A new study has found that a combination of two drugs could enhance the immune system to treat one of the most common types of cancer in the world, bowel cancer. Also known as colorectal cancer, despite its widespread presence, the treatment options for this condition are limited. What the study specifically found was that this procedure could shrink the tumours caused by this condition by around 60%.

What Are The Drugs Involved

The trial involved the use of two immunotherapy drugs, botancilimab and balstilumab. It is a monoclonal antibody that works to stimulate the body's immune system to attack cancer. The study is a rather significant find, as it’s the first time that a consistent and durable response to immunotherapy has been reported in patients with solid MSS mCRC tumours.

The study was divided into several phases for more than 6 months. In the US trial, around around 101 patients with microsatile stable metastatic colorectal (MSS-mCRC) tumours showed a decrease . Around 61% of the patients experienced tumour shrinkage or stabilization after combined treatment with votancilumab and balstilumab. When it comes to downsides, diarrhea and fatigue were found to be the most common side effects or side effects of this drug.

These results are interesting and open to exploration. To date, immunotherapy has not been effective in patients with CNS-mCRC tumors. This study demonstrates the potential of the combination of botenlimab and balstilimab in the treatment of CNS mCRC, providing new hope for people diagnosed with colon cancer.

What Could This Mean For Bowel Cancer Treatment In The Future

The study is currently in the final stages of clinical trials, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hopes to quickly gain approval for its use because of the importance of this area that affects many people. The efficiency shown demonstrates the potential of botansilimab to contribute to broad antitumor immunity.

All in all, the combination of botensilimab and balstilimab represents a promising new direction in the treatment of colorectal cancer. This breakthrough could improve conditions for many patients worldwide and lights a new hope in the fight against this common disease. The results of this study show the effectiveness of immunotherapy in this field and how its potential to transform cancer treatment can only grow in the years to come.

A Chinese-Russian surgical team has reportedly replaced a damaged section of a paralysed patient's spinal cord with tissue from a brain-dead donor, executing the world's first human spinal cord transplant successfully.

However, with no evidence of neurological recovery, scientists have been questioning whether the procedure can restore movement so far. The 12-hour operation was performed at the Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine in Moscow on October 14–15, according to Chinese surgeon Ren Xiaoping, one of the doctors who participated in the procedure. The patient had sustained a severe spinal cord injury three years ago.

Ren told the South China Morning Post, “It was our Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital and the Russian team working together.”

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin announced the procedure on October 16, describing it as a significant development in spinal surgery. “A patient who was threatened with complete immobility had a chance to recover. Now he feels good,” he wrote.

However, feeling well after surgery does not mean that a patient has regained movement. The surgical team has not publicly released neurological evidence showing whether signals can travel across the transplanted section.

How Was The Spinal Cord Tissue Transplanted?

Also read: World Arthritis Day - Arthritis At 42, 62 & Even 15: How Treatment & Rehabilitation Help Patients Regain Mobility

According to Ren, surgeons removed the damaged section of the patient's spinal cord and replaced it with tissue obtained from a brain-dead donor. They used microsurgery and polyethylene glycol (PEG), a substance that can fuse cell membranes to join the tissues.

This technique addresses one of the central challenges of treating severe spinal cord injuries. The spinal cord carries signals between the brain and the rest of the body. When it is severely damaged, these signals cannot pass normally through the injury, causing paralysis and loss of sensation below the affected area.

But joining two sections of tissue is not enough. Nerve fibres must establish functional connections across the damaged area and the tissue that is transplanted must receive blood supply. The recipient's immune system may also attack the donor tissue.

These challenges become important when the injury is several years old. Repairing a recently damaged spinal cord is different from replacing tissue in a patient with a longstanding injury.

Scientists Have Raised Questions

Also read: Digital Lifestyle and Neck Pain: How to Keep Your Spine Healthy in the Age of Smartphones

Scientists have raised concerns about the evidence about whether it can restore meaningful neurological function in humans.

Melissa Andrews, a neuroscientist at the University of Southampton, questioned the quality of the animal studies supporting the technique and warned about the risks involved, according to New Atlas.

Experiments involving PEG has shown some promise in animals but they do not prove that the technique can reconnect a human spinal cord successfully enough to restore movement.

The lack of publicly available evidence is another limitation. Details about the patient's injury, the precise location of the transplanted segment, neurological examinations after the procedure and changes in movement or sensation have not been disclosed. No peer-reviewed clinical report documenting the operation and its outcomes has been published.

Ren told New Atlas, “We have informed the patient of every potential risk and surgical outcome, and the patient's current condition is good.”

The operation is an experimental treatment, not proof that transplanting spinal cord tissue can reverse paralysis. Even if the patient survives the operation without major complications, recovery would depend on whether functional nerve connections develop and whether the brain can communicate with the body across the damaged region. Rehabilitation and long-term follow-up would be needed to assess any improvement.

Kerala's decision to switch from an expensive branded medicine for children with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with a much cheaper Indian-made alternative has sparked a dispute over the drug’s safety, regulatory procedures and parents' right to know what treatment their children receive.

Health Minister K Muraleedharan has defended the switch to Natco Pharma's generic risdiplam, which is sold as Natsmart. However, some parents and opposition leaders have questioned why bottles supplied to children at the Sree Avittom Thirunal (SAT) Hospital in Thiruvananthapuram were labelled “Physician's Sample” and “For Clinical Trials Only”.

The controversy has since expanded beyond the medicine's price. It now concerns how the drug reached the hospital and what evidence backs its use in children already receiving treatment.

Why Did Kerala Switch To The Generic SMA Medicine?

Also read: 1 In 5 US Lung Cancer Patients Never Smoked: Report Highlights Hidden Risk Factors

SMA is a rare inherited disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness and wasting because of the loss of motor neurons. It can affect movement, swallowing and breathing. Its treatment may need to continue over a long period.

The branded risdiplam, Evrysdi, is manufactured by Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche. Its reported market price is around ₹6.2 lakh per bottle. Natco's generic alternative, Natsmart, is listed at ₹15,900 per bottle. The Kerala government has negotiated even a lower procurement price.

The difference could substantially reduce public expenditure. The state has been providing risdiplam free to eligible children through its KARE programme. Reports indicate that around 109 children are receiving treatment under the scheme.

The generic switch was intended to make treatment more affordable.. Public health expert B Ekbal has backed the decision, arguing that lower-cost medicines can expand access without compromising quality.

The debate is not over whether generic medicines should be used. Opposition leaders, including former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, say their objections concern the handling of the medicine that were labelled for clinical trials and the transparency of its distribution.

‘Clinical Trial’ Label Alarmed The Parents

Also read: Swiss Team Including Indian Scientists Develops Electric Implant To Lower Blood Sugar Without Insulin Or Drugs

The controversy surfaced after families received bottles bearing the clinical trial and physician sample labels. Parents questioned whether their children had been given medicine intended for testing and whether they had adequately informed before.

Former Kerala health minister and CPI(M) leader K K Shailaja raised concerns about quality and the need for transparency and evidence before changing treatment.

“Just because a new company offers a price reduction doesn’t mean we can purchase everything. Besides price reduction, quality is what matters most. Some companies might lower prices just to push unsold products or for other interests,” she said, according to The South First.

The government says the labels indicate that they belong to sample stock and do not mean that the children were enrolled in a clinical trial.

Dr R Shankar, who heads the technical committee that evaluated the medicine, said, “If the concern is over the label, there was ‘physician’s sample’ written on it. It means it is a tested molecule. The container contains the same medicine.”

Hospital authorities said the disputed bottles were taken back after parents raised concerns. The minister has maintained that this was done to address their apprehensions, not because the government had concluded that the medicine was unsafe.

Muraleedharan has said the switch was based on an expert committee's recommendations and that the drug had received regulatory approval.

On October 24, he said, “People had concerns, but the doctors have addressed them. The treating doctors themselves have cleared the doubts.” He also said he would provide further clarification in the state Assembly on October 26.

Also read: Keralam Senior Citizens Bill: What It Means For India’s Ageing Population

SMA Patient Says The Generic Medicine Worked For Her

Amid the concerns, SMA patient Seba P A has defended Natsmart, saying she has taken Natco's generic risdiplam since April through a patient assistance programme. “Taking Natsmart produces the same effect as when I was taking Evrysdi,” she said. “I have felt no issues due to the change in brand.”

