CRISPR gene editing has been used on humans in the US

[timosman]

https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/16/...-begins-in-us/

4/16/2019

The first human trials in the US for CRISPR gene editing are officially underway. A University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia spokesman has confirmed to NPR that two cancer patients, one with myeloma and one with sarcoma, have received CRISPR treatments after standard treatment didn't hold. The trial removes, modifies and reinserts immune cells in hopes they'll destroy cancerous cells.

It's not certain how effective the treatment has been, and you won't find out for a while when the trial has been cleared to treat a total of 18 patients. You won't hear more about it until there's been a presentation or a peer-reviewed paper, the university said. Other trials, such as ones for blood disorders in the Boston area, have yet to get underway.

No matter what, any practical uses could take a long time. There are widespread concerns that CRISPR editing could have unanticipated effects, and scientists have yet to try editing cells while they're still in the body (a blindness trial in Cambridge, MA may be the first instance). There's also the not-so-small matter of ethical questions. Chinese scientist He Jiankui raised alarm bells when he said he edited genes in human embryos -- politicians and the scientific community will likely want to address practices like that before you can simply assume that CRISPR is an option.

[angelatc]

Cancer cure is better than no cancer cure. Gotta be better than chemo and radiation.

[Swordsmyth]

[Bern]

Cancer cure is better than no cancer cure. Gotta be better than chemo and radiation.

Cures cancer - causes cancer. At least the doctors and hospitals will get some phat insurance money.

Editing cells’ genomes with CRISPR-Cas9 might increase the risk that the altered cells, intended to treat disease, will trigger cancer, two studies published on Monday warn — a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.

In the studies, published in Nature Medicine, scientists found that cells whose genomes are successfully edited by CRISPR-Cas9 have the potential to seed tumors inside a patient. That could make some CRISPR’d cells ticking time bombs, according to researchers from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute and, separately, Novartis.
...

https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/11/...-cause-cancer/

A study at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden has revealed that CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing could favor mutations in the most common cancer-causing gene. What does it mean for the first CRISPR therapy trials in humans?

CRISPR-Cas9 has taken the life sciences field by storm, making gene editing simpler and faster than ever. Although CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was only first described in 2012, the first human trials using CRISPR as a therapy were started in China last year and Europe is due to run the first one later this year. It seems like we might have rushed into it too soon, as a new study points out that therapies using this popular gene editing tool could inadvertently cause cancer.

The research, published today in Nature Medicine, describes that the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in human cells can activate the protein p53. This protein is involved in the repair of DNA breaks and can interfere with the efficiency of CRISPR to cut DNA.

This means that when selecting cells whose DNA has been correctly modified using CRISPR, those where p53 is mutated and therefore inactive will be more likely to be selected. Given that p53 mutations are the most common genetic alteration in cancer, the process used to modify and select CRISPR-edited cells could be favoring the selection of potentially cancerous cells.
...

https://labiotech.eu/medical/crispr-...y-cancer-risk/

[specsaregood]

Cures cancer - causes cancer. At least the doctors and hospitals will get some phat insurance money.

Editing cells’ genomes with CRISPR-Cas9 might increase the risk that the altered cells, intended to treat disease, will trigger cancer, two studies published on Monday warn — a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.

I'm not sure that the possibility that the treatment might cause cancer sometime in the future will be that big of a concern for somebody that already has cancer that is resistant to other forms of treatment.

[angelatc]

I'm not sure that the possibility that the treatment might cause cancer sometime in the future will be that big of a concern for somebody that already has cancer that is resistant to other forms of treatment.

Any time someone opens the conversation slamming "profit" I tend not to read the rest. I made an exception here though, because the key word here is might. This is how real research works though. They create a hypothesis and then test it. Something like 99% of their projects don't succeed.

There are just always a subset of people who don't think profits are good. I find it weirdly amusing that the same people who think big "pHARMa" is hiding the cure for cancer because the money is in the treatment always immediately rebel against new vaccines and technologies to prevent cancer.

[specsaregood]

Any time someone opens the conversation slamming "profit" I tend not to read the rest. I made an exception here though, because the key word here is might. This is how real research works though. They create a hypothesis and then test it. Something like 99% of their projects don't succeed.

There are just always a subset of people who don't think profits are good. I find it weirdly amusing that the same people who think big "pHARMa" is hiding the cure for cancer because the money is in the treatment always immediately rebel against new vaccines and technologies to prevent cancer.

As somebody with a relative that was diagnosed with lung cancer (nonsmoker) recently and where new medication has pretty much wiped it out quickly with almost no side effects; I'm perfectly happy with the profit motive behind the drug development.