Nina Veru
AP-Bio, C-Odd
Current Event 5
10/19/17
Grady, Denise. “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/health/immunotherapy-cancer-kite.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
After reading the New York Times article by Denise Grady on a new FDA approved drug, I learned a lot about a new drug used to treat cancer. This new drug therapy is called Yescarta, created by the company Kite Pharma. This drug is specific to adults with non-hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Yescarta is a form of gene therapy, which can transforms the patient’s own cell into a “living drug”. Gene therapy is part of the “rapidly growing field of immunotherapy, which uses drugs or genetic tinkering to turbocharge the immune system to fight disease.”
In order to be a candidate for Yescarta, a non-hodgkin’s lymphoma patient needs to have failed two rounds of chemotherapy. Dr. Frederick L. Locke states that the treatment results are, “pretty remarkable”. The results of this treatment have led to long remissions for patients. The drug was originally designed by Dr. Steven Rosenberg of the National Cancer Institute. In addition, the drug was designed to be administered once into the patient’s vein. The drug is individualized for each patient.
Although this treatment can ultimately be beneficial to patients, the drug has serious side effects. Grady states that the symptoms include, “high fevers, crashing blood pressure, lung congestion, and neurological problems.” Some patients have even had to stay in the intensive care unit while receiving treatment. Unfortunately, two patients have died because of these side effects. However, as the drug had been introduced to more medical centers, doctors have become better equipped in dealing with these side effects.
I found this article extremely interesting and informative in cancer treatment. I liked how at the beginning of the article, the author gave background information in immunotherapy. I felt that this gave more clarity to the information presented in the article. In addition, I liked how the author included information on how Kite Pharma and other doctors wish to expand the uses of Yescarta. For example, the article states that the company wishes to expand the drug to patients in earlier stages of lymphoma. Doctors and researchers also wish to expand the research to other cancers: such as breast, prostate, and colon tumours. In addition, the article did a good job of explaining the science of how the drug works. First, millions of T-cells are removed from the patient, then these cells are freezed and genetically engineered to kill cancer cells. These new cells are called “CAR-T cells”, which are dripped back into the patient to kill cancer cells. CAR-T-cells attack B-cells, which are the cells that turn malignant in lymphoma.
Jack Kochansky
ReplyDeleteAP Biology EF Even
Mr. Ippolito
10 October 2017
“F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer”
By Denise Grady
Reviewed by Nina Veru
Grady, Denise. “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/health/immunotherapy-cancer-kite.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
In this current events assignment, Nina did a very good job and chose a topic that is extremely relevant in the fields of biology and medicine, and it could prove to be a real breakthrough in cancer treatment. My mom has worked with the company that created the new drug, and based on this article and what I have learned from my mom, she could not have chosen a better topic to review and investigate. CAR-T immunotherapy could prove to be the path for curing all cancer, and achievements like Kite’s and Novartis’s discoveries might be the beginning of victory in the long war against cancer. Nina effectively gave a short summary of the New York Times article and the cancer treatment in general, and it avoiding being too wordy. As a result, I was able to read about the most important points made in the article without hearing many of the unnecessary details that most people would not really be able to understand. She also made sure not to simply frame the new therapy as a purely flawless answer to all of our problems now. Although she points out the treatment’s potential, she also makes sure to highlight its limitations. For example, she points out that it is only approved for use on patients who have unsuccessfully tried chemotherapy and have a specific type of lymphoma. She also emphasizes the possible side effects of the treatment.
However, there were a few areas in which Nina could have improved. For example, although the article does touch on several very relevena tissues and makes great points, it does not follow the current event review model. While she includes a paragraph to summarize this new treatment, explains some of its shortcomings, and expresses positive feedback on the article itself, she does not have a specified relevance paragraph, and she does not really make any suggested improvements of the article. If she had included those, it would have strengthened her review. Her review was also a little short and could have included a bit more detail on the importance and wider implications of this therapy. This drug has been nearing approval for several months and has been viewed by many as a leading hope in curing an even wider range of cancers, and if she had gone into a little more detail about that or other pieces of context, it would have further highlighted what the approval of this drug means for the medical world and those who are affected by cancer. Overall, though, it was a good review with just a couple of things to work on.
