Immunotherapy drug capable of eliminating tumors in some early-stage cancers: Study
In the study, 82 out of 103 participants responded so well to the drug that they no longer needed an operation.
While the results are promising, the study was conducted at a single hospital — Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City — and some patients have not been followed long enough to know if their cancer might return over time.
And because the study included many different types of cancer, there were relatively few patients with each specific cancer type, making it difficult to interpret the results for larger groups of patients.
It also focused on a very select type of patient whose tumors had a "mismatch repair defect," a genetic problem that prevents cells from fixing DNA damage and makes it more likely they would respond to immunotherapy.
"They kind of selected themselves, in that they had a specific genetic alteration, and that genetic alteration occurs about 2% to 3% of all cancer patients," said Dr. Luis Diaz, one of the study's authors and head of the Division of Solid Tumor Oncology at MSKCC.
MORE: RFK Jr. is moving to phase out synthetic food dyes. Are they safe?
When people are diagnosed with early-stage cancers that form a lump or mass, they often need major surgery to try to remove it — and despite surgery, they can also face aggressive treatments like chemotherapy or radiation.
Because these cancers often affect organs in the belly or digestive system, surgery can have a major impact on a patient's life. Some people lose part or all of their esophagus or stomach, making it hard or impossible to eat normally. Others may need a bag to collect stool or lose the ability to get pregnant.
All 49 patients with early-stage rectal cancer who received six months of immunotherapy were able to avoid surgery.
"And it's after six months of treatment, their tumors were completely gone," said another one of the study's authors, Dr. Andrea Cercek, head of the Colorectal Section at MSKCC. "They didn't need any other treatment."
Two years later, 92% remained cancer-free. Among the first group to reach the five-year mark, all four patients were still disease-free — and two of them had gone on to have two children each.
"The amazing thing is they would not have been able to conceive or carry children had they gone through standard therapy," Diaz said.
MORE: Supreme Court divided over Obamacare mandate for no-cost preventive health benefits
As for patients with other early-stage cancers, 35 of 54 were cancer-free after undergoing immunotherapy and were able to avoid surgery. However, two patients still chose to proceed with surgery — one for peace of mind and the other to remove medical hardware related to the cancer.
Of the five patients whose cancers came back, most were successfully treated again.
Cercek explained that, while immunotherapy alone may not yet help most cancer patients avoid surgery, their work opens the door for the future.
"Just close your eyes and just imagine that one day you're diagnosed with cancer and you don't have your esophagus or your stomach or your rectum or your bladder, and you can avoid that," Diaz said. "For these 3% we can completely eliminate the need for surgery. It's quite transformational."
By combining different approaches with this type of immunotherapy, Cercek hoped they can replicate their success in more types of cancer.
"So, we are continuing this trial and we are working on expanding the study outside of Memorial with more patients so that we can offer this therapy as a standard of care," Cercek said.
Luis Gasca -- an internal medicine resident at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Michigan, and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit -- contributed to this report.
Immunotherapy drug capable of eliminating tumors in some early-stage cancers: Study originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump administration's broad birth control mandate exemptions
The Trump administration's religious and moral carve-outs to an ObamaCare requirement that all employer health plans cover contraception at no cost were blocked on Wednesday by a federal judge. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia issued a summary judgment that the rules were arbitrary, capricious and an overreach of the authority of the agencies that wrote them in 2017. Under the rules, essentially any for-profit or nonprofit employer or insurer was allowed to exempt themselves from following the birth control mandate on moral and religious grounds. The rules also let publicly traded companies obtain a religious exemption, but not a moral one. The Affordable Care Act required employer health plans to cover at least one of 18 forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Religious groups and employers sued, and the Supreme Court in 2014 ruled 5-4 that the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights of closely held corporations whose owners had religious objections. Subsequent agency actions tried to find a balance, but the Trump administration in 2017 issued a blanket exemption. The rules didn't require employers to apply for an exemption because the administration said that would be a violation of their religious rights. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and dozens of other states sued to halt that broad expansion of exemptions and accommodations. That lawsuit reached the Supreme Court in 2020, where the justices upheld the Trump rules on technical grounds but did not address the underlying merits of the case. The case was sent back to the lower court, where a religious group, Little Sisters of the Poor, joined the lawsuit alongside the federal government in asking for summary judgment. Beetlestone, an appointee of former President Obama, wrote that the Trump administration's religious rule did not accomplish what the agencies purportedly wrote it to do, which was to resolve a conflict between the contraceptive mandate and RFRA. But the rule exemptions to organizations that are 'unlikely, if ever, to be capable of maintaining a religious objection, raising further doubts as to any 'rational connection' between the Rule and remedying potential conflicts with RFRA,' Beetlestone wrote. The Little Sisters of the Poor will appeal the ruling in the coming weeks, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit that represents the order. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
