“Immunotherapy” Taught Me

As the end of the semester draws near, my blog posts have to come to an end. This will be my last post and in it I will analyze how all the research I did throughout the semester changed my viewpoint on immunotherapy and what I learned from the new knowledge I acquired.

The main things I didn’t know and learned through all the reading and research I did this semester are how immunotherapy is currently being worked on in its development stage and all the possibilities and hope it represents for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients.

Immunotherapy is not currently available for everyone, and that is because it is currently still being altered and tailored so it can successfully fight off a wider range of types of cancer. From reading multiple different articles through the course of this semester, I’ve concluded that so far immunotherapy has been the most successful in treating liver cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer and some forms of lung cancer.

As of this month of December, I found a news article by Denise Grady, whom I also quoted in an early post, explaining a new important advance made in the medical world regarding immunotherapy.

In her piece, Grady covers the story of a patient, Celine Ryan, who was battling a very resilient type of pancreatic cancer, a “mutation [that] has been bulletproof, so resistant to every attempt at treatment that scientists have described it as ‘undruggable’.” However, after being treated with experimental immunotherapy, the patient was the first case of this mutation ever budging and she is now cancer free.

This first successful case is serving as the base and inspiration to more research targeted towards determining whether this is can be “replicated and built upon” and if so, then what needs to be done in order to keep experimenting successfully and eventually make immunotherapy into a household name.

Another important thing I got to read a lot about was how the prospect of a new promising treatment lifts up the patients’ spirits. I consider this relevant because the mind is really powerful and by feeling like there is hope for them can instill a positive mindset that will likely affect the person’s overall health and recovery.

In the same article by Grady for The New York Times, Ms. Ryan stated that as soon as she heard about the clinical trial she submitted her application in hopes of being let in and felt devastated when she was rejected at first. Now, about a year after being accepted into the trial and knowing that six out of her seven tumors are gone, she claims to feel “great” and full of life despite being diagnosed with a very deathly kind of cancer only a couple years back.

Recently, doctors have started to turn their focus more toward making immunotherapy work for cancer in the colon, pancreas, ovaries and breasts, which constitute over 80% of all the cancer-related deaths in the United States each year.

I appreciate having had this space to expand what used to be my almost nonexistent knowledge on immunotherapy, and although by no means am I a pro now, I do believe I learned many valuable things not only about immunotherapy but cancer as well and the journey the world has been on while striving to find the long awaited cure for cancer. Knowing immunotherapy is so promising makes me so deeply happy to know that there is hope for a lot of people out there who are suffering from this horrible disease. When asked for her opinion on immunotherapy and how her journey affected her, Ms. Ryan stated: “I so hope they can get this treatment to everybody who needs it, and that it works,” and all I can say is me too Ms. Ryan, me too.

Poster: Creator’s Analysis

We live in a world where everyone is always scanning their surroundings, trying to read and analyze everything that catches their eye; this is why numerous campaigns are now being focused on visual media. In this post, I will be analyzing the emotions I appealed to and the main message I wanted to convey with my poster. My target audience for this specific project is adults ranging from 30 to 80 years old, and the action I want them to take is to not only become more aware of what immunotherapy is and how it works, but also learn how they can contribute to this ongoing research.

In my poster, I chose to appeal to the audience’s fear of death as well as their reluctance of having an uncertain future to persuade them into taking action.

The first emotion I decided to target is the fear most people have of running out of options to save their life in a scenario where a disease is threatening their life. By doing this, I hoped to get the people reading this poster to reflect and consider what they would do should they be in that position where they desperately want to live but there is no known medicine that can help them.

By using the word “chemotherapy”, I’m implying that the serious disease the poster is referring to is cancer. As we all know, the first course of action that first comes to mind when we think about cancer is chemotherapy, however, the poster is also communicating how chemotherapy does not always work. In the next portion of text, I used a big, severe-looking font that makes the message that much more striking and makes a point that having immunotherapy available to everyone really is crucial and non negotiable. Since I know some people who read the poster may not know what immunotherapy is, right below the big central message I included a smaller announcement to direct the audience to where they can go to get all their questions answered as well as learn more about how to help support and push forward the research of this new technology.

