[izuchukwu]

Paclitaxel, an existing chemotherapy agent, kills cancer by interfering with microtubule dynamics in cells, the same way that Fenbendazole and other antihelmintics (dewormers) attack cancer in the recent post about someone curing themselves by taking OTC dog dewormer [0].

Unlike the dog dewormer, today’s Paclitaxel regimens are quite toxic. Interestingly, most of the toxicity comes from the method of delivery [1], not the drug itself. It’s actually why the way we give it (infrequent doses) actually promotes recurrence in some cases. This post talks about a much less toxic method of delivery, which explains why they can up the dose of the drug significantly while still being much safer.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20486893

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel

[Gatsky]

There are several inaccuracies in your comment. Infusion reactions to paclitaxel are rare and not serious. Most of the toxicity arises from cumulative nerve damage with chronic use.

There is also no evidence it promotes cancer recurrence.

[joadha]

You better believe the infusion reactions can be serious, despite what any medical literature may be leading you to believe. My father went into anaphylaxis within minutes of his Taxol infusion. My family was kicked out of the treatment room while six medical workers stabilized him over the course of an afternoon.

[cannonedhamster]

My reaction wasn't as severe but I had a taxol based reaction as well. It's a barrel of fun, luckily mine was treatable with Benadryl. I don't envy you or your father.

[izuchukwu]

I appreciate any & all correction—I’m still learning myself.

I say toxic relative to the Benzimidazole family of medication, and though Paclitaxel’s worst side effects, like the neuropathy you mention, come cumulatively with chronic use, it’s more common side effects are still numerous, including a few serious ones, from sources I find.

And “promotes cancer recurrence” was a poor choice of term on my part. What I mean here is the time between doses is wide enough to permit recurrence in some cases.

[headmelted]

actually promotes recurrence in some cases

With a therapeutic like the one described in the post I'd be really interested to know the cold, honest numbers on recurrence - not to be negative, just to understand where this falls with regards to other treatments.

Obviously it can take years for recurrence rates to shake out and become evident, but I feel like in the last few years we've been hearing a lot about promising therapies (CAR-T, Harvard CD-47 trials, this) that ultimately fall off the common radar.

It could be that these therapies are the real deal and are quietly saving lives now (I know CAR-T has shown real promise in liquid tumors), but it's worrying when news around this research falls silent as it makes it seem like they aren't providing lasting cures.

[cannonedhamster]

Some chemotherapy drugs list cancer as a possible side effect, which I thought was funny when they told me. Recurrence is different as it's generally hiding cancer "stem cells" that cause this. There's actually a drug in the works that attempts to activate these and make them more susceptible to standard chemo that I think is cool, but it's a few years before that reaches human trials.

As for lasting results, most aren't cures, it's about improving the overall survivability, meaning time until the next treatment option opens up. A lot of these options give you a few months at most which is a big improvement and gives you a chance until the next thing comes out. The reason for this is that we're commonly talking about late stage cancers (3/4). Early stage cancers that haven't spread are cut out before they spread which is the best possible option as it's the highest likelihood of a cure.

[izuchukwu]

Skepticism is very warranted here. And as I mention in your sibling comment, “promotes cancer recurrence” was a poor choice of term. “Permits,” due to the time between doses, would have been more accurate.

There are a lot of fly-by-night stories like this for a variety of reasons, be it ongoing research, funding seeking, or otherwise. I do believe the Benzimidazole class of medication mentioned is worth taking a deeper look at however—it seems to be a common thread over many of these.

Sometimes the reason something hasn’t seen use is more than the question of whether it’s clinically viable or not.

[hanniabu]

As an alternative, there have been successful tests where small amounts of polio is injected into the cancer so that the body can "see" it and attack it.