Unfortunately it does not appear that the next group of patients had any success with this approach. I would not be basing any of my therapy/heath related decisions based on this therapy. See this update here in the forum:
"Phase 2 of Mayo measles trial - informal initial results" (posted Mar 2, 2015)
Forums
Re: Mayo Clinic measles vaccine study
The issue of the measles (or MMR) vaccine and qualifying for one of the measles vaccine myeloma trials is not simple.
The short version of the story is that you're not automatically disqualified from participating in one of the trials if you've been vaccinated. However, there are many cases where having been vaccinated will make it so you can't participate in the trial.
If you want the full details, here they are.
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, there are two ongoing trials testing a modified measles virus as a treatment for multiple myeloma. One is the original trial at the Mayo Clinic, the second is a new trial at the University of Arkansas. Complete details about both trials are available at clinicaltrials.gov:
Mayo Clinic trial:
"Vaccine Therapy With or Without Cyclophosphamide in Treating Patients With Recurrent or Refractory Multiple Myeloma" (info at clinicaltrials.gov)
University of Arkansas:
"A Phase II Trial of Oncolytic Virotherapy by Systemic Administration of Edmonston Strain of Measles Virus" (info at clinicaltrials.gov)
As one would expect given how this treatment is intended to work, both of these trials will only admit participants who show limited, or no, immunity to the measles virus. This immunity is measured through a "titer", and titer results are generally given in units known as "AI" (antibody index). These units are the same, we believe, as units that formerly were "U/ml" (units / ml) or "IU/ml" (international units / ml), and are also the same as what is sometimes labeled "AU" (antibody units).
This is the usual interpretation you'll find for the measles virus titer results measured in AI:
Titer is less than or equal to 0.8 = patient is unvaccinated
Titer is 0.9 to 1.1 = patient's status is "equivocal"
Titer is greater than or equal to 1.2 = patient is vaccinated (has immunity)
For the Mayo Clinic trial, a patient will only be admitted to the trial if their titer is "less than or equal to 0.3" (see the trial information at the link listed above).
For the Arkansas trial, the admittance criteria is having a titer less than or equal to 0.5. (again, see the trial information at the link above).
So someone what has recently been vaccinated against the measles (rubeola) virus, and is not overly immunocompromised, it seems likely to be the case that the patient will have a measles titer too high for them to be eligible for one of these trials.
On the other hand, a patient who was vaccinated many years ago, and has undergone a stem cell transplant with no subsequent MMR vaccine, may have a measles titer low enough to qualify for one of the trials.
Bottom line: Having been vaccinated against measles won't automatically disqualify you from one of these trials. However, it could cause your measles titer to be high enough that you won't qualify.
The short version of the story is that you're not automatically disqualified from participating in one of the trials if you've been vaccinated. However, there are many cases where having been vaccinated will make it so you can't participate in the trial.
If you want the full details, here they are.
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, there are two ongoing trials testing a modified measles virus as a treatment for multiple myeloma. One is the original trial at the Mayo Clinic, the second is a new trial at the University of Arkansas. Complete details about both trials are available at clinicaltrials.gov:
Mayo Clinic trial:
"Vaccine Therapy With or Without Cyclophosphamide in Treating Patients With Recurrent or Refractory Multiple Myeloma" (info at clinicaltrials.gov)
University of Arkansas:
"A Phase II Trial of Oncolytic Virotherapy by Systemic Administration of Edmonston Strain of Measles Virus" (info at clinicaltrials.gov)
As one would expect given how this treatment is intended to work, both of these trials will only admit participants who show limited, or no, immunity to the measles virus. This immunity is measured through a "titer", and titer results are generally given in units known as "AI" (antibody index). These units are the same, we believe, as units that formerly were "U/ml" (units / ml) or "IU/ml" (international units / ml), and are also the same as what is sometimes labeled "AU" (antibody units).
This is the usual interpretation you'll find for the measles virus titer results measured in AI:
Titer is less than or equal to 0.8 = patient is unvaccinated
Titer is 0.9 to 1.1 = patient's status is "equivocal"
Titer is greater than or equal to 1.2 = patient is vaccinated (has immunity)
For the Mayo Clinic trial, a patient will only be admitted to the trial if their titer is "less than or equal to 0.3" (see the trial information at the link listed above).
For the Arkansas trial, the admittance criteria is having a titer less than or equal to 0.5. (again, see the trial information at the link above).
So someone what has recently been vaccinated against the measles (rubeola) virus, and is not overly immunocompromised, it seems likely to be the case that the patient will have a measles titer too high for them to be eligible for one of these trials.
On the other hand, a patient who was vaccinated many years ago, and has undergone a stem cell transplant with no subsequent MMR vaccine, may have a measles titer low enough to qualify for one of the trials.
Bottom line: Having been vaccinated against measles won't automatically disqualify you from one of these trials. However, it could cause your measles titer to be high enough that you won't qualify.
Re: Mayo Clinic measles vaccine study
I am catching up on some reading today and I saw this article about Carl June.
