New Vaccine Shows Promise Against One of the Deadliest Cancers
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Early clinical and preclinical results are showing that experimental mRNA and nanoparticle vaccines produced measurable immune responses against pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancers, and that in small patient groups those immune responses correlated with delayed recurrence or prolonged survival.
Why It Matters
Pancreatic cancer has among the lowest survival rates of common cancers and limited effective treatments. Multiple small trials and preclinical studies published and reported in the past year indicated that novel vaccine platforms, including personalized mRNA vaccines and layered lipid nanoparticles, were able to induce tumor‑targeting T cells in patients and animal models, prompting researchers to plan larger trials.
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma had an approximate five‑year survival near 13 percent in recent reports, making it one of the most lethal common cancers.
What To Know
Researchers at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) and collaborators ran a phase 1 trial in February testing a personalized mRNA vaccine called autogene cevumeran (BNT122, RO7198457) in 16 patients with operable pancreatic cancer who received surgery, chemotherapy and the vaccine, according to the peer reviewed journal Nature Medicine.
Newsweek reached out to MSK via email for comment.
The vaccine was developed and researched through a collaboration between BioNTech, an immunotherapy company, and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. It is not a cure for the type of cancer itself; however, signs point to improving longevity in individuals who contract the disease.
Investigators reported that half of participants mounted vaccine‑induced tumor‑specific T‑cell responses. Also, long-term efficacy was reported as patients with a vaccine-induced immune response had a reduced risk of cancer returning at three-year follow-up appointments compared with patients whose immune systems did not respond.
Trials have occurred as cancer is on the rise this year compared to last, according to the American Cancer Society's 2025 annual Facts & Figures report.
More than 2 million new cancer cases are expected this year, according to a 48-page report. Roughly 618,000 Americans are expected to die from cancer in 2025, equating to about 1,700 deaths per day, and both one-in-three men and women are said to develop cancer in their lifetime.
These five cancers are predicted to take nearly 323,900 male lives in a year:
Lung and bronchus—64,190 male deaths Prostate—35,770 male deaths Colon and rectum—28,900 male deaths Pancreas—27,050 male deaths Liver and intrahepatic bile duct—19,250 male deaths
These five cancers are estimated to take nearly 294,220 female lives in a year, described by researchers as a "substantial" increase compared to 2024 numbers:
Lung and bronchus—60,540 female deaths Breast—42,170 female deaths Pancreas—24,930 female deaths Colon and rectum—24,000 female deaths Uterine—13,860 female deaths
Researchers reported early clinical and preclinical results showing that experimental mRNA and nanoparticle vaccines produced measurable immune responses against pancreatic cancer.
Researchers reported early clinical and preclinical results showing that experimental mRNA and nanoparticle vaccines produced measurable immune responses against pancreatic cancer.
Getty Images
What People Are Saying
Vinod Balachandran, a surgical oncologist at MSK and principal investigator of the February 2025 trial, said at the time of the trial's conclusion: "The latest data from the phase 1 trial are encouraging. They suggest this investigational therapeutic mRNA vaccine can mobilize anti-tumor T cells that may recognize pancreatic cancers as foreign, potentially years after vaccination."
He added: "For patients with pancreatic cancer, our latest results continue to support the approach of using personalized mRNA vaccines to target neoantigens in each patient's tumor. If you can do this in pancreas cancer, theoretically you may be able to develop therapeutic vaccines for other cancer types."
Immunologist Li Lily Wang, an associate professor of molecular medicine at the Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, said earlier this year: "This platform has the potential to transform clinical care for this devastating disease. I am excited to see that our novel nano-vaccine worked so well in eliciting vigorous responses from tumor-reactive T cells-which are typically low in numbers and unable to control tumor growth."
What Happens Next?
Researchers planned larger trials to test whether the vaccine‑induced immune responses translated into longer survival and lower recurrence rates. MSKCC and industry partners launched a phase 2 trial to evaluate the personalized pancreatic mRNA vaccine in a larger cohort following the encouraging phase 1 immune data.
