|
Over the past decade or so the four stalwarts of cancer treatment—surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and targeted drugs—have been joined by a fifth. As its name suggests, immunotherapy aims to prod the body’s immune system into destroying cancerous cells. These days, drugs designed to bolster a patient’s immune response are used against dozens of different kinds of cancer.
One promise of immunotherapy, though, has remained mostly unfulfilled. For decades scientists have tried, and generally failed, to develop cancer vaccines. That lacklustre record is one reason for the excitement that surrounded the announcement on August 19th by Moderna, an American drug firm, of good results in a late-stage trial of intismeran, a vaccine that targets melanoma, a type of skin cancer.
That vaccine, and how it works, is the subject of this week’s column. Two big changes have made cancer vaccines look more promising than before. The first is a class of drugs called checkpoint inhibitors. Tumours often produce chemicals that suppress the immune system. Checkpoint inhibitors, by contrast, rev it up, helping vaccines preserve their potency. The second big change is the rise of mRNA vaccines,
something we’ve written about before
. These allow the quick design of customised vaccines, specially tailored to the characteristics of a particular patient’s cancer.
There are reasons to be cautious. Melanomas seem to provoke the immune system more than most cancers, making it something of a best-case scenario for a vaccine. The full trial data are not yet available: in particular, there are no data yet on survival rates. But the announcement is undoubtedly good news. The war on cancer, as we have also written, is a war of gradual, hard-fought victories. With luck, this victory will prove to be bigger than most.
Do you think vaccines will help to prevent cancer? Vote in our poll. And tell us why by emailing me at wellinformed@economist.com. We might feature you in next week’s newsletter.
Last week we asked if readers preferred to stand or sit at their desk. A plurality (35%) said they remained seated almost all day, while 30%—a close second—said they mostly sat, with occasional standing. Those dividing their time evenly between the two made up just 17% of respondents, and even fewer (12%) said they mostly stood. A final 4% said they did not work at a desk at all.
Many of you wrote to tell us about the benefits you noticed after switching to a standing arrangement. Colt in San Diego says that after developing “constant back pain” from sitting all day, moving to a stranding desk helped to resolve his discomfort. He adds that it also improved his focus. Nils, writing from Sweden, says that after 30 years of standing at his desk he can contrast his posture with his colleagues who have remained seated over the same period, and “they do not compare favourably”.
Kimberley in Toronto argues that “variety is the spice of life” and recommends a mixed approach, standing in the morning and sitting in the afternoon. Geoff in Ontario says that while he has tried standing desks, he finds that he is more comfortable “when pondering an issue” while sitting. See you next week. | 