"T-Cell Pioneer Carl June Acknowledges Key Ingredient Wasn’t His," MIT Technology Review, March 14, 2016 (full text of article)
I had mentioned earlier in the thread that he claimed that CTL019 could "easily" distinguish between leukemia cells and normal cells in his interview on the HBO Special, when clearly they cannot distinguish between the leukemia and normal cells according to peer reviewed papers he has been a co-author of. Note he also took credit for inventing a key part of CAR T cell technology which is not the case. I had read about this settlement last year and I was wondering why there had been no corrections or no media coverage of this since Dr. June seems to always be looking for as many places to discuss CAR T cell therapy as possible.
Excerpts from the article:
"In corrections attached to three high-profile publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania’s star cancer scientist, Carl June, and his coauthors acknowledged they didn’t invent a key aspect of a breakthrough type of cancer therapy.
June has been hailed for his role in developing a new type of leukemia cure that uses engineered immune cells. The cells have added DNA instructions that direct them to attack a person’s cancer.
But now his papers, cited more than 2,300 times, according to Google Scholar, and which drew attention to revolutionary developments in cancer labs, have been amended to say they “omitted” an acknowledgment that the actual DNA was “designed, developed, and provided” by Dario Campana and Chihaya Imai, who worked at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
Intentional or not, June’s oversight was a doozy. Since his papers came out, the field of immune engineering has exploded. There are dozens of trials underway, a flood of federal grants, and billions of dollars in private investment at stake ..."
The reason why this could be important is that labs often share different technology and it would clearly reduce that sharing if the proper inventors are not credited for their contributions.
"T-Cell Pioneer Carl June Acknowledges Key Ingredient Wasn’t His," MIT Technology Review, March 14, 2016 (full text of article)
I had mentioned earlier in the thread that he claimed that CTL019 could "easily" distinguish between leukemia cells and normal cells in his interview on the HBO Special, when clearly they cannot distinguish between the leukemia and normal cells according to peer reviewed papers he has been a co-author of. Note he also took credit for inventing a key part of CAR T cell technology which is not the case. I had read about this settlement last year and I was wondering why there had been no corrections or no media coverage of this since Dr. June seems to always be looking for as many places to discuss CAR T cell therapy as possible.
Excerpts from the article:
"In corrections attached to three high-profile publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania’s star cancer scientist, Carl June, and his coauthors acknowledged they didn’t invent a key aspect of a breakthrough type of cancer therapy.
June has been hailed for his role in developing a new type of leukemia cure that uses engineered immune cells. The cells have added DNA instructions that direct them to attack a person’s cancer.
But now his papers, cited more than 2,300 times, according to Google Scholar, and which drew attention to revolutionary developments in cancer labs, have been amended to say they “omitted” an acknowledgment that the actual DNA was “designed, developed, and provided” by Dario Campana and Chihaya Imai, who worked at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
Intentional or not, June’s oversight was a doozy. Since his papers came out, the field of immune engineering has exploded. There are dozens of trials underway, a flood of federal grants, and billions of dollars in private investment at stake ..."
The reason why this could be important is that labs often share different technology and it would clearly reduce that sharing if the proper inventors are not credited for their contributions.
-
Mark11
Re: Mayo Clinic measles vaccine study
The StarTribune newspaper in Minnesota today published an update about Stacy Erholtz, the multiple myeloma patient who responded really well to the Mayo measles vaccine:
"Mayo Clinic patient treated by massive measles dose still cancer-free 5 years later," StarTribune, June 10, 2018 (full text of article)
A couple of excerpts from the article
"It's been five years since Stacy Erholtz underwent an experimental treatment for blood cancer that used enough measles vaccine to inoculate 10 million people, and she's still celebrating her life, moment by moment ..."
"Using the measles virus to target cancers had a major drawback: Because so many people have been vaccinated against it, they have antibodies that attack it.
Erholtz was unusual. She didn't have antibodies against the measles virus because she'd gone through two stem-cell transplants as part of her treatment for myeloma, which wiped them out. In addition, she sought the measles inoculation relatively soon after the myeloma flared up after her last stem-cell transplant, so the prevalence of cancer cells was unusually small compared with most other myeloma patients who seek treatment.
Finally, her cancer had a large number of mutations, which may have made it stick out to her immune system."
"Mayo Clinic patient treated by massive measles dose still cancer-free 5 years later," StarTribune, June 10, 2018 (full text of article)
A couple of excerpts from the article
"It's been five years since Stacy Erholtz underwent an experimental treatment for blood cancer that used enough measles vaccine to inoculate 10 million people, and she's still celebrating her life, moment by moment ..."
"Using the measles virus to target cancers had a major drawback: Because so many people have been vaccinated against it, they have antibodies that attack it.
Erholtz was unusual. She didn't have antibodies against the measles virus because she'd gone through two stem-cell transplants as part of her treatment for myeloma, which wiped them out. In addition, she sought the measles inoculation relatively soon after the myeloma flared up after her last stem-cell transplant, so the prevalence of cancer cells was unusually small compared with most other myeloma patients who seek treatment.
Finally, her cancer had a large number of mutations, which may have made it stick out to her immune system."
Re: Mayo Clinic measles vaccine study
Thanks, Terry H, for posting the update on Stacy Erholtz, who took the experimental measles virus treatment, and is still doing well after five years. I read in the full article that there is a company working on this treatment in order to make oncolytic viruses that would work against myeloma.
-
Nancy Shamanna - Name: Nancy Shamanna
- Who do you know with myeloma?: Self and others too
- When were you/they diagnosed?: July 2009
Return to Treatments & Side Effects