When Do You Give Up on Treating a Child With Cancer?
Marlene Breverman stashed this in Bone-marrow transplants
Andrew Levy’s parents knew that the rare and deadly cancer in his blood could not be beaten, so they began to prepare for the worst. Then something mysterious happened.
[Bold, my emphasis]
Michael Loken, who had analyzed Andrew’s blood work, had not been surprised that Andrew’s cancer returned. He had been working on a paper about R.A.M., the genetic marker that Andrew had. He had tracked 19 other cases of children with the phenotype; three years after the diagnosis, only two were still alive and healthy. When he examined Andrew’s marrow this time, using a sample of 200,000 cells, he got goose bumps. He repeated the test with 500,000 cells. Then he called Lacayo with the news. The cancer had disappeared.
The medical team grasped for a scientific explanation. Because Andrew had received no treatment over the summer, the answer had to lie in the bone-marrow transplant of [5y/o brother] Wills’s cells. Their main theory was that the infection that nearly killed Andrew in July had triggered a huge increase in his new white blood cells — and that heightened immune response had attacked not only the infection but the cancer cells as well.
The doctors theorized that the response was partly a product of timing: The cancer had returned just as Andrew’s new immune system grew strong enough to destroy the cancer cells. A critical part of why transplants work is that some of the white blood cells, the T cells, that grow from the transplanted bone marrow will attack any lingering cancer cells, an effect known as graft versus leukemia. Chemotherapy rarely kills every last cancer cell, so it is believed that without graft versus leukemia, the cancer will eventually grow back. This is often spoken of as a model of so-called immunotherapy — stimulating the patient’s own immune system to attack cancer cells — which is widely regarded as one of the most promising avenues for cancer treatment.
Willert [Jennifer Willert, the pediatric oncologist in charge of the transplant] had made a key decision to depart from Stanford’s protocol to increase Andrew’s chances of getting a robust graft versus leukemia effect. Typically, a leukemia patient receives immune-suppressing drugs for at least 100 days (and often much longer) in order to avoid a serious side effect called graft versus host disease, in which new T cells attack not only the cancer cells but also the patient’s skin, liver and gastrointestinal tract. The art of a transplant is said to be maximizing graft versus leukemia while minimizing graft versus host.
Willert, who is now at the University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital, had advocated a rapid early taper of Andrew’s immune-suppressing drugs on Day 60, as is the practice at U.C.S.F. and other places, because she felt that the benefits outweighed the risk of graft versus host. “I fought for it because I have seen the power of getting rid of immune suppressants and letting the cells do their job,” she says. “After all, that’s the whole point of a transplant!”
The final, critical decision was made against medical advice: Esther and Dan’s resolution to stop treatment and let Andrew die. Had they permitted more chemotherapy, the treatment would have killed Wills’s cells, which were what ultimately enabled Andrew to live.
If you look in my cancer stash you'll see a number of recent scientific articles showcasing recent wins for immunotherapy. For example:
I look forward to hearing about more immunotherapy wins in the future.