Study: Cancer “vaccine” injected directly into tumors works in mice

Science: Injection helps the immune system obliterate tumors, at least in mice
Rating: 4.5 Stars

• The headline clearly states what the article claims, and emphasizes that at this time the study results were seen only in mice.
• This was, overall, a very well-written, comprehensive media article.
• Several outside expert sources were interviewed, as well as the lead researcher.
• There is little discussion on limitations in this study, beyond noting “The big question is whether the approach works in people, as most rodent cancer therapies don’t translate to humans.”

US News and World Report: Cancer 'vaccine' rids body of multiple cancer types -- in mice
Rating: 4.5 Stars

• This was a very well-written and easy to read article.
• The headline matches what the article claims, however the lede:  “Could a cancer "vaccine" fight more than one kind of malignancy?” may be somewhat difficult to understand for a lay reader.
• The article includes a discussion by an outside expert on several limitations to the research.

Medical News Today: One injection could kill cancer
Rating: 2.0 Stars

• The headline of this media report is exaggerated and misleading: “One Injection Could Kill Cancer”.  This is work done in mice in a lab. While the results are promising for a potential treatment, there is a lot of work left to do before that can happen and this can be deemed a treatment to kill cancer.
• This media article did not include any information or interviews from sources not involved in the study.
• There is detailed description of the study methods and results.
• This media article did not mention the limitations of the research study.

Fox News Chicago: Vaccine giving new hope in fight against cancer
Rating: 1.0 Stars

• This media report did not include any interviews from researchers involved in the study or any discussion of study results or limitations.
• The headline is misleading and does not mention the research study was conducted only in mice. The headline does not match the article, which focuses on social media and other unrelated immunotherapy trials. This can mislead readers into believing this vaccine is already being used in humans.
• The author focuses on interest in this study generated on Facebook and interviews patients receiving unrelated immunotherapy treatments.

Newsweek: New cancer treatment? Vaccine kills tumors in mice—and human tests are starting soon
Rating: 1.0 Stars

• While the title matches the results it is somewhat misleading. Human testing of the approach will initially be limited to a very small group of patients with low-grade lymphoma.
• This was a very brief article on the new research. Because it is so brief and the science complicated this article may be challenging for a lay reader to follow.
• The article clumps together traditional vaccines, immunotherapy approaches and ‘persoonalized vaccines’ in a way that is likely very confusing to a lay reader. 
• The articles leaves out important details of the research (type of tumor tested) and more importantly the results. No mention of how many mice responded to the treatment.
• Only the senior author on the study was quoted. No outside experts were interviewed.

WorldHealth.Net: So-called "cancer vaccine" isn't a vaccine at all; it's actually immunotherapy that boosts the body's own immune function
Rating: 0.5 Stars

• The headline is very misleading.  It claims that the new approach is not a vaccine at all.  This incorrect claim is not supported by scientific facts as to how the immune system works.
• While this article briefly describes the research it begins with a lengthy discussion of a very biased description of vaccines:  “”…vaccines contain dodgy ingredients like thimerosal (mercury) and cells derived from aborted baby fetuses, in addition to causing a host of serious adverse health effects.”  The article then tries to suggest that the new approach is not a vaccine at all but a “type of immune therapy” that does not have the side effects of vaccines. This is scientifically incorrect and used only to support their bias against traditional vaccines.
• The author then uses the Daily Mail’s description of the research which is correct but very brief.
• No comments from any of the researchers nor outside experts were included.

Relevance: Medium-Low

• This study is most relevant patients with advanced lymphoma cancer. 

• While this study did look at estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-negative mouse mammary tumors, these are quite different from human breast cancers.   

• This study’s results are excellent and exciting: all of the mice that were treated had substantial tumor responses and lived longer.  However, it is important to remember that many cancer therapies that work well in rodents don’t ultimately work well in humans.  

• A new, small trial of situ vaccination with CpG and OX40 for low-grade lymphoma is enrolling patients; it will be a starting point to understand whether this approach can be as successful in people as it was in these study mice.  

• Even if the human trial is successful, it will still be years before this type of tumor “vaccination” can be broadly offered to patients. 

Strength of Science: Medium-Low

• The research design and analysis of results were appropriate for this type of preliminary study-early research in animals that may one day translate to humans. 
• Because this is early research in mice models, the current clinical relevance is low given that many times, successful studies in animal models are not readily translatable to humans. 
• While promising, these results need to be validated and studies in humans need to be performed to determine if this research is clinically translatable to humans. 

Research Timeline: Animal Research