Hiya pds, @orlop and @mmc4Yeah - I missed that version too, but...

Hiya pds, @orlop and @mmc4Yeah - I missed that version too, but there is a story on the ABC News website now: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-20/melanoma-richard-scolyer-georgina-long-early-results/102879818

It's a bit low on detail. Quote:

"Professor Scolyer was given immunotherapy, designed to activate the immune system to attack the cancer.

They also used the specific genome of his cancer to design a vaccine to target it."

That sounds like a CAR-T drug to me, but whatever - good luck to them!

There are so many variations in cancer, and so many thousand of people working on better treatments. The field is incredibly dynamic.

I did find these comments really interesting:

Professor Scolyer said at this stage the experimental treatment he has undergone won't be available to other patients.

"I can only do this because I'm a cancer researcher and clinician and so inherently understand the risks," he said.

"This treatment may extend or shorten my life."

I think many here would relate to what I'm about to say here. Prof Scolyer has been "allowed" to take a risk because he can "inherently understand the risks." As I say - good luck to him and congratulations - but patients have to give "informed consent" every time they undergo cancer treatment, and we all make assessments of risk every day of our lives. Sure - the information available on the treatment given to Prof S will be limited because - hey - no clinical trials yet - but the information on the survival chances for a patient with GB is very much available. I predict that a LOT of other GB patients will be now be demanding equal rights here. I know I would.

Which I think is what they are hinting at when they say:

"They have called for a change in approach to cancer research and treatment, such as looking beyond the confines of one cancer, designing better clinical trials and embedding research in clinical care.

"We know we're not curing as many cancers as we could," Professor Scolyer said.

"Today we call on the cancer research field to collectively re-think its approach to tackling cancer. Think big and be courageous."

"Embedding research in clinical care" is exactly what they are doing for Prof S. There is indeed a need for researchers to "think big" and "be courageous" - but we also need a clinical trials system which allowscancer patients to also "be courageous" and to choose an experimental therapy which offers at least some hope, against the near certainty of a fatal outcome with current standards of care (in some cancer types).

No offence meant to Professor Scolyer when I say this, and I wish him only the very best outcome - but granting an exception in one case because the patient is a prominent medical researcher and can therefore "inherently understand the risks" is, at best, ridiculously elitist, and also a shocking insult to the intelligence of other GB sufferers.

The relevance to IMU (dear mods) is that the IMU trials of CF33 have indeed been subject to incredibly restrictive protocols - eg having to start with extremely low dosages.

ALSO - the current CF33/Vaccinia MAST trial only allows access to patients who have effectively failed on "at least two prior lines of therapy" - with consequent tumour growth. There are solid tumour types (as in the case of Prof S) where the normal "lines of therapy" are known to be little more than useless - but those patients have to let their disease become even worse, and possibly also compromise their own immune system through treatments such as chemo, before they are eligible for the CF33/Vaccinia MAST trial. ie. The criteria for inclusion in the trial actually reduce the patient's chances of a successful result, because they make the task for CF33 much harder - larger/more advanced tumours and possibly a damaged immune response. Similar restriction were applied to the initial HER-vaxx and PD1-vaxx trials.

This is not the fault of IMU - this is the result of FDA and TGA limitations on clinical trials.

Personal views expressed here and, again, I mean to offence to Professor Scolyer or indeed to his colleagues. I hope they succeed!

Cheers

Dave

PS @Bathurst - yes mate. CHM is working on GB. It's even possible they are usingChimeric's CHM1101 or a variant of it. CHM1101 is also being investigated for potential in Melanoma, which may have brought it to their attention through the Melanoma Institute.