Out of the ashes, a new treatment for a hidden cancer
Loading
CSCCs typically appear on the most sun-exposed parts of our skin – the hands, the neck, the scalp or ears – as a firm bump or scaly sore. Bailey recalls 'a scabby sort of thing on my head'.
As soon as his doctor saw it, he cut it out. Surgical excision, and sometimes additional radiation therapy, is the typical treatment for CSCC. In more than 90 per cent of cases, simple treatment is entirely curative. 'You cut them out, you send it off, you stitch it up, and they are cured,' says McCormack.
But occasionally, the cancer has spread before it is spotted. Of every 100 cases, one to three people will die, as the cancer grows back in their lungs or livers or bones.
Deaths from non-melanoma skin cancers have almost doubled in Australia in the past 20 years; globally, CSCC causes more deaths than melanoma does, despite its lack of name-recognition. About 70 per cent of us will get a non-melanoma skin cancer in our lives – hence the high number of deaths, even though the disease itself has a relatively low mortality rate.
'It's so common, people tend to trivialise it a bit,' says the University of the Sunshine Coast's Associate Professor Andrew Dettrick, who has published papers on CSCC. 'Five per cent does not sound like a lot, but it is when you times it by 200,000 people.'
A new standard of treatment for an invisible disease
If a doctor cuts out the tumour, and then uses beams of radiation to kill any cells they cannot reach, why does cancer sometimes come back?
'They have got microscopic disease left, either in the area that's been treated, or it has already spread. And we don't have any way of knowing that,' says Professor Danny Rischin, head of research for head and neck cancer at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
The focus of Rischin's career has been on stopping that cancer coming back. In 2018, he co-authored a study testing whether Carboplatin, a chemotherapy drug, could prevent relapse.
Loading
Like many experiments, it did not work. The drug did not improve survival.
But scientists often learn more from failure than success. Rischin's team were able to isolate a subgroup of CSCC patients within the trial who had certain features that put them at a dramatically higher rate of cancer recurrence. 'They were in need of better treatment,' he says.
For this group, Rischin's team turned to one of the medicines that has revolutionised cancer treatment in the past decade: checkpoint inhibitors.
Our immune system needs to run certain checks to ensure it is attacking an enemy, not one of our own cells. Cancer often takes advantage of this, generating its own codes to pass the checks.
Using genetically modified antibodies, scientists in the past two decades have learned to block our own immune system's checkpoints. 'It unmasks the cancer cell, so your immune system can see it again,' says Dettrick.
Perhaps a souped-up immune system could ferret out the microscopic cancers the surgeons could not?
In a study sponsored by the therapy's manufacturer, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Rischin's team randomised 415 patients, who had been treated for CSCC but had a risk of recurrence, between immunotherapy and a placebo: 87 per cent of patients on the therapy were still disease-free after 24 months, compared to 64 per cent on the placebo.
About 10 per cent of patients getting the therapy had severe side effects, and one died – consistent with the normal side effects from immunotherapy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
29-07-2025
- The Age
Science fraudster shows independent research watchdog a necessity
Professor Mark Smyth was once considered one of this country's leading cancer researchers. Yet as The Age has reported in the past week, alarming aspects of his work have put into question both his research and the manner in which complaints about his work have been investigated. At core is this: integrity and trust. The Age revealed that while Smyth was working at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, he faced inquiries into falsifying research data. A preliminary investigation found he had a case to answer based on claims of falsified data. That prompted a second probe by the University of Melbourne, which cleared him. Smyth left Peter Mac in 2013 after being hired by leading research institute QIMR Berghofer in Brisbane in 2012. At QIMR, members of his lab team raised concerns about his practices. He was investigated twice, secretly, and no problems were detected. Whistleblowers went looking elsewhere for help. They approached the Office of the Chief Scientist and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which oversees research integrity. The whistleblowers were referred back to QIMR. Then, finally, four years ago, amid the turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic, an external independent investigation for the institute found research misconduct by Smyth. He left. This circuitous route of investigation is unacceptable, as is the fact that the report has never been released. The Age 's reports have shown an unhealthy nexus between taxpayer funding for institutions, self-interest and a system ill-equipped to manage complaints. Smyth was protected, it appeared to those complaining, partly because he was a cash cow, having attracted more than $42 million in taxpayer funding for his projects over his career. A staff member at QIMR said of Smyth's work practices: 'Mark was bringing money to the institute, so the institute protected Mark.' Who then protects the integrity of the science?
