Latest news with #medicalResearch
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
'Holy grail' cancer therapy gives terminal patients with same disease as Joe Biden new hope in breakthrough
A groundbreaking cancer treatment hailed as a 'holy grail' is offering fresh hope to patients once given just months to live. A new study in California looked at 15 men who were 'knocking on death's door' due to late-stage prostate cancer like the one suffered by former president Joe Biden. The therapy involved injecting liquid nitrogen to freeze their tumors, followed by a powerful cocktail of drugs that trigger the immune system to destroy their cancer. Overall, 53 percent - or eight of the patients - saw all signs of their cancer disappear. Another five saw their tumors shrink dramatically, while two saw their disease stop growing. None saw their cancer progress further. Doctors involved in the study underlined how sick the patients were, saying 13 had cancers that had spread to their bones and, in every case, their disease had not responded to standard treatments. In stage four prostate cancer, the median survival rate is just two to three years. Only a third make it to five years. But, in this study, nine in 10 patients are still alive after 14 months. Dr Jason Williams, the scientist who pioneered the therapy and who was involved in the study, told in an exclusive interview that he felt the results were 'really impressive' and underlined the effectiveness of the therapy. He said: 'These results were really good, even in those patients who were metastatic, patients who were heavily treated and failed all other immunotherapies, and basically had nothing left. 'If we got more healthy patients, patients before they were treated, it is likely that our results would be even better. But, of course, the fact our results are already so good says a lot.' Doctors said their experimental therapy works because it is able to 'harness the immune system', prompting it to hunt out and destroy cancer cells in the body. For the treatment - known as SYNC-T - doctors initially freeze part of a tumor to kill some of the cells and trigger an immune response. Then, they inject a cocktail of four immunotherapy drugs into the same tumor to further ramp up the immune system and help it identify and destroy cancer cells. Scientists said that the treatment helps the immune system to recognize the cancer in other parts of the body, such as the bones, leading it to also destroy tumors in those areas. The study was revealed at ASCO 2025, the largest cancer conference in the world being held in Chicago, Illinois, and prompted gasps from members of the audience. One member was quick to call it potentially the 'holy grail' of cancer treatments, while a second simply uttered 'damn' while the results were being revealed. Joe Biden, 82, revealed last month that he had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, saying it had already spread to his bones. In comments last week, he told reporters he 'feels good' and expects to 'be able to beat this'. Dr Williams said his therapy could be offered to patients like Biden. 'We know that they have the information on our trial,' he said, 'so they [Biden's medical team] have seen it, and, hopefully, they can make a decision, because he clearly has advanced prostate cancer, and this is an advanced treatment option.' In the study, patients were 60 years old on average with an age range from 49 to 74 years. Nine of the patients were White, while five were Hispanic and one was Black. Ten had previously received hormone therapy to treat their cancer, while five had been refused the therapy. Three, or 20 percent, had done chemotherapy, while five, or 33 percent, had had radiation, and two, or 13 percent, had received immunotherapy. Each received up to 12 cycles of the therapy which was administered once every four weeks. Patients also underwent full-body MRI and PET scans every eight weeks, allowing doctors to track the progression of their tumors. On average, patients had elevated levels of immune cells that fight tumors in their blood within 24 hours of their first cycle of the treatment. Side effects such as fevers were recorded, which the scientists said was likely been triggered by a surge in immune system activity. There were no major adverse events, however. In one case, a patient saw all 50 cancerous growths in their bones disappear after receiving the treatment. The patients in this study had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, meaning their cancer had spread to other areas of the body and hormone therapy was no longer effective in controlling its growth. Dr Williams has urged other doctors to adopt his method of injecting immunotherapy drugs directly into the tumor instead of systemically, or into the blood stream, as is standard practice. He added to this website: 'Hopefully, this is going to open people's eyes. 'Doctor's say, you think putting medication in tumors is going to work, and I say, that's like saying if you've got a house on fire, do you think you should put the water on that house or on another one nearby'. The therapy has also been used to treat other cancers previously, in cases covered by These include a doctor suffering from pancreatic cancer who had been told he had just six months to live, but then cleared his cancer with the therapy. And a mother-of-five given 24 months to live after her stage four breast cancer spread 'everywhere'. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the US, with about 236,000 men diagnosed with the disease in the US every year. Age is the biggest risk factor for the disease, with one in eight men being diagnosed with the disease during their lifetimes. Those aged 70 and over have about a 50:50 risk of developing the disease, studies suggest.
