“The bone-marrow niche in MDS and MGUS: implications for AML and MM.” Part 2.

Back to the Dana-Farber study that I wrote about a couple of days ago.

The section titled “Therapeutic opportunities” is interesting. How to prevent progression, that is. As you can imagine, the chef’s daily special consists only of conventional treatments. For example, the authors make a reference to the Spanish study (Mateos et al) that I have repeatedly condemned here on the blog. The Spanish researchers–some with strong ties to the big pharmaceutical companies (hello???)–tested lenalidomide and dexamethasone on a group of SMM patients. The study claims to have prolonged progression-free survival and even overall survival in those patients…without ever taking into consideration QUALITY OF LIFE. Sorry, but I have no patience for statistical studies that play with people’s lives…

That said, the trend toward early intervention is clearly taking off, as the Dana-Farber study points out. Very unfortunate, IMO.

And there is no way to stop it, except that we, the patients, can say just say NO. Of course, if you have CRAB symptoms, that’s another matter. But, in the absence of the CRABs, WHY TAKE THE CHANCE OF WORSENING YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE?

Makes zero sense.

And there’s another thing that bothers me: where’s the proof that the overall survival of someone with SMM was extended thanks to these conventional treatments? Do the Spanish researchers have crystal balls that give them the exact times of death for their patients, both with AND without treatment? Oh, right, no, that’s what their STATISTICS tell them. Based on the patients’ “high-risk” data (see yesterday’s post).

I’m not saying that statistics can’t be useful in certain circumstances, mind you. But in these cases, when someone with no CRABs is deciding on whether to agree to early treatment, or not!, they can be harmful. If I had agreed to begin conventional treatments in 2005, I don’t know where I would be today (according to my former hematologist, I’d be dead…would have died in 2010…didn’t happen, OBVIOUSLY!!!…I’m still here, still splendid 😉 , still no CRABs, still no conventional treatments…).

Sorry for the rant. Okay, let’s calm down and try to understand the rationale of early intervention from the Dana-Farber study perspective. The researchers say that if the number of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) can be increased in the early stages of myeloma, myeloma cells cannot proliferate. That’s good to know. There are non-toxic ways to do that, btw, but let’s keep to the study…

Mice that were injected with nanoparticles loaded with bortezomib before being contaminated with MM cells lived longer than non-injected mice. The researchers give another example in which early treatment of an antiangiogenic antibody was used on mice. Okay, but we’re talking about mouse models here. The reality, as the researchers themselves admit at the end of this paragraph, is that “…the use of antiangiogenic agents other than thalidomide and other immunomodulatory agents has not been shown to be successful in patients with MM.”

Not successful in patients.

So much for that.

Then there’s immunotherapy, which we have heard and read a lot about in the last few years. You may have heard about the anti-CD38 antibody known as daratumumab, which activates the immune system.

Anyway, it’s in this paragraph that I found a remarkable admission.

But first, let me say that ever since I joined online myeloma support groups, one of the key issues we discussed was what how to deal with our immune system. Should we stimulate it, thereby possibly stimulating our myeloma cells, too? Or should we avoid anything that stimulates the immune system? The consensus usually drifted toward the former approach. I wrote a post about this in 2013: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2013/10/20/long-term-survival-in-myeloma-is-finally-linked-to-a-robust-immune-system-and-my-new-discovery/

I’ve had mixed feelings about it throughout the years, but my gut has always told me that it makes no sense to keep our immune system weak.

And here, in this paragraph, I finally have my answer (vindication!!!): “Indeed, trials involving these antibodies provide the first proof of concept that activation of the immune system has therapeutic benefits in patients with MM.”

After years of not knowing what to do, we finally know that having a strong immune system is GOOD.

Quelle surprise…not.

Has “high risk” become a new disease?

As I was working on the post I published yesterday, I ran into a very interesting 2015 editorial by a Finnish professor on the issue of HIGH RISK and decided it was worth a post of its own, before I go on and finnish, I mean, finish! the bone microenvironment post.  😉 

Here’s the link: goo.gl/CWAexK

Prof. Järvinen argues that “high risk” has become a disease today. That is, relatively healthy people can start seeing themselves as no longer relatively healthy. AND, he adds, “almost every treatment has inherent risks.”

Who can determine the threshold for “high risk”? Doctors? And what if patients disagree? Well, check out  what he says about that, in the section titled: “Understanding risk: are the blind leading the blind?”: “If we assume doctors are truly more competent in making value judgements about the lives of their patients than the patients sitting in front of them, should we not have proof that doctors can do the job? Sadly, despite medical education and clinical experience, doctors do not seem to possess the required skill.


Once again, we run into the issue of statistics, which tell you that you are at “high risk” of developing this or that if you fall into such and such a category. This has to have an impact on our mental health, among other things. Has to. And we know how much stress is related to a bunch of cancers, including myeloma.

Perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate the issue of “high risk”…?

Anyway, a very interesting editorial…