> First, the personalized mRNA vaccine autogene cevumeran, developed by BioNTech and Genentech, just reported 6-year follow-up results from their Phase 1 clinical trial. 16 patients were treated, 8 were responders (showed signs of immune reaction to vaccine), 8 were non-responders.

> 7/8 responders (87.5%) survived 6 years after surgery, 2/8 nonresponders survived (25%).

> AACR meeting notes https://www.aacr.org/blog/2026/04/20/live-updates-from-the-a...

> The most important result in this small trial is that vaccine response is strongly correlated with better outcomes. But for context, the trial was restricted to patients with operable pancreatic cancer. Patients diagnosed with stage 1 or 2 pancreatic cancer have a 5-year survival rate of 12%. Patients who get their pancreatic cancer surgically removed have a 5-year post-surgery survival rate of 20%. This makes the overall 6-year post-surgery survival rate of 56% among the 16 trial patients pretty impressive. Keep in mind that the trial patients may have been healthier than average for other reasons, and small n is small n, so we shouldn't be too hasty until we see Phase 2 and 3 data.

> Source on survival rates https://www.pancreaticcancer.org.uk/information/just-diagnos...

Still early, unfortunately, so it will be a while before we see more updates.

Childhood leukemia used to be overwhelmingly fatal, and early chemotherapy trials also only managed a couple months of remission. Researchers were even criticized for subjecting patients to harsh side effects to no apparent benefit. But thanks to that research, most patients are now cured; per capita death rates from childhood leukemia are down 14x from the 1950s, mostly driven by improved treatment.

Daraxonrasib is an incredible invention on a technical level, and a meaningful step forwards in the treatment of many cancers. We'll need a couple more equally incredible inventions to be able to cure pancreatic cancer.

To quote a blog post I wrote on why we can be confident sun exposure causes cancer: "Green et al. (2011) conducted a 10-year study (n=1621) in Nambour, a town in Queensland, Australia. Participants were randomly assigned to daily or discretionary sunscreen application. After 10 years, 11 melanomas were found in the daily group and 22 in the discretionary group."

But you should read the full post for more context on why we have much better data than randomized controlled trials, and why correlation studies on this subject are nearly useless due to the impossibility of finding reliable proxy variables: https://hedonicescalator.substack.com/p/contra-byrnes-on-uv-...

Saying "some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer" is meaningless without more specificity. As the meme goes, this HackerNews comment is known to the state of California to cause cancer: the bar for something to be "associated with cancer" is incredibly low. Are there any particular chemicals or chemical classes you were worried about?

And I will remind you that, in contrast, we are 100% sure that sunlight causes cancer. We know exactly what kinds of DNA damage it creates (chiefly cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, which I discuss in my blog post) and we can find cancer-causing mutations in melanoma samples directly downstream of that damage (C->T mutations, for example, ones that disable the key p53 tumor suppressor gene). We know how this shit works! Are there some sunscreen formulas that might be dangerous? Possibly, I don't have them all memorized, but the solution is to find a different brand... not to instead expose yourself to one of the best-studied carcinogens around.

I support Anna's Archive, by the way. Information wants to be free.

The comment is wrong because it's stupid. Just because we've known that personalized immunotherapy was a promising idea for a long time, and have been trying it with the limited tools we had (CAR T being the poster child, and while an incredible advancement for blood cancers and many other diseases, it is notoriously dangerous and expensive), does not mean we had the technology to accomplish it. Today's results are only possible because of recent advancements in multiple fields, and to respond with "they've tried immunotherapy for decades" is profoundly ignorant. You may as well say, "scientists have been trying to cure cancer for years."

Moderna used a simple heuristic, "how likely is this antigen to show up on the cell surface?" which makes sense, since an antigen has to show up on the cell surface for the immune system to see it. But there's so much missing from this model, and we just don't have enough data. Failures in clinical trials of mRNA vaccines may well be caused by this problem. (Yes, this is a good problem for AI, if we can get enough data).

Here's a great blog post on this, "How to build a cancer vaccine, and whether they will work this time": https://www.owlposting.com/p/how-to-build-a-cancer-vaccine-a...

Here's the blog post I wrote on personalized mRNA vaccines: https://hedonicescalator.substack.com/p/did-paul-conyngham-r...