Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

71% Positive

Analyzed from 784 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#cancer#more#cancers#help#drug#thing#kras#switch#treatments#https

Discussion (34 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

gcanyon•about 2 hours ago
As is often the case, the title is hyperbolic. The discovery applies to 20% of tumors, and "one of cancer's significant defenses" or "a key weakness of cancer" would be more accurate.

That said, I'll happily take "we discovered a key weakness in 20% of cancers," please and thank you.

basisword•about 2 hours ago
What does this mean in layman's terms? How will this potentially help me if I get cancer?
epistasis•about 2 hours ago
Cancer is not one thing, it's a huge zoo of many many many ways that cells start to break the social contract and divide in an uncontrolled manner.

One of the most commonly observed broken mechanisms is mutation in the gene KRAS that turns this on/off growth switch into the permanently on position.

This has been known for decades, of course. And there have been huge amounts of effort to try to develop drugs that target KRAS in cancer, but for decades it's always been thought of as 'undruggable' because of the difficulty of finding any molecules that would affect it.

This new drug, that finally treats KRAS mutated cancers, goes about it in a new way. Instead of trying to gum up the works of a single protein by sticking a small chemical in it, it effectively "glues" the KRAS protein to another protein, CypA, which keeps the switch away from reaching the normal areas where it's "on switch" activity works.

So this new drug means two things: 1) a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for, 2) there's an entire new class of drug activity that everybody is chasing at this very moment, so in 5-25 years we'll likely have a huge number more of these sorts of treatments.

bad_username•about 1 hour ago
> Cancer is not one thing,

I know this is a popular "well actually" to do, but it is not always useful in a conversation. Yes, all cancers are different, but yes, cancer is also one thing: unchecked, harmful division of cells.

Bacteria are also all different, but still they are "one thing", and despite their diversity, antibiotics exist that can deal with many species of them at once. It is reasonable to talk about bacteria and antibacterial medications, it is also reasonable to talk about cancer and cancer treatment. I truly hope cancer will meet its "penicillin" one day (yes I know this is unlikely).

oh_my_goodness•about 2 hours ago
>a lot of the most difficult to treat cancers are now far more treatable, and in the next 1-5 years clinical trials will tell us which cancers this particular drug works well for,

Can you help disambiguate this? Are there treatments now, or are there potential treatments with trials in 1-5 years?

dyauspitr•41 minutes ago
The golden panacea for this would be a gene editing mechanism that will work in every cell in the body. Once we have something we can do whole hog gene replacement, most human health problems would be solved forever.
redleggedfrog•about 1 hour ago
That was a really good summary, thank you.
siva7•about 1 hour ago
It won't help... mind you this is an article from the economist. There is no such thing as a cancer "master switch", that would equal a disease master switch and that point we have solved biology.
sarchertech•41 minutes ago
What do you mean “it won’t help”?

It most likely will help if you get pancreatic cancer. It might help if you get one of the other types of cancers with this mutation.

And it will likely lead to new treatments for some of the worst kinds of cancer.

GaggiX•about 2 hours ago
One of the many therapies that are being developed so that you can survive longer even with the most lethal tumours.
pdar4123•about 2 hours ago
Please remember that science is under attack in the United States - new proposals would gut the nih even beyond the horror that is ongoing. As a scientist I am horrified and I truly hope that we don’t abandon the usas historically strong investment in the future.
fillskills•6 minutes ago
Kindly share more details
gavinray•about 1 hour ago
To offer context for others:

The bigger deal about this is that KRAS was considered an "undruggable" target.

Recent advancements have allowed us to design biologics to do things we previously thought impossible, which broadens the horizons for other treatments in the future.

Baby steps.

Nippon_anzai•about 1 hour ago
What's next then?
ispeters•about 3 hours ago
fhdkweig•about 2 hours ago
The relevant line is:

"oncologists went wild over the results of a drug called daraxonrasib."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daraxonrasib

plmpsu•28 minutes ago
Does anyone have a link to the conference session?
variety8675•about 2 hours ago
The study this article references is here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06625320
btown•11 minutes ago
Another ongoing HN thread from yesterday around some exciting cancer treatment breakthroughs, this time with a CRISPR Cas12a2 mechanism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505231

This subthread there is a fascinating explainer about one user's journey into funding and incentivizing research into their own rare form of blood cancer, and how they are able to push forward the state of the art: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48506997 - something of a modern-day (and more accurate) Lorenzo's Oil!

an0malous•about 2 hours ago
I’m surprised Michael Levin’s research hasn’t expanded much beyond a certain YouTube media bubble. They’re able to start and stop cancer growth with only voltage changes between cells, likewise they can also trigger regeneration or anatomical changes using voltage changes. His research seems to suggest a lot of important anatomical plans are stored in an electric field around the body, not in the DNA. This model’s explanation for cancer is that some cells become disconnected from this field and start growing independently of the overall body plan.
neonstatic•about 1 hour ago
I love his work (even though I know little more than what he says in interviews). I am also surprised it's not more widely known / applied. I am very skeptical of conspiracy-minded thinking, so I'd much rather assume his and his team's work hasn't reached escape velocity from obscurity. Especially with larger industries, it takes time and significant breakthroughs to become "a household name", so to speak.
willmadden•about 1 hour ago
Pure clickbait.
DivingForGold•about 2 hours ago
Thanks for posting useful link !