The second emotional aspect I used to get my message to resonate with my audience is their reluctance to be uncertain about where their future will take them. I think it is human nature to want to try and do our best to decipher what the future holds for us and how to best prepare for whatever that might be, however, this poster suggests that cancer patients’ future is uncertain because chemotherapy is not always the answer to their problems. Anyone could become a cancer patient at any point in their life, and I represented that by including images of people with cancer from different age groups and ethnic backgrounds, which makes the poster inclusive to a wide audience. The photos make the patients in them look very distraught and worried which enhances the idea that they are scared because they don’t know what’s coming for them or where their cancer journey will take them now that they have exhausted their options. I don’t think anyone would turn down the opportunity to try to secure better options for their future if given the chance, and my poster is giving the audience the chance to make a positive impact on something that will benefit not only themselves but also millions of other people.

I think the poster helps the audience come full circle because it presents a problem and all the scary effects this problem could possible cause for them, offers a solution to combat these problems and indicates how to make that solution more obtainable.

 

Images credits:

African American patient:

http://www.blackinsurancenews.com/uncategorized/black-patients-are-less-likely-to-receive-lung-cancer-surgery-if-they-live-in-segregated-communities/

Patient with mask:

http://www.nature.com/news/india-spurns-cancer-patents-1.13552

Lady laying in bed:

http://iwsp.human.cornell.edu/files/2013/09/Supporting-Emotions-of-Cancer-Patients-and-their-Families-during-Hospital-Treatments-1u8ousx.pdf

Immunotherapy: Science’s New Gift to Cancer Patients

 As I discussed in my previous posts, immunotherapy is the new cancer treatment that has been revolutionizing the medical world during the last few years. Although the idea of using one’s immune system to combat cancer was first conceived in the late 18th century, it wasn’t until the late 1970’s that doctors started developing it to target cancer cells specifically, and the past decade when it was finally introduced in its experimental stages.

After reading up and researching both sides of this argument, I have come to the conclusion that I support immunotherapy and believe it is a better treatment than chemotherapy because it offers a new opportunity for cancer patients that have depleted all other treatment options, and it is considerably less toxic than the majority of the existing treatments.

Throughout the last few years, doctors have resorted to immunotherapy mostly when other more common treatments like chemotherapy and radiation have been exhausted and the disease is still running its course. However, results from trial runs of cancer immunotherapy treatments sponsored by AstraZeneca, a research-based biopharmaceutical company, show that the patients that were given a combination of two immunotherapies “lived, on average, 3.2 months longer than patients receiving standard chemotherapy. This translates into a 40% reduced risk of death compared to standard chemotherapy.”

From personal experience I can say I have seen the extended survival period that immunotherapy offers its users. My mother was given a prognosis of about two years when she first got diagnosed and was getting treated with chemotherapy. A couple years later when all hope seemed to be lost, her doctor decided to switch her to an experimental drug called Avastin, which I just found out through my research to be a form of immunotherapy. Avastin extended her life by almost another three years. Reading these statistics and facts from reliable sources that are conducting research plus my own experience seeing the results of immunotherapy in the past has led me to think that immunotherapy should definitely be considered as a first option rather than a last resource when a cancer diagnosis is made.

Immunotherapy not only extends survival time but it does so without adding any other harmful chemicals to the body, which isn’t the case with chemotherapy and radiation. Although immunotherapy does come with side effects, they resemble the symptoms of the flu, whereas radiation and chemotherapy come with such awful side effects that can sometimes even cause the death of the patient.

 

image from google.com

Although in an earlier post I wrote that immunotherapy can potentially lead to autoimmune diseases, I have come to realize that it happens in such a small percentage of cases that it should not really affect the big picture or the patient’s decision to take immunotherapy because the upsides of it are much more relevant.

