More broadly, the technique of precisely editing DNA of select cells to perform specific engineered tasks is very broadly applicable. But that is a technique for developing treatments, not a treatment itself.
More broadly, the technique of precisely editing DNA of select cells to perform specific engineered tasks is very broadly applicable. But that is a technique for developing treatments, not a treatment itself.
We should be moving away from chemotherapy. It really is poison (cytotoxin) that has "treatment" of cancer as a side effect, just because it will readily kill cancer cells more than healthy cells whilst also taking a lot of the healthy cells with it. But, it's the "established" standard of care, which many doctors built their careers on, so I suppose it won't go away soon.
I assume quick adoption of base editing for trickier cases, eg for T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, like this patient had. Note that she had a previous transplant, using the more conventional treatment of her T cells. Just starting with base editing will be much less onerous to future patients.
This is one tough person. Surviving chemo then two transplants is amazing. Just thinking about it crushes my heart.
Source: Had bone marrow transplant 30+ years ago. My then experimental treatment became the default option (as applicable). Don't know much about biology or medicine, but I can repeat what I've heard and read.
How does this overturning occur? Do care providers agitate for change? Or is it typically a response to headstrong patients and families?
That’s why new procedures almost always are done on patients who are as good as dead (gene editing to change one’s hair color won’t soon get past ethical review, for example, but if gene editing gets used in mainstream medicine, enough data may be collected to make a review board say it’s acceptable to give it a try)
The first experiments typically only prove the medicine or procedure works. Long term survival of the patient the exception. From there, it’s step by step towards treating healthier and healthier patients.
If it turns out the approach is better for the typical patient, patient groups (who may even have paid for part of the research) start lobbying for its use. If the new procedure is both better and cheaper, insurers also will lobby for it.