South China Morning Post
22-05-2025
- Health
- South China Morning Post
Brain tumours diagnosed in 2 hours, down from 2 months, using new DNA-based test
Scientists have developed an 'ultra-fast' test which can slash the time patients have to wait to find out which type of brain tumour they have. Patients usually wait six to eight weeks to find out their type of brain tumour. But the new 'game changer' tool, which assesses the DNA from a sample taken from the tumour, can achieve this in around two hours, experts found. This means patients can start treatment faster, and the test may even help surgical teams while they are operating to remove tumours, they said. Researchers from the UK's University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust assessed the new test on 50 patients. The new brain tumour test is a 'game changer', allowing suitable treatment to start almost immediately. Photo: Shutterstock The research team, which publishing their findings in the medical journal Neuro-Oncology, said the new test was 'in concordance with standard of care' for '90 per cent of cases'.
The Sun
21-05-2025
- Health
- The Sun
Breakthrough ultra-rapid test that can diagnose brain tumours in just two hours could be rolled out on NHS in a year
SCIENTISTS have created an "ultra-fast" test which can slash the time it takes to diagnose brain tumours. At the moment, patients usually wait six to eight weeks to find out the type of brain tumour. 1 But the new "game changer" tool, which assesses the DNA from a sample taken from the tumour, can achieve this in around two hours, experts found. They said this means that patients can start treatment faster and the test may even help surgical teams while they are performing operations to remove tumours. Researchers from the University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (NUH) assessed the new test on 50 patients. Publishing their findings in the journal Neuro-Oncology, the research team said the new test was "in concordance with standard of care" for "90 per cent of cases". Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, experts said they hoped the test would be rolled out on the NHS 'as soon as possible' — potentially "within the next year or so". They said the new test can provide diagnostic results in under two hours from surgery, and detailed tumour classifications within minutes of sequencing. Traditionally, samples of tumours are extracted during surgery to be taken away, tested, and examined under a microscope in a pathology lab. While the process is mostly accurate, it can take up to eight weeks to definitively diagnose the type of tumour. This long wait is also "traumatic" for patients and can delay chemotherapy and radiotherapy, they experts said. But the new method, called ROBIN (rapid nanopore brain intraoperative classification), can potentially eliminate this delay, they added. Professor Matt Loose, from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Nottingham, developed a method to sequence specific parts of human DNA at "higher depth" using Oxford Nanopore Technologies portable sequencing devices. The team have now used this method to genetically test brain tumour samples. "Not only is the test more accurate and quicker, but it is also cheaper than current methods," he said. "Our calculations stand at around £450 per person, potentially less when scaled-up. "Most importantly, it delivers results to the patients when they need them." 'The degree of accuracy is incredible' Neurosurgeon Dr Stuart Smith, from the University's School of Medicine and NUH, added: "Traditionally, the process of diagnosing brain tumours has been slow and expensive. "Now, with this new technology we can do more for patients because we can get answers so much more quickly which will have a much bigger influence on clinical decision making, in as little as two hours. "Patients find waiting many weeks for results extremely difficult and this adds to the anxiety and worry at what is already a very difficult time." He said the test was so rapid that it could even help surgeons during any operation to assist with their "surgical strategy". Dr Simon Paine, a consultant neuropathologist at NUH, added: "This new method of diagnosing brain tumours is going to be a game changer, it really is revolutionary. "It not only increases the speed at which the results will be available, but the degree of accuracy of the diagnosis as well is incredible." Commenting, Dr Simon Newman from The Brain Tumour Charity, said: "The delivery of an accurate diagnosis within hours of surgery will be transformative for all patients ensuring rapid access to the optimal standard of care and - crucially - removing the uncertainty patients face when having to wait weeks for their diagnosis and prognosis. "The potential to combine so many separate tests into one and deliver at a localised level is a game changer for driving equity of access to rapid and accurate molecular diagnosis." The most common symptoms of a brain tumour More than 12,000 Brits are diagnosed with a primary brain tumour every year — of which around half are cancerous — with 5,300 losing their lives. The disease is the most deadly cancer in children and adults aged under 40, according to the Brain Tumour Charity. Brain tumours reduce life expectancies by an average of 27 years, with just 12 per cent of adults surviving five years after diagnosis. There are two main types, with non-cancerous benign tumours growing more slowly and being less likely to return after treatment. Cancerous malignant brain tumours can either start in the brain or spread there from elsewhere in the body and are more likely to return. Brain tumours can cause headaches, seizures, nausea, vomiting and memory problems, according to the NHS. They can also lead to changes in personality weakness or paralysis on one side of the problem and problems with speech or vision. The nine most common symptoms are: Headaches Seizures Feeling sick Being sick Memory problems Change in personality Weakness or paralysis on one side of the body Vision problems Speech problems If you are suffering any of these symptoms, particularly a headache that feels different from the ones you normally get, you should visit your GP. Source: NHS
New York Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
The President Will Destroy You Now
