Vaccine Therapy in Lung Cancer - The Cancer Vaccine Produced in Cuba

An innocent but insufficiently foresighted press statement by a scientist, its transformation into sensational news, followed by public uproar.

After last week's report, dozens, even hundreds without exaggeration, of lung and other cancer patients asked oncology clinics how to obtain the vaccine. Finding their doctors insufficiently informed made them unhappy and undermined trust. A relative told me 3 days ago, hopefully: “When I heard you were on holiday for 2 days, I was delighted. Surely you had gone for vaccine training and would start giving it when you returned.” Being unable to meet this expectation and looking at the patient without an answer was very difficult for an oncologist.

What Is This Vaccine That Caused Uproar and Drew Thousands of Patients and Families After One Report?..

Research into cancers and treatments continues rapidly worldwide. Contrary to beliefs that drug companies conceal a cure to sell inferior drugs, thousands of clinical trials seek treatments. Vaccine research disappointed toward the last century's end but revived with success in prostate and several other cancers. After 2000, studies against potentially antigenic cancer cell structures accelerated. Dr. Macias and colleagues' Cuban study, presented at ESMO 2012, is one example. The preliminary results we heard in 2012 genuinely offered hope for advanced metastatic lung cancer.

Among metastatic or inoperably locally advanced non-small cell patients, 177 were considered and 135 randomized into two groups receiving Racotumomab or placebo (an empty injection believed to be vaccine). Prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy and benefit from it were required: complete disappearance, partial regression or stable disease with stopped growth. Nonresponders were excluded.

What Happened When Vaccinated Patients Were Compared with Placebo?..

Vaccinated patients lived an average 18 months versus 11 with placebo, a difference of approximately 7 months, highly meaningful in such difficult disease. Preliminary results surprised scientists and created expectations at ESMO 2012.

However, the detailed article expected to convince the scientific community after the previous year's preliminary report was never published in any medical journal, recognized or otherwise.

What exactly happened to patients? Did study details meet standards? What later treatments did placebo recipients receive? How were patients selected? What were tumor subtypes and post-vaccine treatments? Was it scientifically superior? Unfortunately, these valuable questions remain unanswered.

With incomplete information, presenting this as a cure to every patient is impossible. Media coverage made patients perceive the claimed vaccine as eliminating lung cancer, which is entirely wrong. I recommend trusting physicians and not seeking a lung cancer vaccine currently. Oncology in our country has advanced rapidly, with reliable oncologists accessible almost everywhere and nearly all targeted drugs and chemotherapies available. Yet advanced lung cancer still has no curative method. Our main goal is better quality of life and longer survival without impairing it unnecessarily. Searching beyond this goal can cost both life and money.