7NEWS
12-06-2025
- 7NEWS
Aussies should have the right to ‘choose the sex' of their baby, IVF doctor says
An in vitro fertilisation doctor has argued Aussies should have the right to choose the sex of their child. According to IVF specialist Daniel Potter, it was infantilising for medical professionals to not disclose embryo-related information, and the government should not be involved in such a personal decision. 'I don't really see what the harm is, and people that are obviously highly motivated to be parents, you know, pursuing what they see as life, liberty and happiness ... their version of happiness, not the government's version,' he said. Currently, sex selective IVF is banned in Australia on ethical grounds. The procedure is only allowed on medical grounds such as genetic disorders associated with gender. It is estimated that hundreds of Australians travel overseas each year to gain access to the procedure, which is becoming increasingly more socially acceptable in Australia. 'I respect everybody's opinion, and I think that just because you disagree with something, doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to do it,' Potter, who appeared on Sunrise on Thursday, said. 'I think it's almost treating them like children .... (to say) we have this information, but we are not going to disclose it to you, because we are concerned you will use this information to make a choice that we might not agree with. 'What right do they have to tell you what to do with your life?' The demand for the service has doubled, according to Sunrise. 'The conversation here in Australia, I think, it's ripe to happen,' Potter said. 'I don't know, ask yourselves why, if someone here in Australia does in vitro fertilisation, they know the gender of the embryos, but they won't disclose it to them, and this is information that may or may not be important to that person or that couple. 'But it seems to me that it should be their information to make decisions about their life and what they feel makes them happy.' 'Mix of opinions' Influencer Caitlin Bailey has sparked debate after travelling to the United States to access sex selective IVF. She spent $45,000 on the procedure, which allowed her to conceive a girl. The Melbourne-based single mother, due to give birth in August, already has two naturally conceived boys and a girl, aged between one and five. 'I have three children already. I have a girl and two boys. And I just had this longing and this desire to have another baby girl,' Bailey told Sunrise on Thursday. 'So, I looked into it, and I found a company called Gender Selection Australia and I went through them, and they linked me in with Dr Potter, and it kind of all went from there.' Bailey said she has received a mix of feedback. 'To be honest, I have had overwhelmingly had positive feedback, but of course no two people are the same. 'Everyone is unique. Always no matter what you do is there will be positives and negatives and people who do and don't agree. 'There have been people who voiced their concerns, or they might not agree, but I just usually say that's my choice and my life and what you do in your life, as long as you are not hurting anyone, then you do you.'
The Age
07-06-2025
- The Age
Out of the ashes, a new treatment for a hidden cancer
Keratinocytes, like all healthy cells, carefully follow the instructions coded into your DNA. But when DNA is damaged, most-often through the photons in sunlight smashing into it, the instructions can be garbled. These new instructions can cause the cell to start dividing uncontrollably, eventually forming a cancerous tumour. Loading CSCCs typically appear on the most sun-exposed parts of our skin – the hands, the neck, the scalp or ears – as a firm bump or scaly sore. Bailey recalls 'a scabby sort of thing on my head'. As soon as his doctor saw it, he cut it out. Surgical excision, and sometimes additional radiation therapy, is the typical treatment for CSCC. In more than 90 per cent of cases, simple treatment is entirely curative. 'You cut them out, you send it off, you stitch it up, and they are cured,' says McCormack. But occasionally, the cancer has spread before it is spotted. Of every 100 cases, one to three people will die, as the cancer grows back in their lungs or livers or bones. Deaths from non-melanoma skin cancers have almost doubled in Australia in the past 20 years; globally, CSCC causes more deaths than melanoma does, despite its lack of name-recognition. About 70 per cent of us will get a non-melanoma skin cancer in our lives – hence the high number of deaths, even though the disease itself has a relatively low mortality rate. 'It's so common, people tend to trivialise it a bit,' says the University of the Sunshine Coast's Associate Professor Andrew Dettrick, who has published papers on CSCC. 'Five per cent does not sound like a lot, but it is when you times it by 200,000 people.' A new standard of treatment for an invisible disease If a doctor cuts out the tumour, and then uses beams of radiation to kill any cells they cannot reach, why does cancer sometimes come back? 'They have got microscopic disease left, either in the area that's been treated, or it has already spread. And we don't have any way of knowing that,' says Professor Danny Rischin, head of research for head and neck cancer at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. The focus of Rischin's career has been on stopping that cancer coming back. In 2018, he co-authored a study testing whether Carboplatin, a chemotherapy drug, could prevent relapse. Loading Like many experiments, it did not work. The drug did not improve survival. But scientists often learn more from failure than success. Rischin's team were able to isolate a subgroup of CSCC patients within the trial who had certain features that put them at a dramatically higher rate of cancer recurrence. 'They were in need of better treatment,' he says. For this group, Rischin's team turned to one of the medicines that has revolutionised cancer treatment in the past decade: checkpoint inhibitors. Our immune system needs to run certain checks to ensure it is attacking an enemy, not one of our own cells. Cancer often takes advantage of this, generating its own codes to pass the checks. Using genetically modified antibodies, scientists in the past two decades have learned to block our own immune system's checkpoints. 'It unmasks the cancer cell, so your immune system can see it again,' says Dettrick. Perhaps a souped-up immune system could ferret out the microscopic cancers the surgeons could not? In a study sponsored by the therapy's manufacturer, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Rischin's team randomised 415 patients, who had been treated for CSCC but had a risk of recurrence, between immunotherapy and a placebo: 87 per cent of patients on the therapy were still disease-free after 24 months, compared to 64 per cent on the placebo. About 10 per cent of patients getting the therapy had severe side effects, and one died – consistent with the normal side effects from immunotherapy.