 

Through my mom’s experience I am also able to compare in hindsight her reaction to chemotherapy versus her reaction to immunotherapy. When she was on chemotherapy, she used to be in so much pain and discomfort almost permanently. Her blood cells were at an all time low, and contracted viruses and infections incredibly easily. In the later years of her treatment when she was on immunotherapy drugs, she was totally functional and her overall quality of life was so much better.

By expressing my support toward immunotherapy over chemotherapy in this series of blogs, I hope to create more awareness and inform people who read this about the benefits of immunotherapy and how it has the potential to become a great tool in the ongoing journey of trying to find the cure for cancer. I think more oncologists should start considering immunotherapy as a primary treatment instead of being so focused on giving every cancer patient some form of chemotherapy.

 

In loving memory of Veronica Carranza 1967-2015

 

 

 

In the Battle Against Cancer, It’s Better to Be Safe Than Sorry

Chemotherapy has been around in the medical world since the 1940’s and has since been the go-to way of treating cancer. Its credibility has been established through decades of being the #1 form of treatment used by oncologists on people suffering from cancer.

In a world where science and technology are evolving day in and day out, what both scientists and patients alike are trying to figure out is whether chemotherapy is still a better form of treatment than immunotherapy.

Opponents of immunotherapy claim that chemotherapy is effective in preventing the recurrence of cancer, doesn’t require patients to be hospitalized, and it works with cancer in advanced stages.

Molly McAdams, a long-time health journalist for multiple publishers in New York City, explains in her article “Chemotherapy Benefits” that “chemotherapy can help prevent cancer cells from spreading from the original site to other parts of the body, [and] at times, chemotherapy is used to destroy any cancerous cells that remain in the body after radiation treatment or surgery” which in turn minimizes the chances of the recurrence of the disease.

Although cancer recurrence depends on many factors such as the type of cancer and the person’s body, results have shown a higher remission rate when patients were treated with chemotherapy. The statistics for remission after chemotherapy treatment are about 48% of patients, which is a pretty high number when talking cancer.

Another pro of chemotherapy according to the American Cancer Society, is how it doesn’t necessarily have to be administered at a hospital. Chemotherapy does not always have to be injected to a patient via intravenous.

 

Oral chemotherapy drugs. image from google.com

Oral chemotherapy is also an option that “is as strong as other forms of chemo and works just as well” and it is taken at home. As hospital bills are of great concern to patients, this means people receiving cancer treatment can save thousands of dollars by not being hospitalized. Also, the environment a person is in can be of crucial importance towards their way of responding to treatment. Taking their medicines in the comfort of their home while following as normal a routine as possible can definitely impact positively on patients and their recovery.

 

The third good point that supporters of chemotherapy over immunotherapy make is how chemotherapy has an effect even on advanced-stage cancers. Molly McAdams also explains how “in advanced stages of cancer, chemotherapy may be used to help relieve symptoms and improve quality of life.” Seeing how surgery is not always an option depending on how delicate the area affected by the disease is, chemotherapy is the only alternative in order to control and maybe even stop the cancer cells from growing and spreading.

 

 

The red outline shows the volume of a cancer tumor before and after chemotherapy. Image from jcancer.org

While immunotherapy is revolutionizing the medical world with its new technologies that allow one’s immune system to fight cancer by itself, the fact remains that chemotherapy has been globally the tried and true method for dealing with cancer for almost 80 years. Will it continue to be?

 

 

Immunotherapy: A Science Breakthrough

The scientists and researchers developing immunotherapy raise many eyebrows with their bold claims that immunotherapy is here to revolutionize the way cancer is treated. Supporters claim immunotherapy is better than chemotherapy because it destroys cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed and continues to protect the body even after treatment.

One of the best points made in favor of immunotherapy is how it doesn’t attack anything but cancer cells in the body. Chase After a Cure, an organization dedicated to researching and funding alternative and effective cancer treatments states that “Unlike chemotherapy and radiation, which can sometimes cause damage to healthy cells, defense cells boosted by immunotherapy treatments work alongside healthy cells to target cancer cells and increase the body’s defense.” This means where chemotherapy can fail to detect the difference between a healthy and a cancerous cell, attacking, harming, and even destroying tissues other than the diseased cells, immunotherapy focuses solely on getting rid of the foreign cells ailing the body that pose a threat to one’s health.

