Angiogenesis - Another Cancer Cure Hype finally dies

[TomBAvoider]

Angiogenesis was seen as a necessary condition for cancer to grow - this supposedly iron principle gave rise to a lot of hype when angiogenesis inhibitors were developed. And those inhibitors were hyped as the the silver bullet final cure to all cancers. I remember those times of hype very well. What was even more comical, is that the biggest hype was behind an angiogenesis inhibitor that was developed for mice. It cured some cancer in MICE. Based on that, hosannas were chanted all over the media. Stock prices rocketed. Cancer cure was within reach. And then years passed and the hype died an ignominious death. As so many other hypes before it. Yes, a few kinds of specific cancers in specific cases are affected, but as so often, edge cases are not indicative of a global cure, and nowhere near the promise of the wild hype.

 

And today there are new hype campaigns (often designed to boost stock prices and create riches, a la Sinclair and resveratrol or whatever new snakeoil he's flogging these days). So  (as I've been repeating over and over again) - if you see a study in mice (or any animal), you can immediately dismiss it - it's worthless unless shown to work in humans. And always remain cautious and skeptical when any new hype strikes - the principle always applies: EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. When the new hype arrives demand extraordinary proof, until then, you are perfectly fine in dismissing it utterly.

 

http://sciencenordic.com/tumours-are-more-complicated-previously-believed

 

"That observation and the mechanism it describes, called angiogenesis, fed great optimism in cancer research. Enormous amounts of time and money were spent studying this idea, and new cancer medicines were developed to affect the development of blood vessels that feed tumours.

“The enthusiasm for this approach at that time was similar to how we look at immunotherapy today,” said Tom Dønnem, a professor at the Arctic University of Norway. “Now we think that immunotherapy will revolutionize cancer treatment. That’s what we once thought about angiogenesis inhibitors.”"

[Todd Allen]

Anyone know how much has been spent treating cancer and looking for cures versus reducing carcinogens in our food, water and air?

[Matt]

Has angiogenesis inhibitors ever showed the same kind of efficacy as engineered immune cells which target tumors and cancer cells? In humans. It never really seemed like a viable and lasting therapy by itself to me. 

Over the last few years, there's been a few really promising results from using engineered T cells. Immunotherapy in itself though is a big area, there's not just one type or way of doing it.