a day ago
- CBS News
Millions of Floridians could lose Affordable Care Act coverage as federal tax credits set to expire
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is on track to become unaffordable for millions of Floridians who rely on the health insurance coverage. Federal tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year, and healthcare advocacy groups say thousands will be forced to drop their health insurance if Congress doesn't extend the funding. "Most people on ACA have not had insurance for a long time and I'm one of them," said Francoise Cham. Cham said she didn't have health insurance for 25 years before the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, came along. She's a single mother and self-employed. Now she's worried that she won't be able to afford her health insurance anymore. Rates are expected to rise and premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year. Those currently lower her payments to about $80 a month. "Being 63, I am in between. I got two more years to go for Medicare and as a woman of color, heart disease, anything can happen between now and two years," said Cham. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy nonprofit, estimates that out-of-pocket premium payments will increase by roughly 75 percent without the tax credits. "Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 2.2 million Floridians will be priced out of the marketplace, meaning our uninsured rate as a state will double actually up to 9 percent overall," said Scott Darius. Darius is the executive director of Florida Voices for Health. He said Florida has the highest ACA enrollment in the country, with 4.7 million people in 2025—that's over 1 in 5 Floridians. He said the changes could impact everyone's health insurance rates. "As insurance companies kind of game out what they're charging folks, they're calculating that there is this influx of people who don't have care and quite frankly, because we're talking about the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, there also tends to be unhealthier outcomes," Darius said. Cham hopes Congress will vote to extend the help. "It's a necessity, it's not even a luxury," Cham said. Other organizations, including the Florida Hospital Association, have spoken out. In an email to CBS Miami, President and CEO Mary Mayhew said: "Today, more than 4.7 million Floridians have health insurance coverage because of the federal marketplace and the essential premium assistance. This innovative private health insurance model is the difference between timely access to health care and going without. The critical premium assistance through the federal marketplace is promoting employment and easing the financial burden of health insurance costs on Florida's small businesses. The success of the marketplace cannot be ignored, and Congress must act to preserve and protect this private health insurance model that is so vital to ensuring timely access to health care services for millions of hardworking Floridians." Congress is still on recess. With open enrollment for health insurance beginning on November 1, Darius said they expect to have a better idea as that date gets closer.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Federal judge blocks Trump administration's broad birth control mandate exemptions
The Trump administration's religious and moral carve-outs to an ObamaCare requirement that all employer health plans cover contraception at no cost were blocked on Wednesday by a federal judge. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia issued a summary judgment that the rules were arbitrary, capricious and an overreach of the authority of the agencies that wrote them in 2017. Under the rules, essentially any for-profit or nonprofit employer or insurer was allowed to exempt themselves from following the birth control mandate on moral and religious grounds. The rules also let publicly traded companies obtain a religious exemption, but not a moral one. The Affordable Care Act required employer health plans to cover at least one of 18 forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Religious groups and employers sued, and the Supreme Court in 2014 ruled 5-4 that the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights of closely held corporations whose owners had religious objections. Subsequent agency actions tried to find a balance, but the Trump administration in 2017 issued a blanket exemption. The rules didn't require employers to apply for an exemption because the administration said that would be a violation of their religious rights. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and dozens of other states sued to halt that broad expansion of exemptions and accommodations. That lawsuit reached the Supreme Court in 2020, where the justices upheld the Trump rules on technical grounds but did not address the underlying merits of the case. The case was sent back to the lower court, where a religious group, Little Sisters of the Poor, joined the lawsuit alongside the federal government in asking for summary judgment. Beetlestone, an appointee of former President Obama, wrote that the Trump administration's religious rule did not accomplish what the agencies purportedly wrote it to do, which was to resolve a conflict between the contraceptive mandate and RFRA. But the rule exemptions to organizations that are 'unlikely, if ever, to be capable of maintaining a religious objection, raising further doubts as to any 'rational connection' between the Rule and remedying potential conflicts with RFRA,' Beetlestone wrote. The Little Sisters of the Poor will appeal the ruling in the coming weeks, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit that represents the order.