Across studies, authors and outside experts urged caution because the human data remained small. Investigators and commentators said larger randomized trials were necessary to determine whether the immune responses would translate into durable survival benefits and acceptable safety in broader patient populations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Drinking Rate Plunges to Record Low in US, New Poll Shows
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Alcohol consumption among U.S. adults has fallen to its lowest recorded level in nearly 90 years, with 54 percent saying they drink, down from 58 percent a year ago, according to Gallup's latest annual survey. Why It Matters Gallup has tracked alcohol consumption among U.S. adults since 1939. The latest figure falls below the previous record low of 55 percent in 1958. The poll also found that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe that moderate drinking is bad for one's health. Alcohol can lead to many health problems, including liver diseases and increased risk of some cancers. Mixed drinks are displayed at a bar in Baltimore on February 8, 2023. Mixed drinks are displayed at a bar in Baltimore on February 8, 2023. AP Photo/Julio Cortez What To Know The latest Gallup survey, conducted July 7-21, found that a smaller share of Americans are drinking alcohol than at any point in the poll's history. In the mid-1970s, the share peaked at 71 percent for three consecutive years starting in 1976. Since then, drinking rates have generally trended downward, averaging about 60 percent, with periodic rises and dips. In 2022, 67 percent of adults said they drank alcohol, which Gallup noted as an outlier, followed by 62 percent in 2023, 58 percent in 2024 and 54 percent this year. The poll found that the decline in drinking is disproportionately among women, down 11 percentage points since 2023, to 51 percent, whereas men are down 5 points, at 57 percent. Along party lines, 61 percent of surveyed Democrats drink compared with 46 percent of Republicans. A record-low 54% of Americans say they consume alcohol. — Gallup (@Gallup) August 13, 2025 The survey also found that 53 percent of Americans say drinking in moderation, which is one to two drinks a day, is bad for one's health. Thirty-seven percent believe it does not make a difference. The results come as 45 percent of Americans believe moderate drinking is bad for health, according to a Gallup poll last year. That poll found drinking beliefs vary greatly among age groups, with 65 percent of young U.S. adults aged 18 to 34 believing that alcohol consumption negatively affects one's health, while 37 percent and 39 percent hold that view among those aged 35 to 54 and 55 and older, respectively. The view has shifted sharply in recent years. Between 2001 and 2011, about 25 percent of Americans said drinking was good for one's health. Women are more likely than men to view moderate drinking as unhealthy, 60 percent to 47 percent, respectively. The poll also found the lowest recorded figure of average number of drinks over the past week since 1996 at 2.8. What People Are Saying Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of social research, in the August 13 survey announcement: "The declines in alcohol consumption does not appear to be caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances—in particular, recreational marijuana, which is now legal in about half of U.S. states." The Office of the Surgeon General, in a January 2025 announcement: "Alcohol consumption is the third-leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity." What Happens Next As Americans' drinking habits shift, the change is expected to affect the alcohol industry as well as the growing market for alternative beverages, driven in part by rising health concerns.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
A record share of Americans are giving booze the boot
The percentage of U.S. adults consuming alcohol has hit a new low, according to Gallup data released Wednesday. The big picture: The share of Americans who say that drinking in moderation is detrimental to one's health hitting a historic high, a belief that's echoed by recent scientific research. Driving the news: In 2025, just over half (54%) of U.S. adults reported having alcoholic beverages on occasion. Between 1997 and 2023, at least 60% said they drank. Drinking among young adults had been trending downward, and Gallup notes that has only accelerated. Since 2023, the percentage of adults under 35 that reported drinking fell by nine percentage points, from 59% to 50%. Zoom in: The drop in women drinking from 2023 to 2025 has been more pronounced than it has among men, though both groups have seen a decline. Among partisans, there's a drinking divide: Among Republicans, the share who drink has dropped sharply in the last two years (19 percentage points), but there's only been a three-point slip for Democrats. State of play: Meanwhile, the majority of Americans — a first for Gallup's trend — say drinking in moderation (one or two drinks a day) is bad for one's health. That belief follows increases in 2023 and 2024, including a surge among young adults. Around 2001 to 2011, the share of U.S. adults who said moderate alcohol consumption was bad for one's health hovered around a quarter. Since 2023, a majority of 18- to 34-year-olds have viewed moderate drinking as bad for health. Follow the money: And as alcohol consumption has slipped, the nonalcoholic beverage sector has boomed. Bars and bottle shops in recent years have increasingly catered to the "sober-curious" as consumer behavior mirrors consumption trends. Zoom out: Research and health organization guidance on safe alcohol consumption has evolved in recent years. Notably, former U.S. surgeon general Vivek Murthy in January released an advisory detailing the link between alcohol consumption and several kinds of cancer and called on Congress to update warning labels on booze. The World Health Organization has emphasized that there is no safe amount of alcohol consumption that does not affect health, and the CDC warns that drinking in moderation may "increase your overall risks of death and chronic disease." The bottom line: Goodbye, "Dry January." Cheers to sober lifestyles. Methodology: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted by ReconMR July 7-21 2025, with a random sample of 1,002 adults. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
