IPT, the good side

[Guest guest]

It seems like every few months a new cancer targeting therapy is

developed. Just yesterday a new one was announced:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/09/new-method-shown-attack-cancer-tu\

mors/

All such strategies make sense if their limitations are

recognized. None of them are likely to be particularly curative, but

that is ok as long as a person has a high quality life and immune

function is respected and conserved. There is no reason that a person

can't live a normal length of life and die of something unrelated.

IPT as a strategy is still in its nascent stage. I have yet to meet

an IPT doc who has tried to explore its most obvious potential: All

the past cytotoxins that were avoided because of unacceptable

toxicity can be revisited as risk-free posologies can be easily

deduced. For example, I have provided triptolide for use by those

whom I think have good sense. My lab among others is working on a

targeted payload of Pseudomonas exotoxin. A single molecule will

kill a cancer cell. The problem is that it must be attached to a

guided missile with a 100% accuracy. There is an inverse

relationship between systemic side effects and accuracy in targeting

as long as the fate of the cytotoxin is accounted for. For this

reason certain heavy metals and radioactive substances with long

half-lives are not considered.

One rational way to maximize benefits with targeting therapies is to

mix and match strategies. Such therapies can easily be combined for

amazing success, but this is not done. Clinicians don't have the

time or money that it takes to learn about and develop these methods

and the pharmaceutical companies are only interested in selling their

own products -- not their own along with those of other companies. I

see partnerships develop but not along the necessary lines that would

find a path into the real world. There is another overarching real

world out there -- the real world of obtaining government

approval. Of course competing companies lobby the FDA to deny

approval of any med that would disrupt their own world of Ponzi R & D

or of current and potential sales. The cancer patient has no voice

in these backroom machinations. I am often a party in these meetings

and I wish that subscribers to this list could witnesses the

squirming and the lip service when I don my patient-advocate hat.

Sorry for drifting away from the topic of the good side of IPT. If

done properly for the right candidates there are virtually no

noticeable side effects. Many may experience a little tiredness for

a day or two, but with cancer you often have that anyway. If done

properly multiple drug resistance is less of a problem and damage to

immune function is minimal. IPT docs usually see their patients far

more often then would the standard oncology chemotherapists and more

of a personal relationship will develop. This is very important as

it becomes less likely that the patient will be escorted to the door

when he/she runs out of money.

There are patients for whom IPT is a very appropriate choice, but the

real cost must be strategized in advance. I saw one woman with

advanced breast cancer get remarkable results with IPT, but as her

money ran out she changed her schedule from once a week to once every

three weeks. This is just not enough. She lost when she could

easily have switched to a therapy she could afford.