Envita, one of the top facilities in integrative medicine in the country and an immunotherapy supporter, describes how “cancer has the ability to grow and divide uncontrollably [and] this is an important aspect of metastasis (cancer spread) and relapse, as these stubborn cancer stem cells can give rise to new tumors and learn to resist all chemotherapy.” Immunotherapy eliminates the cancer cells and their stem to avoid any further metastases and spreading of the cancer to any other parts of the body.

 

visual representation of T-cells. image from google.com

 

Another life changing advantage immunotherapy has over chemotherapy is how once the T-cells have been altered, they continue to fight the disease in the future, should it return. Immunotherapy teaches the immune system to recognize malign cells and fight them whenever they are detected, not only at the time of receiving active treatment. In a lot of cancer patients’ cases, they are given a bad prognosis because it is too late to treat their cancer. Time is key and the earlier the tumor starts being fought, the more chances of remission there is. Having the immune system already trained to fight cancer cells is a vital factor that can save so many people’s lives.

Cancer immunotherapy definitely comes ahead in the race against chemotherapy because it provides the body with an extra aware immune system that is always trying to fight back at the first sign of cancer, attacks only the cells that need to be taken care of, and does all this without any severe side effects. Proponents of this technology make a great case with these points that are definitely affecting many patients’ choice to pursue immunotherapy.

Is Immunotherapy a better alternative than Chemotherapy when it comes to battling cancer?

For my unit-long series I decided to focus my research on whether or not immunotherapy is a better choice than chemotherapy for cancer patients. For years on end the universal solution that first comes to mind when we hear the word “cancer” has been chemotherapy. However, in recent years a new treatment called immunotherapy has begun surfacing and gaining more momentum in the medical world.

Now this investigation is taking a turn. As the pros and cons of immunotherapy become more well-known, the real question is this: Is immunotherapy a more effective treatment than chemotherapy?

Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), a network of hospitals focused on treating cancer, stand behind their claims that immunotherapy is more effective than chemotherapy because patients treated with immunotherapy often surpass their prognosis, while patients treated with chemotherapy do not. According to CTCA, those (patients) who received [immunotherapy] lived nearly twice as long (14.9 months) as those who received [chemotherapy] alone (8.2 months).” This conclusion comes from a study that compared the effect of immunotherapy versus the effect of chemotherapy on cancer patients.

Other supporters range all the way from patients that have done their research and are willing to try a new approach to their disease, to researchers who claim that the types of immunotherapy being developed are the future of how cancer will be treated.

In the other hand, some doctors such as Dr. Reeja Tharu, a Biomedical Genetics doctor with a Ph.D. form the University of Madras, dedicate their career to spread the positive aspects of chemotherapy, for example how “in the case of advanced-stage cancer, chemotherapy helps to shrink the cancer and reduce the symptoms… [which provides] a better quality of life and increase the chance of survival.”

Opponents also range widely, from insurance companies who reject immunotherapy because the success rate isn’t high enough for it to be distribute to the public, to doctors who don’t want to risk their patients’ lives by subjecting them to experimental drugs.

I consider this debate to be of extreme relevance because for decades, humanity has been waiting for the cure for cancer to finally be found and announced, but this day never seems to come. Now, however, we seem to have a pretty good lead in that direction based on all the research and claims made about immunotherapy. Although immunotherapy is being used to treat cancer patients with more frequency than before, the fact remains that chemotherapy is our tried and true, go to cancer treatment that has proved to be effective and mostly trustworthy up until this point.

Can immunotherapy beat chemotherapy’s results and survival rate? Or is chemotherapy still the best path for patients to take on their journey to remission? These are the questions that I want to explore throughout the rest of this unit and hopefully inform myself enough that I can take a stand and support one of the two sides of this debate.