The approval of Kite’s Yescarta drug and other similar CAR-T cancer treatments is of utmost importance in the ongoing fight against cancer, and it represents a remarkable step forward in our ability to combat the disease. Although the treatment only applies to a fairly small range of cancers, it completely cures them and could be a model on which treatments for other cancers can be based. I chose to comment on Nina’s review because it is about such an important topic, and I have some prior knowledge about it. I think that it is so important that we pay attention to news like this, as nothing else holds more potential to revolutionize the medical world completely and actually cure cancer, once and for all. Even though Kite’s discoveries are not yet the perfect solution, they could very well be part of it.
AP Bio
ReplyDeleteOlivia Scotti
10/1/17
Current Event # 5
Grady, Denise. “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/health/immunotherapy-cancer-kite.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
There were many aspects of Nina’s review written well. One part of her review that I felt she did particularly well was her vast number of detail about what the drug is and what the drug is capable of doing. For instance she states how “Yes Carta is a form of gene therapy, which can transforms the patient’s own cell into a “living drug”. Gene therapy is part of the ‘rapidly growing field of immunotherapy, which uses drugs or genetic tinkering to turbocharge the immune system to fight disease.’.” Through this detailed description of the what this new drug is able to do the reader understood what this drug does to helps patients with non-hodgkin's lymphoma. Another part of the review which was done well was her addition of details about the positives and negatives of this drug. For example she states how “Dr. Frederick L. Locke states that the treatment results are, ‘pretty remarkable’”. The results of this treatment have led to long remissions for patients.”Also she adds details how there are many negative side effects of this drug like “high fevers, crashing blood pressure, lung congestion, and neurological problems.” Through adding the positives and negatives of this drug the reader is able to get a better understanding on the results that have come from this new drug. Another part of the review that was done well was her description of the positives of this article. For example she states “I felt that this gave more clarity to the information presented in the article. In addition, I liked how the author included information on how Kite Pharma and other doctors wish to expand the uses of Descarta.” Through stating what positives there were to this article the reader got a better understanding on how the article was written without reading it. Also this allows the reader to see an outside opinion of this article we understood truthfully that there were many parts of this article written well.
Although there were many parts of Nina’ s review written well there were areas for improvement. One part of the review that could've been improved was the lack of quotes from the different researchers in the article. For instance she only added one quote from a main researcher in this study. This lack of quotes prevented the reader from understanding the tone of the article. She could easily fix this by examining parts of the article where he quotes his opinion of this study and adding that to the article. Another part of her review which could have been improved was her lack of negatives about this article in her critique paragraph. Through no addition of flaws of this article the reader was forced to believe there was nothing wrong about the way this article was written. This may be true but it is usually not so it is valuable for the reviewer to look more closely at an article to find its flaws.
Overall I felt Nina wrote a strong review of this article which the reader could easily understand. Her review was written clearly and smoothly which allowed the reader to learn about the topic more easily and understand the research conducted. I enjoyed reading this review because I learned about how there is a new drug to help fight cancer which is a problem facing many people in this day of age. Also through adding so many details about this drug the reader was able to clearly understand how useful this medical innovation will be. Overall I liked how she described the research that was done and the effects on the present world. Through her discussion of this article the reader got a better grasp on the topic and the importance of this new research.
Abbey Thomas
DeleteAP Biology C Block
Mr. Ippolito
20 October, 2017
Grady, Denise. “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/health/immunotherapy-cancer-kite.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
For this current event, I reviewed Nina’s critic of “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer” by Denise Grady. I chose to review Nina’s article because gene editing is a frontier in science and very interesting. Nina did many things well in her review, she did an excellent job of providing background information on the new gene editing drug, Yescarta. Without this information, the reader would have been confused on how the drug works later on. Nina also included what a candidate for this trial would look like, it helps portray how important this drug can be for someone, because for a patient to be a candidate they have to have two failed round of chemotherapy. Lastly, Nina also took an unbiased approach when reviewing Yescarta. She did a good job at mentioning the side effects, it shows the whole picture of the drug.
While Nina’s review was excellent, there were some small things she could improve on. For instance, her conclusion was a little choppy. I would recommend combining some sentences, or using transition words. The last critic I would make for Nina’s article is to explain more about non-hodgkin's lymphoma. While she did explain what Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is, but did not explain what Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, so I was confused.
