New Promising Treatment? AOH1996 in early (in vivo) discovery

I am looking forward to some feedback relating to the current stage one trial

Thanks for sharing that info. Do you know the development timeline I am battling stage 4 disease!

Well, too late unless it can grow another prostate.

That depends on the FBA. The company that develops the radio drug Clarity sounds Australian. They may be able to bring it to the market sooner, or you can see if you can qualify for their trial? Its best to consult your medical team. I hope that helps. Its not much though.
Dont mind me. I am just another layman trying to make some sense of the whole thing.

Thanks for sharing this article. I had not heard about this previously. Here is a brief summary based only on this article:
1) Using tools for research at the cellular level, a feature of cells that distinguishes cancer cells from normal cells was targeted in these studies.
2) After trying many other approaches, two agents were identified that inhibit cancer growth in mice and dogs, which gives promise to the possibility they will also do so in humans.
3) The agents in therapeutic dosage were well-tolerated by the host animals.
4) The target was a slowing of the growth rate of the cancer by about 50%.
5) The studies reported extended life span by 11.5%.
6) The new drug (chemotherapy, delivered by the circulatory system) was studied in combination with another (existing) chemotherapy. The existing chemotherapy extended life span (median survival) by 34.6% and in combination with the new agent extended survival by 55.4%. (About 50% more.)
7) Note that this drug only impacts the cancer growth rates (approximately) while it is being administered.
My observations:
1) My understanding is that chemotherapy is generally used in PC when surgery, radiation, and ADT are no longer options, or as an adjunct when they are not enough.
2) Scientists get excited about treatments that impact disease in any way. But practically, if metastatic PC cancer were going to kill you (on average) in five years, dying on average in seven or eight years could be a big deal to those who are suffering and their families.
3) If the drug got cheap enough and unintended side effects yet unexplored low enough, using it for ten years to increase (median) life expectancy to 15 might someday also become part of treatment protocols as an adjunct (addition) to current treatments like surgery, radiation, ADT, and other chemotherapies.
4) If the treatment is cancer-general, one benefit might eventually be that the cost can be spread over a wider target audience, resulting in less cost per person.
5) As others have pointed out, this is a forum for those of us in the PC journey, not clinicians or researchers. If someone who actually does cellular research reads this and would like to comment, I would be all ears. I'm wrong a lot.
6) [Ignore this if it bothers you. It's not the point of my effort at summary.] My understanding is that neither Biden nor Trump are known for their focus on STEM in general, which would certainly include basic research like this 😉 I.e., neither has likely read this article.

I have a friend who is a retired researcher/biologist and she had given me this info:
"This initial study is small. they started enrolling more than a year ago. the original target was 27, but if I read the posting correctly, they only have 8 people in the study. these studies can sometimes be very strict with who they accept, so it can be self-limiting. It’s a pill which is awesome. I read the original article and in animals they did not see any significant side effects and they did see a reduction in tumor size. In the human study they are dosing once a month as long as there are no serious, side effects, and the patient’s tumor does not grow. They haven’t posted any data yet from the clinical study. That can be a good thing. In studies like this if the side effects are really bad, the FDA will make them shut it down, and then it becomes public information that the study was shut down. So I would consider no news is good news."

Great summary IMHO

re:STEM - IDKY this is such a divisive topic on such a promising tech.
Like so many things the narrative has been hijacked by nefarious entities posing as do-gooders when non-differential stem cells are in the umbilical cord & discarded daily. No babies need dies in the name of progress.

Of course, I could be wrong...

@jrobitai stem cells definitely have their own narrative about which I am largely uninformed and agnostic, although I just watched my evangelical son and daughter in law wrestle with that as they are pregnant with in-vitro fertilization. (I'm spelling things out here because I actually meant Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (ha!)) That kind of STEM my kids have in spades, as the daughter is a PhD research physicist and the son is a Google engineering manager....
While the article doesn't dwell on it, I suspect you're right--a lot of the selection, clipping, and editing of cellular biology such as involved in this treatment involves stem cells either directly or indirectly, and the thought that humans can edit cells without unintended consequences seems rather ambitious to someone like me who can't even see the cells 😉

very provocative insights - IDK the spiritual ramifications of DNA manipulation, i suspect mankind has intellect for good but also do not underestimate our propensity for evil.

and, yea, LOL, STEM vs stem -