Talk:Cancer vaccine

Drug Development
I don't get this:


 * Do not randomize antigen plus adjuvant versus adjuvant alone. The goal is to establish clinical benefit of the immunotherapy (i.e.,adjuvanted vaccine) over the standard of care, not over standard of care plus adjuvant. The adjuvant may have a low-level clinical effect that would skew the statistical powering of the trial, increasing the chances of a false negative.

Suppose the adjuvant has a clinical effect, but the vaccine is ineffective. You'd get improvement in the treatment group, and attribute it to the vaccine, even though the vaccine is ineffective. Right? Nbauman (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost. I read it as the 'adjuvant alone' group is the control (presumably to allow blinding) rather than part of the treatment group. Hence if the adjuvant by itself has a benefit then the vaccine will have to have a stronger benefit to 'pass' the trial. Rod57 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(I can't get access to the original journal and read the article.)

More generally, I think this section may be too much of a technical checklist. Nbauman (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's just delete this Recommendations section. It does not seem relevant/specific enough or worth reading. - Rod57 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Restructure
Could restructure/split to show which are autologous therapeutic cancer vaccines and which are not. Rod57 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

NIH has an excellent description of cancer vaccines. It would make this page much stronger. I added DNDN's Neuvenge vaccine and the DNDN stock symbol. These synbols needs to be added to the other pharm companies. Also, see Coley's Toxins for a long history on immunotherapy. That needs to be a part of the history section.Bgordski (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Types of cancer link
I recently fixed a link (used to go to different types of cancer; now goes to Types of cancer) in the main section, but it seems sort-of out of place to me. Types of cancer are, of course, important in an article about a cancer vaccine, but should the link not have some sort of introduction/explanation? BobFijiwinkle (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Resource in current SciAm
A New Ally against Cancer; The FDA recently okayed the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, and other drugs that enlist the immune system against tumors are under study by Eric von Hofe in September 30, 2011 issue of Scientific American. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition and content mismatch - rename
Def/overview is slightly confused whether its about cancer prevention or treatment, the rest of the article seems to talk about cancer treatment which seems also to reflect use in publications. Hence I think this article should concentrate solely on cancer treatment and link cancer immunoprevention for prevention. Richiez (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's still almost totally about therapeutic cancer vaccines and cancer immunotherapies. Perhaps we should rename this page to therapeutic cancer vaccine and give it a hatnote to cancer immunoprevention (cancer vaccine could redirect to this renamed article). Rename ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tried to add the hatnote (after first line of Intro) - perhaps it should be at the very top ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the last link in the article. It points to an erroneous web archive link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.173.128 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

pipleine-ish section
mostly unsourced or sourced to SPS or primary sources; includes dead things and current things. tables like this are tempting to create but a nightmare to maintain and generally are OR collections.


 * Vaccine candidates

Most of the cancer vaccines in development address specific cancer types and are therapeutic vaccines. These include:

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I suggest merging Tumor antigen vaccine into Cancer vaccine as I understand they seem identical to me. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The moleculer basis of cancer in young adults
Article Research Ukayclare001 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)