New Tools for Lung Cancer, Harder Job for Clinicians
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. It's Mark Kris, from Memorial Sloan Kettering, with a month-later review of the 2025 ASCO meeting in Chicago. I think everybody who was there and attended the lung cancer sessions left with the, I'll have to say, difficult time unpacking what we learned during that meeting. There was a dizzying array of trials presented and a huge amount of data, but sadly, there was no breakthrough. There was no one treatment or approach that told each of us we had to start doing this in every patient on Tuesday when we got home again. What it did was give us more tools and more ways we could fight cancers, but it really made our jobs much harder. I think that we need to spend some time thinking about how those data could be used, and I'll pick a couple of examples. I think one would be in the small cell lung cancer area. There was a large amount of attention to the use of tarlatamab as a treatment at relapse. It was a comparison trial to topotecan and lurbinectedin, and there was an improvement in outcomes in those groups. While that benefit was there, what was not addressed was the benefit of repeating standard therapy, which is what many of us do, particularly when there has been a longer time between the end of the induction treatment and recurrence. The second trial that I thought was useful in the small cell area was a randomized trial adding lurbinectedin to the checkpoint inhibitor after induction chemotherapy. There was an improvement in disease-free survival there also. Personally, I was more impressed by the latter trial, in that it gave our patients a longer time with disease control rather than focusing the time of relapse, where people may already have suffered symptoms brought on by the progressive lung cancer — which sadly is an all-too-common occurrence. In the perioperative space, my colleague Jamie Chaft reported on neoadjuvant osimertinib. In her trial of osimertinib alone, osimertinib plus chemotherapy, and osimertinib and chemotherapy alone, they showed a benefit for the osimertinib-containing arms but not a clear benefit of osimertinib alone versus osimertinib plus chemotherapy. What's the take-home message there? Well, again, it's not simple. I think that we need to give chemotherapy to every patient with stage IB disease and beyond, whether they have an EGFR mutation or not. Based on the fact that we can give chemotherapy more safelyand more completely in the neoadjuvant setting, I would tend to use osimertinib with chemotherapy upfront and then surgery. If you do go the other way and use osimertinib alone, you would need to give chemotherapy afterward, which is, frankly, tougher. I think my take-home message from that was osimertinib and chemotherapy, our standard of care for advanced disease, should also be our standard for neoadjuvant disease in patients with EGFR mutations. There was a fantastic lecture by Patricia LoRusso, from Yale, about antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). I think that was the most confusing moment of all during the ASCO meeting — the number of ADCs under evaluation. Yet, as Dr LoRusso pointed out, despite the number, it's the same targets, largely the same warheads, and very often, antibodies without activity in and of themselves. When you look at the overall benefits of the group, there are none that truly stand out. We now have three available in the lung cancer arena. The benefit, side effects, and the whole field is really quite confusing. One other message was that, with the bispecific antibodies, the more targets you have, the more toxicity you're going to see. It's a real balance between benefit and risk. What are you going to do? Again, there was no breakthrough at ASCO this year. Clearly, there are more therapies and there are even more in the pipeline. I think what we need to do now is to learn more, and to — unfortunately — spend a large amount of time going through the data and see exactly the benefit versus risk ratio for each of the new therapies and for each of our patients deciding where that goes. For example, I would be a big fan of giving lurbinectedin because of its ability to improve disease-free survival, which is so important in small cell [lung cancer], where relapse is almost certain, and that disease-free time is the best time for our patients. For the neoadjuvant, it would be giving both chemotherapy and osimertinibpre-surgery, in that is better tolerated there and you can also assess benefit very well. For tarlatamab, it's a tough decision there. Again, it's the time of relapse. We have many choices at relapse, giving the same drugs again, giving another perhaps less toxic agent like temozolomide, giving tarlatamab and the standard drugs. Clearly, tarlatamab was better than some of the standard drugs, but they're not the ones that most of us use for the patients. We usually go with the same treatment by and large. Lastly, it's going to be incumbent on us to work harder to take that information we got at ASCO this year and make the best decisions for each patient. We have to focus on the nuance. We have to learn more, and there is no knee-jerk that every patient needs tarlatamab or every patient should get induction chemotherapy with the combination. We have to choose our patients wisely. You've heard me before, and I'll say it again. Our jobs are better, but they're harder.
