Cancer Immunotherapy - The Target is Precisely on The Cancer and Also Not

In recent years, the impressive number of cancer immunotherapy drugs approved has been unprecedented-building on over a century of understanding on how the immune system combats cancer, and how cancer evades it. Leading the charge are the immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibodies, and adoptive cell therapy with chimeric- antigen-receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy. These breakthrough therapies have led to improved survival in patients with many advanced cancers. Some of the clinical outcomes have been striking, and may even be potentially curative in some terminal cancer patients. While immune checkpoint inhibitors work by blocking regulatory immune checkpoint signals between cancer and the immune cells to awaken an effective anticancer immunity, CAR-T cell therapy targets specific molecules on cancer cells. Tumour antigens as cancer targets take many forms and may not necessarily be proteins related to known functional cellular mechanisms. The convergence of cutting edge omics, bioinformatics, protein synthesis, immunobiology and immunotherapy have led to novel, potentially highly effective cancer targeting against neoantigens, hence reviving the quest for anticancer vaccines. Early clinical trials of neoantigen vaccines have provided proof-of-principle efficacy, especially in melanoma patients. Combinations of immunotherapies through rational design are underway aiming to further improve clinical outcomes. Moving forward, cancer immunotherapy will gain even more momentum from the discovery of more cancer targets-both on the cancer itself and in the tumour microenvironment as well as the identification of biomarkers of treatment resistance and efficacy.

Is cost-effective healthcare compatible with publicly financed academic medical centres?

Probably more than any country, Singapore has made significant investment into the biomedical enterprise as a proportion of its economy and size. This focus recently witnessed a shift towards a greater emphasis on translational and clinical development. Key to the realisation of this strategy will be Academic Medical Centres (AMCs), as a principal tool to developing and applying useful products for the market and further improving health outcomes. Here, we explore the principal value proposition of the AMC to Singapore society and its healthcare system. We question if the values inherent within academic medicine--that of inquiry, innovation, pedagogy and clinical exceptionalism--can be compatible with the seemingly paradoxical mandate of providing cost-effective or rationed healthcare.

Providing hope in terminal cancer: when is it appropriate and when is it not?

Hope is essential in the face of terminal cancer. Generally in Western societies, patients and their families prefer their doctor to engage them in transparent, realistic, authoritative, empathic and open communication about the diagnosis and prognosis of cancer but this topic is not well studied in the Asian context. With the exponential increase in information about cancer and the many permutations in cancer treatment, rational and otherwise, the doctor-patient relationship is even more critical in planning the best treatment strategy and also in rendering both particular and general hope in the patient's war against cancer. Overall, the majority of drugs tested against cancer have failed to reach the market, and those that have, only provide modest benefits, several major therapeutic breakthroughs notwithstanding. Commoditised medicalisation of the dying process ingrained into the contemporary consciousness can potentially create unrealistic or false hope, therapeutic nihilism and a drain on the resources of both the patient and society. These factors can also detract from the dignity of dying as an acceptable natural process. Hope cannot be confined only to focusing merely on the existential dimension of improving survival through technological intervention. Psychosocial and, where appropriate, spiritual interventions and support also play major roles in relieving suffering and providing hope to the patient. Hope cannot be a victim of misinformation from self-interested external parties, nor be an obsession with just buying promises of extending survival time without sufficient regard for quality of life and achieving a good death.

Phase II trial of gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin in inoperable or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a dismal prognosis and is notoriously chemo-resistant. We conducted a Phase II prospective study to evaluate the activity and tolerability of gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemo-naïve advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The trial considered a "no further interest" response rate of 10% and a target response rate of 30%. Utilising a Simon's minimax two-stage design with a type I error of 0.05 and power of 80%, 25 subjects would be required. Fifteen patients would be needed in stage 1 and if fewer than 2 responses were observed, the trial would be stopped and lack of efficacy claimed.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>Patients with advanced HCC, diagnosed based on histology or by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, were administered gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 of a 21-day schedule. Assessment of response based on computer tomography was performed after every 2 cycles of chemotherapy.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The trial was stopped early due to a lack of efficacy. A total of 15 patients were accrued. Twelve patients were hepatitis B positive and the other 3 patients were negative for both hepatitis B and C. Only 1 patient had a history of prior heavy alcohol use. Two patients had Child C liver cirrhosis, 5 patients had Child B cirrhosis, and the remaining 8 patients had Child A cirrhosis. This regime was well tolerated and there was only 1 patient who experienced grade IV toxicities. Only 5 of 15 patients experienced grade III toxicities (nausea and emesis, 1 patient; anemia, 1 patient; thrombocytopenia, 1 patient; and neutropaenia, 2 patients). Only 1 patient experienced a partial response to the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin. A further 3 patients experienced stable disease and 11 patients progressed on chemotherapy. The median time to progression was 6 weeks. The progression-free curve showed a sharp descent in the initial part of the study, suggesting that many patients had disease progression after enrollment. The median overall survival was 18 weeks.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The progression-free survival and overall survival in our study were extremely short. Based on the results of our phase 2 study, we are unable to recommend further studies utilising gemcitabine and cisplatin combination in patients with advanced HCC.</p>

Public healthcare--welfare, market share or laissez-faire?--a Sentosa Carlsberg skytower view

How much the Government should provide for its people in sickness and in health, till death do us part, is open to different interpretation in different societies. One of the great paradoxes is that welfare states with high taxation can be globally competitive, innovative, successful market economies, and still provide quality universal healthcare. The Nordic countries, classical welfare states, have achieved top global ranking in economic competitiveness. Denmark's people are the most satisfied with their healthcare in the world, and the world's fourth most responsive healthcare system. This paper examines some of the factors that have made Denmark a successful, open and civil society that provides free-access healthcare to all of its people.