 

image from gettyimages.com

 

 

Not All That Glitters is Gold: Immunotherapy Also Has Its Risks

In the article “Fighting Cancer” by Barbara Mantel for CQ Researcher, she goes over not only the pros but also some of the possible cons of immunotherapy. Before I used to think that immunotherapy took long enough to get here but now that it’s here it would be the answer to all our cancer-related problems.

However, by reading this article, I learned from Mantel that immunotherapy also has its downsides, such as letting go of the brakes of the immune system, not always eradicating the cancer fully, and having to wait until the cancer has mutated before immunotherapy can kick in.

Immunotherapy consists of the immune system being stripped of its boundaries and freed to do and act as it deems appropriate. T-cells, a type of white blood cell, are amped up until they can not only detect a common cold, but also a major disease like cancer. In Mantel’s words, the normal is for “our immune system [to be] highly regulated because we want it to see foreign invaders, but we don’t want it to attack our own tissues.” By setting it free, we risk the chance of having our immune system go out of control and start attacking other tissues and organs in our body that it is not supposed to attack. This could possibly lead to autoimmune diseases, which occur when the body sees its own tissues as foreign and starts actively attacking and weakening them.

Immunotherapy is a treatment custom-made individually for each patient. Image from Google.

The next point that caught my attention was how immunotherapy is not successful every time it is used in a new patient. In the article, Mantel explains that “while immunotherapy can yield dramatic results, only about 20 to 30 percent of patients respond.” This, according to her, is a great mystery to scientists and a big part of the research surrounding immunotherapy seeks to figure out and understand the reason why this happens. This data goes to show how immunotherapy can’t be blindly depended on to save a life. At least until a stronger version with higher, more dependable success rates comes out, both patients as well as doctors will have the constant concern of checking to make sure that immunotherapy is actually having the desired effect on the body.

The last negative aspect of immunotherapy Barbara Mantel’s piece taught me about is how even if modified T-cells are injected into the body, the tumor still needs to have gone through certain mutation for the immune system to recognize it as a threat and start defending the body against it. Mantel states that through her own research she found that “patients who respond to the checkpoint blockers have cancers with more mutations.” This means when the cancer is in its earliest stage, or hasn’t yet started mutating and developing, the immune system might not perceive the presence of cancerous cells. This loss in time can be crucial in scenarios where action has to be taken as soon as possible to prevent the cancer from metastasizing and spreading to other organs.

I consider the information in Mantel’s article to be useful and important to know because people like me who read about this new science and become enraptured by the knowledge that we might finally have the cure for cancer in our hands need to know both the positive and negative effects that immunotherapy brings to the body. After all, we wouldn’t want to inject something into our body that will do more harm than good.

Immunotherapy: Through the Patients’ Eyes

The topic of immunotherapy and everything surrounding its recent discovery is generating a lot of buzz in news outlets and within the community of readers. The article “Setting the Body’s ‘Serial Killers’ Loose on Cancer” by Andrew Pollack published by The New York Times on August 1, 2016, outlines the timeline of how the idea of immunotherapy first originated and the continuous development that led to the advances being made by doctors in the present time.

 

The majority of the 136 people who commented on the article showed their support and hopefulness to this ongoing research, while a minority decided immunotherapy is not up their alley.

 

About half of the comments express excitement and hopefulness over the new discoveries being made in the science world and the prospect of immunotherapy becoming an alternative in the battle against cancer. User Michael from Baltimore claims to have read the post with great interest and admiration for the doctors conducting this research. As excited as he is about this discovery, Michael is trying to keep his hopes from getting too high since multiple times he has been let down by claims that a cure for cancer is right around the corner. However, he does believe the article “heralds a breakthrough.”

Similarly, many other readers also express their appreciation toward the scientists working hard to make immunotherapy happen for a much wider range of patients, and their hopefulness and joy over having this new exciting prospect of a way to possibly treat certain types of cancer and hope that this time around the claims that a cure for cancer has been found prove to be true with time and positive results in patients being treated with immunotherapy.

