#ChildhoodCancerAwarenessMonth is over. However, childhood cancer is not going away. The battle is not over. Families will be still affected by the lack of treatment options available to their child. More research is needed. Please do support enthusiastic people who do want to make the change. Every single contribution counts.
The more important reason is that the research itself provides an important long-run perspective on the issues that we face on a day-to-day basis. (Ben Bernanke)
I would like to thank everyone who followed my blog during this month and hope would continue!
We hear great news from the US labs that a new treatment is on the way for children with cancer. Most of their research is funded by charities and success stories appear because of the people who want to make dreams come true for kids with cancer and their families. Dreams for longer and healthier life.
Interestingly, the study led by Professor Bernie Hannigan, the University of Ulster, which was published by Medical Research Charities Group, identified main gaps that keep Ireland at the bay:
Childhood cancer research areas are not prioritised, including neuroblastoma.
No Government funding support for childhood cancer research. The research has to compete on general terms with well-funded research groups/centres/clusters focused on the adult cancers (breast, prostate, etc)
No systematic involvement in research of Patients or other lay people.
No medical research charities to fill the gap in childhood cancer research funding.
Dedicating posts to neuroblastoma and childhood cancer awareness month, it is impossible to stay distant about the need of fundraising to fund research. The #ChildhoodCancerAwareness Campaign aims not only attract our attention to the fact that kids get cancer too, but mostly to show how little is done to understand the causes of the disease and offer effective treatments.
To address the last problems more research is needed both curiosity-driven and translationally focused. To answer the question why research needs more funding, in general, you can find here.
Effective treatments cost money: only 4% of research funding goes to research in ALL childhood health conditions. In the other words, every 4cents of each 1 euro are to be used in research.
The causes of childhood cancer including neuroblastoma are not known. It would be right to expect more blind alleys and failed ideas in the understanding these cancers.
The research can take decades, so it is a long-term investment. In contrary, people, who can give money (the politicians and governments), have 4-5 years of political power. 4-5 yearsvsdecades = the discovery research becomes critically underfunded.
Walking in Mainz last week I saw a lovely fountain capturing 3 girls under umbrellas (Drei-Mädchen-Brunnen) at the ball square. This fountain was built between two Catholic girl’s schools symbolising the separate education and happy childhood. It has charmed me and reminded rainy days in Ireland and how this fountain may fit any park or square in Dublin.
My second look at the picture gave me another perspective. This sculpture could illustrate not only happy childhood but also the protection we can give to children with cancer being their umbrellas. As September is childhood cancer awareness month, I am picking this picture to support this call. Raising awareness about childhood cancer we help to make their dreams come true. Dreams for better treatment, better quality of life full of love ahead through better funding of childhood cancer research and access to innovative treatments.
The focus of the scientific program was on “Translating Science into Survival”. Talks covered the challenging areas in cancer immunology and immunotherapy. The full list of topics can be found in the meeting program.
At the moment cancer immunology and immunotherapy is a hot topic in the next generation of anti-cancer therapies. Lots of attention is given to checkpoint immunodrugs as it was proven by the prevalence of talks on this subject in the program. Indeed, this drug has great potential, but at the same time, it is not universal. About 50% of patients do not benefit from it.
What lessons have been learned from the talks:
Checkpoint immunotherapies are the main stream
Not all cancer patients would respond to immunodrug
Genetic landscape of a tumour and/or the patient may contribute to this, thus making beneficial to check genetics for this type of treatment
Immunodrugs work better in combination with conventional therapies such as chemotherapy.
The immune system can be tuned by a drug, but it will switch on compensatory mechanisms to balance the intervention.
This research institute was established in 1904 to support work of Paul Ehrlich, its first director and funded by the private foundation “Chemotherapeutisches Forschungsinstitut Georg-Speyer-Haus”. Paul Erlich is the Father of the chemotherapyconcept originally developed to treat diseases of bacterial origin. He reasoned that there should be a chemical compound that can specifically target bacteria and stop its growth. He developed Salvarsan, the most effective drug for treatment of syphilis until penicillin came onto the market.
Paul Erlich is also known for his contribution to cancer research. He and his colleagues actively experimented on how tumour originates and spread. They also tried to understand how immune system can beat cancer applying vaccination concepts.
To be able to guide the treatment of neuroblastoma patients, doctors have developed a number of classification systems. Although sharing common features, they slightly vary by medical center, country and continents making direct comparisons of treatment results difficult. Doctors and scientists are trying to consolidate all systems in one in order to evaluate treatments in the past, currently ongoing and in the future.
Scientists have suggested a newer risk group classification system, the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification that would incorporate the best knowledge gained and recent advancements in the disease imaging and neuroblastoma molecular diagnostics. This system is based on imaging criteria using the image-defined risk factors (IDRFs) and the prognostic factors such as:
The child’s age
Tumour histology (the tumour appearance under the microscope)
The presence or absence of MYCN gene amplification
Certain changes in chromosome 11 (known as an 11q aberration)
DNA ploidy (the total number of chromosomes in the tumour cells)
Using these factors the INRG classification put children into 16 different pre-treatment groups (lettered A through R). Each of these pretreatment groups is within 1 of 4 overall risk groups:
Very low risk (A, B, C)
Low risk (D, E, F)
Intermediate risk (G, H, I, J)
High risk (K, N, O, P, Q, R)
This system has not yet become common across all medical centers, but it is being researched in new treatment protocols.
Doctors and scientists are planning to improve the INRG classification system by incorporating other molecular diagnostics data such as profiles of the neuroblastoma genome (DNA), transcriptome (RNA), and epigenome* in order to make precise prognostication even better.
Cancer is an umbrella term that covers a group of diseases sharing the common features but diseases vary by site of origin, tissue type, race, sex, and age. One of the main features is an uncontrollable growth of cells. These cells are capable of spreading to other parts of the body. This process is also known as invasion and metastasis.
Though cancer in kids is not the same as in adults, childhood cancer cells behave in the same way. They grow uncontrollably and can travel to new destinations in the body.
It is very quiet in the lab this month. No troubleshooting, no more long working hours, endless repetition of experiments, smiles and upsets… Almost all students completed their projects, submitted their works for grading and graduated. The last student is finishing at the end of August.
Time to focus on the collected data, reading literature, writing papers and new grants.