New hope for cancer vaccines

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Therapeutic cancer vaccines received a potentially big boost this week when Seattle-based biotech company Dendreon announced that its Provenge vaccine prolonged the lives of prostate cancer patients. The success of this trial could pave the way for approval of the drug, which triggers the body's immune system to attack malignant prostate tumors.

Most people think of a vaccine as a jab to prevent the winter flu and other viruses like polio or smallpox. Such vaccines often inject a piece of a virus into the body to trigger it to produce antibodies against it to ward off future infections. A new generation of vaccines can protect girls and young women from a virus that precipitates cervical cancers.

At the same time, scientists have labored for years on a wholly different approach like the Provenge vaccine that recruits immune molecules to treat cancers instead of preventing them. The theory is that such vaccines might be less toxic and more successful than other cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation.

Dendreon officials said they would not reveal specifics of its Provenge trial until an American Urological Association meeting later this month. The lack of details left analysts scratching their heads and wondering if the results might be flawed.

According to Dendreon, 500-plus men with late-stage prostate cancer that had spread to other organs and who no longer received any benefit from other therapies participated in the trial. The pharma execs did not say how many of the patients benefited or how much longer those on the med lived than those who did not receive it. In an earlier trial, men treated with Provenge lived 25.9 months, compared to the 21.4 months of those who received a placebo.

Cancer-patient advocates have criticized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for being slow to approve Provenge; an FDA advisory panel two years ago recommended that the agency greenlight it. In fact, there has been such an outcry over the FDA's refusal to okay the med that two prostate cancer specialists who recommended against approval had to attend a conference with bodyguards, according to the New York Times.

Potential cancer vaccines have had a long-and checkered history, one in which Provenge has been a central player. The most recent results suggest that years of research may not be wasted. For more information, check out this profile of Dendreon that appeared in Scientific American magazine in 2004 as it was developing Provenge.

An immune system cell. Image Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe