While just off the press, with a submission date of May 20, 2026, this review of CCR5 as a target for cancer therapeutics is surprisingly out of date. Leronlimab was prominently mentioned… but grouped along with maraviroc and vicriviroc as investigational drugs in the “three clinical studies targeting CCR5 (that) have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of metastatic cancer.” The author talks about these studies in the present tense, like they are ongoing trials, and references the 2020 paper by Cristofanilli, Dolezal, Lalezari et al when talking about the TNBC trial with leronlimab. No mention of the five ladies who are alive five years after receiving leronlimab and an ICI. No mention of the Clover trial. No mention of the EAP program for TNBC patients. So this paper, hot off the presses, is hopelessly out of date with respect to leronlimab.
But the author is excited about the prospects for CRISPER and CAR-T solutions to the CCR5 problem! Coupled with ICIs, of course. In fact this seems to be her real agenda—promoting gene-editing—rather than keeping up-to-date on actual, cutting-edge CCR5 inhibition in contemporary clinical trials. In the “Outlook” section of the paper, towards the very end, she writes “According to existing research reports, mature gene editing techniques targeting the chemokine receptor CCR5 of immune cells… can block CCR5’s regulatory effect in tumors while enhancing the efficacy of immune cell therapy. This new approach combining gene therapy and immunotherapy appears to be the most promising tumor treatment strategy.”
Well, I suppose this paper in “Current Science” will help get the word out about the importance of inhibiting CCR5 in cancer treatment. But the paper reads more like disinformation than scholarship. Not only does it leave out the significant breakthroughs Cytodyn has discovered with the Ladies and the ongoing Clover trial, but leronlimab is actually called a “small molecule” in the abstract! (My spidey sense tingled right away when I read that). Looks like there are other factual errors in the piece as well. If I had the time, I’d write the journal and complain. I’d excoriate the author and her editors for NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE SCIENCE YET CLAIMING RELEVANCE. Guilty as charged. I hope someone on this board does write and give them the grief they deserve.
Well Brent, thanks for spotting this and posting the link… even though it got my Fourth off on the wrong foot today. Cheers everyone.
But the author is excited about the prospects for CRISPER and CAR-T solutions to the CCR5 problem! Coupled with ICIs, of course. In fact this seems to be her real agenda—promoting gene-editing—rather than keeping up-to-date on actual, cutting-edge CCR5 inhibition in contemporary clinical trials. In the “Outlook” section of the paper, towards the very end, she writes “According to existing research reports, mature gene editing techniques targeting the chemokine receptor CCR5 of immune cells… can block CCR5’s regulatory effect in tumors while enhancing the efficacy of immune cell therapy. This new approach combining gene therapy and immunotherapy appears to be the most promising tumor treatment strategy.”
Well, I suppose this paper in “Current Science” will help get the word out about the importance of inhibiting CCR5 in cancer treatment. But the paper reads more like disinformation than scholarship. Not only does it leave out the significant breakthroughs Cytodyn has discovered with the Ladies and the ongoing Clover trial, but leronlimab is actually called a “small molecule” in the abstract! (My spidey sense tingled right away when I read that). Looks like there are other factual errors in the piece as well. If I had the time, I’d write the journal and complain. I’d excoriate the author and her editors for NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE SCIENCE YET CLAIMING RELEVANCE. Guilty as charged. I hope someone on this board does write and give them the grief they deserve.
Well Brent, thanks for spotting this and posting the link… even though it got my Fourth off on the wrong foot today. Cheers everyone.
17