My “ah” moment was in the end of Nina’s review, when she mentioned CART-T Cells. She explained the process for altering these cells, and it was very interesting.
AP Bio
ReplyDeleteHannah Beldotti
October 19, 2017
Current Event # 5
Grady, Denise. “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/health/immunotherapy-cancer-kite.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
Nina did a great job of reviewing the current event article, “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer,” by Denise Grady. One of the most important aspects of a review is the summary. This allows the reader to obtain interest in what they are reading. Also, it provides background information into the topic. Nina’s review begins with a great summary which introduces the reader to the topic at hand: a “gene altering treatment for cancer.” In the summary, she discusses the specific drug of which scientists are testing. She also was concisely able to explain how one can become a candidate. Further into her review, Nina did an excellent job of stating what she admired of the author's article. She suggested, “I found this article extremely interesting and informative in cancer treatment.” Then, she also provided evidence to support her statement, “ For example, the article states that the company wishes to expand the drug to patients in earlier stages of lymphoma.” This enables the reader to see how the reviewer interpreted the article. Lastly, Nina thoroughly incorporated specific information from the article. This shows the reader exactly what the reviewer is discussing.
Even though Nina had a clear summary and commended the author’s work, she was unable to provide any suggestions for improvement. For example, she only states, “I found this article extremely interesting and informative in cancer treatment. I liked how at the beginning of the article, the author gave background information in immunotherapy. I felt that this gave more clarity to the information presented in the article. In addition, I liked how the author included information on how Kite Pharma and other doctors wish to expand the uses of Yescarta.” At no point in her review, did she criticize any part of the author’s work. In the future, Nina could suggest what needed improving in the article and suggest ways of improvement. Also, her review ends abruptly as she finishes with, “These new cells are called “CAR-T cells”, which are dripped back into the patient to kill cancer cells. CAR-T-cells attack B-cells, which are the cells that turn malignant in lymphoma.” This statement does not leave an impact on the reader as it is not summarizing everything that was previously discussed. One way Nina could improve this is by suggesting how beneficial the drug could be in the future.
Overall, Nina did a great job of reviewing the current event article. Her topic was interesting especially because it pertains to very common diseases. This article and review further illustrates how science is constantly developing and improving.
Timothy Cushman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology - Current Events Comment
16 October 2017
Current Events #8
Grady, Denise. “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/health/immunotherapy-cancer-kite.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
Nina’s review of “F.D.A. Approves Second Gene-Altering Treatment for Cancer” was about a very interesting and important topic, cancer treatment. She did a great job in writing her review. Nina started out with a very good short summary of the article she read. She choose the most important details to include in her review. This helped me get an understanding of the topic that was being discussed. Another aspect of Nina’s review that was well done was her portion about the side effects of the treatment. Nina states, “The symptoms include, “high fevers, crashing blood pressure, lung congestion, and neurological problems.”’ This addition important information allows the reader to fully grasp the pros and cons of this new treatment. It also shows that Nina did her research and strengthens her overall review. A third aspect of Nina’s review that was well done was her providing of great supporting quotes. Quotes such as her quote describing gene therapy, “[a] rapidly growing field of immunotherapy, which uses drugs or genetic tinkering to turbocharge the immune system to fight disease,” allow the reader to learn an important fact the way the author wanted. By adding quotes she is also adding credibility to her review because it shows there is data to back it up.
Although Nina’s review was great, there were a few areas that could use improvement. Firstly, she did not go into to any details on how the treatment works. The reader is left wondering how the new treatment works. Adding this would give the reader a better understanding of what is being done to treat the cancer. Another aspect of Nina’s review that could be improved on is her relevance section. She states that the drug can be beneficial and that it has potential side effects. However, she never states how it is relevant to the world. It would have been interesting to see Nina’s opinion on why this is relevant to the world. Despite these two areas that need improvement, her review was good.
I chose to read Nina’s because I was interested in how the new treatment worked and felt that it was about an important topic I should know more about. The review allowed me to realize how hard cancer really is to treat, but also allowed me to realize we are still making major steps in the direction of better cancer treatments.