries might use the information exposed.' 'When done in a cavalier manner for partisan ends, declassification can literally endanger lives and enable adversaries to discover and disrupt the means through which we collect intelligence.' Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, two of the officials involved in the claims, have called the accusations 'patently false' and rejected claims they attempted to smear Trump. 'Every serious review has substantiated the intelligence community's fundamental conclusion that the Russians conducted an influence campaign intended to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election,' the two wrote. 'Contrary to the Trump administration's wild and baseless claims, there was no mention of 'collusion' between the Trump campaign and the Russians in the assessment,' they added. The intelligence community under Trump has defended the release of the documents, calling it a transparency measure. 'This effort reflects Director Ratcliffe's continued commitment to elevating the truth and bringing transparency to the American people,' the CIA said in a statement when Gabbard released the documents. Gabbard during a White House press conference also brushed off questions about the release. 'I think it's a disservice to the American people that former President Obama's office and others who are criticizing the transparency that is being delivered by releasing these documents,' Gabbard said. 'They are doing a disservice to the American people in trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal.'
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Miranda Devine: Trump turns tables on Democrats after years of lawfare — now it's time to hold them accountable
'No one is above the law' was the favorite refrain of Democrats as they pursued Donald Trump uphill and down dale in an effort to destroy his first presidency and ensure he could never serve again. They threw everything at him, manufacturing intelligence to frame him as a Russian stooge, weaponizing the FBI and DOJ against him, impeaching him, siccing the most unscrupulous prosecutors on him, contriving spurious civil cases against him and his family, trying to jail him and bankrupt him, all the while lying and assassinating his character. If that didn't bring him down, two assassination attempts would have finished off a lesser mortal. Advertisement But, sadly for Trump's Democrat/Deep State persecutors, they failed spectacularly. They decimated their own party and destroyed the reputations of the intelligence agencies and the mainstream media allies who aided and abetted their crooked schemes. As the saying goes: If you come at the king, you best not miss. Now accountability is afoot. 'Illegitimate president' Advertisement On Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed pit bull lawyer Ed Martin as a special attorney to lead investigations of New York AG Letitia James and California Sen. Adam Schiff for potential charges including mortgage fraud, bank fraud and wire fraud, which carry jail terms of up to 30 years. Grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are currently weighing criminal indictments against the two Trump-deranged Democrats over allegations they falsified property records to secure favorable loan terms. The Albany US attorney has also reportedly issued subpoenas in a separate civil rights investigation into James, including into whether her office violated Trump's rights in a lawsuit she brought against him. Advertisement James has sued Trump, his children and his businesses dozens of times. She ran for office vowing to 'take on' the man she called an 'illegitimate president.' For his part, Schiff abused his position as House Intelligence Committee chairman to manipulate and distort intelligence to damage Trump. He created false narratives about Trump's connections to Russia and Ukraine, which led to his first impeachment. Schiff has been the most enthusiastic Democrat to use the phrase 'No one is above the law.' Now he's about to find out the hard way. Advertisement Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has spent months extracting documents from hidden reaches of the intelligence agencies and declassifying them, against the wishes of embedded Deep Staters at the CIA and FBI whose ruse is to redact documents to the point of indecipherability. Too bad. Gabbard went to the White House to overrule these resistance guerillas and successfully expose the truth about Russiagate and Barack Obama's role as 'ringleader,' to use Trump's word. We now know that on Dec. 9, 2016, Obama directed his national security officials, DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and others to create an intelligence assessment with the foregone conclusion they all knew to be false: that Russia had influenced the 2016 election to help Trump win. Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington. Subscribe here! 'Documentation that came from the Obama White House; documentation that came from Obama's ODNI; documentation from the CIA, all of these pieces fit quite seamlessly together creating a very clear timeline that shifted from before the election when the intelligence community almost uniformly said essentially that Russia is trying to sow discord in the US election, but has no preference for one candidate over another,' Gabbard told me last week on Pod Force One. 'And then all of a sudden, Trump wins the election, surprising many people, both here and abroad . . . [and the Obama officials falsely claim] that Russia aspired to help Trump get elected, or that Russia hacked the election in favor of Donald Trump, really trying to discredit President Trump's win and give a big middle finger to the American people who had just voted him into office,' she said. 'President Obama, unhappy with the outcome of the election and making the appearance of a peaceful transition of power and claiming to be the champion of democracy, and yet launch[ed] what we now know . . . was a covert mission to subvert the will of the American people, create this lie that would challenge the legitimacy of President Trump's election . . . resulting in what was truly a yearslong coup,' she said. Advertisement Gabbard believes that the only way to stop such a travesty happening again is to punish the wrongdoers. 'Accountability has to take place,' she said. 'We've referred all the documents we have found and will continue to refer them to the Department of Justice for a criminal referral. 'AG Pam Bondi has created a strike force team . . . focused singularly on [bringing] accountability to those who are responsible for this,' she added. 'We also have to recognize that [Brennan and Clapper] have their own disciples . . . and many of those people still exist within the intelligence community now. So, in these documents that we're finding, we are uncovering names of people who were involved with this Russia hoax, this manufactured intelligence document, [who] would otherwise never be known publicly.' Accountability equals deterrence. It's why we have jails. Advertisement Without punishment, wrongdoers are emboldened. They regard mercy as weakness to be exploited. That's the lesson we take from the behavior of Trump's antagonists over the last nine years. 'Lock her up!' Despite efforts to paint Trump as a vengeful madman hellbent on retribution, the truth is clear from his first term: His tendency is to let bygones be bygones. He won in 2016. He didn't feel the need to drag his vanquished opponent through the mud even though at his rallies his supporters would regularly chant: 'Lock her up!' Advertisement 'We had Hillary Clinton down for whatever we wanted to do with her, but I felt it was inappropriate,' Trump told me in Scotland two weeks ago. 'She was the wife of a president. She was a secretary of state, and we could have done a very big number [on her. But] the concept of putting her in jail, indicting her, all the things that you have to do, it's tough stuff. And I said, 'We don't want to do that.' ' Get Miranda's latest take Sign up for Devine Online, the newsletter from Miranda Devine Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Want even more news? Check out more newsletters He showed Hillary mercy because he wanted the country to 'heal' from the discord of the Obama years. 'And yet they did it to me,' he said, confessing to feeling 'a little bit' angry after his mercy was rewarded by being dragged through the mud for years. Advertisement 'So I feel differently. I mean, I'm a human being. I have my feelings too,' he said. 'Obama, what he did was terrible. What Brennan did and Clapper and Comey and all these lightweights . . . did was so unnecessary. And they made it really hard. 'We had a great first term,' Trump said. 'But it certainly made it . . . less comfortable.' Trump and his current administration understand the need for heads on pikes to act as a deterrent and ultimately to restore public trust in our national security institutions. Now the hunters are the hunted. Every tool is being used to find wrongdoers and bring them to account in a lawful, systematic, administration-wide effort. At least some plotters are sure to see inside a jail cell. None will sleep easy.