The second most popular response from commenters is how they wish this treatment was already more easily accessible by cancer patients all over the world battling all types of cancer, not just the selected few that have gotten to try immunotherapy so far.

For example, reader Bmack poses the question “Why can’t each hospital, or region, have its own lab to crate and customize [this treatment] for people?” as several other users express how they have experienced cancer at home and would have jumped at the chance of trying to fight their or their family member’s cancer with immunotherapy if given the choice. Ira Shafiroff, who reads The New York Times from Los Angeles, commented “That the body can destroy cancer is undeniable, and it probably does so on a regular basis. When the immune system stops working well, then the cancer becomes a problem” while expressing that they support and accept the ideas behind the concept of immunotherapy.

Throughout the comments, there is a pattern that shows how a good number of people that are just now being informed that immunotherapy exists would be willing to give it a shot as long as they could obtain this treatment at their local hospital.

In comparison, the third most popular pattern in the comments section of this article indicates that about 18 out of about a hundred people either do not approve of immunotherapy or are skeptical about it.The most prominent reason for why they reject this treatment is the high cost for the patients. Reader David Henry’s opinion is that even if this research turned out successful in the long run, treatment would be far too costly for the average cancer victim and he fears that insurance companies will refuse to cover it.

A few of his fellow subscribers share his opinion and share their interest in knowing how much these procedures will cost for cancer patients before determining whether it is a valid treatment option or not. Another small portion of the audience—take for example Dave, who said “[he thinks] this type of treatment is dangerous and detrimental to the rights of people. Too little is known about the human body to be monkeying around with genetics” — fears that since immunotherapy involves enhancing one’s immune system to fight off the disease, the immune system could get out of control and become a threat in itself to the person’s health by developing into an autoimmune disease, which sometimes have a higher fatality rate than some types of cancer.

All in all, people seem to like what they know about immunotherapy so far and hope that the scientists involved in this research are on the right path towards finding the long awaited cure for cancer.

Rhetorical Analysis: “What is Immunotherapy?” by Andrew Pollack and Denise Grady

 

 

image from cnn.com

 

Denise Grady and Andrew Pollack are the authors of “What Is Immunotherapy? The Basics on These Cancer Treatments,” published in 2016 by The New York Times. In their article, they answer a series of basic questions about what immunotherapy is, how it affects the body, and other points that are important to know for someone who is considering trying out this treatment.

Throughout the whole article, Grady and Pollack maintain a concise tone and stick to colloquial language that successfully conveys the gist of what immunotherapy is without overwhelming the readers.

Throughout the piece, Grady and Pollack go straight to the point of what they are trying to

Andrew Pollack. Image from Google.

communicate without adding much filler that may distract the audience. As they explain how “immunotherapy refers to any treatment that uses the immune system to fight diseases, including cancer. Unlike chemotherapy, which kills cancer cells, immunotherapy acts on the cells of the immune system, to help them attack the cancer,” the authors prioritize quality over quantity of words and make the content of their writing clear for the readers.

 

As I continued to read the article, it came to my attention how the writers did not beat around the bush but instead just went straight into explaining their points and arguments without going off-topic, which I appreciated as a reader because it allowed me to focus on one concept at a time without trying to keep up with several ideas simultaneously.

The whole article is written in a tone that is educational yet not over-the-top fancy. The authors do a really good job of putting themselves in the same level as the reader instead of writing as if they are superior and know-it-alls.

 

Denise Grady. Image from Google.

Rather, they talk to the audience in an easy way as if they were trying to say “We are here for you and we want to help you understand this topic.” When the authors write “Another form of immunotherapy, called cell therapy, involves removing immune cells from the patient, altering them genetically to help them fight cancer, then multiplying them in the laboratory and dripping them, like a transfusion, back into the patient,” they phrase this fairly complicated procedure into ordinary words and examples that they feel the readers will easily understand. The authors devote obvious effort into simplifying their writing as much as possible without losing the full meaning of the knowledge they are trying to convey to the readers.