Seba also said bottles supplied to her free of cost carried the same physician sample and clinical trial labels. She argued that the labels were intended to prevent the free medicine from being resold.

Is the Generic SMA Drug Safe?

Natsmart contains risdiplam, the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as Evrysdi. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) has approved Natco's formulation for marketing in India.

They maintain that the generic medicine is suitable for patients and that the labels do not indicate an ongoing clinical trial involving the children.

However, questions have been raised about bioequivalence evidence, quality checks and the process followed before procurement. Bioequivalence studies are used to establish whether a generic formulation delivers an active ingredient into the bloodstream at a rate and to an extent comparable with the reference medicine.

The dispute therefore cannot be resolved by comparing prices or relying solely on individual patient experiences. Families need clear information about the product's approval, the evidence for its use in children, the significance of the labels and the safeguards in place to monitor adverse effects.

A combination of two cancer drugs cut the risk of death by 58% in people who have advanced small cell lung cancer, an aggressive form of the disease, according to results from a Phase 3 clinical trial.

The combination pairs Imdelltra (tarlatamab), developed by Amgen, with Imfinzi (durvalumab), an immunotherapy made by AstraZeneca.

In the DeLLphi-305 trial, patients who received both drugs lived a median of 21.1 months, compared to 12.7 months among those who received Imfinzi alone.

The findings were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress in Madrid on October 24, 2026, and published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

More About Imdelltra-Imfinzi Trial

Also read: 1 In 5 US Lung Cancer Patients Never Smoked: Report Highlights Hidden Risk Factors

The results indicated that using tarlatamab earlier in treatment could be beneficial. It is currently approved in the United States for adults with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer that has progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy.

The trial examined its application as a maintenance treatment after patients had completed initial chemotherapy and immunotherapy without their cancer progressing.

“For a disease where durable survival has remained extremely difficult to achieve, the magnitude and consistency of benefit in DeLLphi-305 are striking,” said Jacob Sands, an associate chief of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an investigator in the trial.

The Phase 3 trial included 563 patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer whose disease had not progressed after initial treatment with Imfinzi, platinum-based chemotherapy and etoposide. The main findings were:

- 58% lower risk of death: The combination reduced the risk of death compared to Imfinzi alone.

- 21.1 months median overall survival: This compared to 12.7 months in the Imfinzi-only group.

- Nearly 80% alive at one year: About 79% of patients receiving the combination were alive after 12 months, compared to 53% of those receiving Imfinzi alone.

- 66% lower risk of progression or death: Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with the combination, versus 1.9 months with Imfinzi alone.

These results indicate that the combination improved both overall survival and the time patients lived without their cancer progressing.

More About The Two Drugs

Also read: 'I Never Recovered From That Crash': US Physicist Recalls Her Years-Long Battle With Long COVID

Imdelltra, also known as tarlatamab, is a bispecific antibody that brings immune system T cells into contact with cancer cells, helping the immune system recognise and attack them.

Imfinzi, or durvalumab, blocks the PD-L1 protein, which some cancer cells misuse to evade immune attack.

The two drugs therefore target different aspects of the immune response. Researchers hope that combining them will improve the body's ability to control the cancer.

Jay Bradner, Amgen's executive vice-president of research and development, said, “These results represent an unprecedented advance for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, demonstrating a magnitude of survival benefit rarely seen in this aggressive disease.”

Side effects related to grade 3 or higher treatment occurred in 20.9% of the patients who received the combination, compared to 10.8% of those receiving Imfinzi alone.

Cytokine release syndrome, an inflammatory reaction caused by immune system activation, occurred in 49.6% of patients who received Imdelltra. Most cases were mild or moderate, and one was classified as severe. No deaths were reported.

The findings provide evidence that adding tarlatamab to maintenance immunotherapy can extend survival in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. The researchers also reported benefits among patients with brain or liver metastases.

Despite promising findings, researchers say that the trial focused on a particular cancer type and treatment. Regulatory authorities will need to examine the evidence adopting this combination for earlier stage of treatment.