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.