 

Grady and Pollack’s piece also features comprehensible language that is easy to understand even for younger readers or people who do not have as much training in medical lingo.

While reading the piece, I had no problem at all understanding everything they wanted to communicate even though I am a person who doesn’t particularly love science and has little scientific background. The only few technical words they use are used to describe cells and body organisms that can’t be referred to in any other way, such as “t-cells”, “bispecific antibodies”, and “checkpoint inhibitors.” This is important because readers are not put off or intimidated by complex language, therefore not only making the piece easier to read but also making the content more accessible to a wider demographic.

Throughout their article, Grady and Pollack use their knowledge and skills as both health journalists and experienced writers to deliver an article that is as clear as it is educational and to everyone looking to get informed on new alternatives in the field of the fight against cancer.

 

Works Cited

Grady, D., Andrew Pollack. 2016. “What Is Immunotherapy? The Basics on These Cancer Treatments.” The New York Times. Web. Accessed on 25 September 2016.

 

Immuno-what?!

Nowadays one cannot go online or read a magazine without encountering an article with a title along the lines of “This or That, Has Now Been Found to Cause Cancer!” Almost daily there are headlines announcing that scientists have researched activities, products, or food we have been consuming our whole lives, and have discovered that we have actually been putting carcinogen agents into our bodies without even knowing it. As we go about our daily lives, we frequently see or hear about people within our community that are battling cancer. More times than we realize, these people and their families are depending on a sudden medical discovering to save their life because the already existing ways to treat cancer are not enough for the aggressiveness of the disease.

Coming from a family where several of my relatives have had to fight against cancer and it ended up costing their lives, throughout my life I have often found myself interested in keeping track of what scientists are doing to help other patients not go through the same ordeal and come out victorious at the end of their journey against cancer.

This is why for my semester-long project I chose to research and report about immunotherapy, which is a new type of cancer treatment that has been in the works for quite a few years now but only recently started being used experimentally yet successfully on some cancer patients.

So why is immunotherapy a revolutionary discovery?

Basically the way immunotherapy works is, instead of injecting chemicals that do almost as much good as they do harm to the body as it is done in chemotherapy, the patient’s T-cells are extracted from the blood and turned into cancer-fighting cells. These new T-cells are then injected back into patient and expected to kill the cancer cells, ideally ridding the patient of the disease. In other words, it is as if the immune system was put on vitamins to make it stronger and be able to fight cancer on its own, without the help of any other chemicals. Can you imagine how relieved cancer patients would be to able to focus only on their recovery rather than worrying about all the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation?

Since each patient’s case and cells are different, the T-cells used to make the body fight off cancer cells have to be specifically tailored for each individual. This is not a medicine that can be mass-produced and distributed, hence why only a handful of people have gotten to try it out so far.

Hundreds of doctors from the most prominent medical institutions in the United States like Stanford Medicine, UCLA, UCSF, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center  are currently working on not only advancing the development of this treatment, but also on getting funding and finding ways to be able to bring immunotherapy to the discussion table for all the millions of cancer patients out there waiting for a new alternative they haven’t tried yet.

However, although immunotherapy has been successful in curing a good number of the patients it’s been tested on, it is not fully developed to provide certainty just yet. As someone who lost their mother to cancer and experienced firsthand all the consequences and side effects of cancer to one’s physical, emotional, and mental health I can’t help but have so many questions and wonder how this treatment will benefit current and future cancer patients, and also the ways it might burden them. How much will an immunotherapy cycle cost after it is fully developed and in the market? Will families be able to afford it, or will money be an issue that will stand in the way of good health? Will it be available worldwide or only in the most advanced countries? Will it have harmful side effects? Will immunotherapy be enough to fight even the most advanced types of cancer? As the semester progresses, I hope to broaden my own knowledge as well as my peers’ and other readers of my blog, and to find the answer to all these questions.

 

photo credits to michaelsmithnews.com