One thing stands out amid all the chaos, corruption and disorder: the wanton destructiveness of the Trump presidency. The targets of Trump's assaults include the law, higher education, medical research, ethical standards, America's foreign alliances, free speech, the civil service, religion, the media and much more. J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush, succinctly described his own view of the Trump presidency, writing by email that there has never before Some of the damage Trump has inflicted can be repaired by future administrations, but repairing relations with American allies, the restoration of lost government expertise and a return to productive research may take years, even with a new and determined president and Congress. Let's look at just one target of the administration's vendetta, medical research. Trump's attacks include cancellation of thousands of grants, cuts in the share of grants going to universities and hospitals; and proposed cuts of 40 percent or more in the budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Science Foundation. 'This is going to completely kneecap biomedical research in this country,' Jennifer Zeitzer, deputy executive director at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, told Science Magazine. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, warned that cuts will 'totally destroy the nation's public health infrastructure.' I asked scholars of the presidency to evaluate the scope of Trump's wreckage. 'The gutting of expertise and experience going on right now under the blatantly false pretext of eliminating fraud and waste,' Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton, wrote by email, 'is catastrophic and may never be completely repaired.' I asked Wilentz whether Trump was unique with respect to his destructiveness or if there were presidential precedents. Wilentz replied: Another question: Was Trump re-elected to promote an agenda of wreaking havoc, or is he pursuing an elitist right-wing program created by conservative ideologues who saw in Trump's election the opportunity to pursue their goals? Wilentz's reply: I asked Andrew Rudalevige, a political scientist at Bowdoin, how permanent the mayhem Trump has inflicted may prove to be. 'Not to be flip,' Rudalevige replied by email, 'but for children abroad denied food or lifesaving medicine because of arbitrary aid cuts the answer is already distressingly permanent.' From a broader perspective, Rudalevige wrote: I sent the question I posed to Wilentz to other scholars of the presidency. It produced a wide variety of answers. Here is Rudalevige's: Another question: How much is Trump's second term agenda the invention of conservative elites and how much is it a response to the demands of Trump's MAGA supporters? 'Trump is not at all an unwitting victim,' Rudalevige wrote, 'but those around him with wider and more systemic goals have more authority and are better organized in pursuit of those goals than they were in the first term.' In this context, Rudalevige continued, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 In the past, when presidential power has expanded, Rudalevige argued, One widely shared view among those I queried is that Trump has severely damaged American's relations with traditional allies everywhere. Mara Rudman, a professor at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, wrote in an email: Trump is not unique in his destructiveness, in Rudman's view, Trump's second term agenda, Rudman argued, is elite-driven: Bruce Cain, a political scientist at Stanford, shares the belief that Trump has taken a wrecking ball to foreign relations. Cain emailed me his assessment: Similarly, Cain continued, Cain argued that in both economics and politics, destruction can have beneficial results, but not in the case of Donald Trump. Musk and Trump, in Cain's view, 'are driven more by instinct than knowledge, vindictiveness than good intentions and impatience than carefully designed plans.' They In ranking the most destructive presidents, the scholars I contacted mentioned both Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president for political studies at the Niskanen Center, a center-left libertarian think tank, wrote by email: Paul Rosenzweig, a former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush and a lecturer in law at George Washington University, was even more pessimistic, writing in an email that he fears that Rosenzweig believes that I asked the experts I contacted whether Trump was laying the groundwork for a more autocratic form of government in the United States. Robert Strong, a professor of political economy at Washington and Lee, replied by email: From a different vantage point, Ellen Fitzgerald, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire, questioned the value of trying to determine 'whether Trump is the most corrupt and/or most destructive president in U.S. history.' Such evaluations Despite those cautions, Fitzpatrick acknowledged that 'it's fair to say that if we look at the arc of American history from Reconstruction to the current day, there's no question that Trump is busily destroying much of what several generations of Americans worked very, very hard to achieve.' 'The anti-immigrant sentiment of the late 19th and early twentieth century,' Fitzpatrick wrote, and 'the rhetoric abroad in the land today': Some of those I questioned argued that Trump's assault on American institutions and values is not supported by most of his voters. Russell Riley, professor of ethics and co-chairman of the Miller Center's Presidential Oral History Program, took this view a step farther, noting that Trump explicitly dissociated himself from Project 2025 during the campaign and then, once in office, adopted much of the Project 2025 agenda: Trump, in contrast, 'barely won the popular vote, with just under 50 percent — hardly an electoral mandate, even for an incremental program. Indeed as a candidate Mr. Trump openly distanced himself from Project 2025.' Lacking both a clear mandate and an electorate explicitly supportive of Project 2025, Riley argued, means The reality, however, is that the abdication of power by Republicans in Congress has allowed Trump to create a mandate out of whole cloth. Where will this frightening development take us? The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@
Washington Post
19-05-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
New clues point to why colorectal cancer is rising in young people
It's one of the most pressing medical mysteries of our time: Why are so many young people getting colorectal cancer? Colorectal cancer rates have been declining among U.S. adults over age 50 since the 1980s. But, for younger adults, the trend is rapidly going in the wrong direction. While the overall numbers are still relatively low, colorectal cancer will become the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for adults in their 20s, 30s and 40s by 2030.
