mice vs humans

[Rich66]

Ok..so we aint mice. But has there been mouse studies with hugely successful results that showed no benefit in humans? I'm thinking of te LIFT trial and the doxyrubicin-zolendrate combo studies recently out. i.e. is there actual reason to believe that 99.9% tumor growth stoppage in mice doesn't translate? Sorry if I seem stupid on this.

[chrisy]

That's the thing - you don't know until you try it in humans. Although that high a rate, you would HOPE that it at least translates somewhat to humans.

I saw a slide last year at the san antonio bc symposium which although simplified, illustrated why this may be.

The simpler the organism, the fewer redundancies and "ways around" the therapies. A mouse, for example, may only be able to come up with 1 or 2 alternate pathways for cancer growth.

Humans, however, have backup upon backup which is good in many senses, but bad when it applies to cancer growth pathways.

So, while it is not always true that what works in mice will be as effective in humans, SOMETIMES it is. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I venture that EVERY effective therapy began as a test in a petri dish and then a mouse...then humans.

[Rich66]

I knew it. Too "smart" for our own good.