The End of Cancer?
March 24, 2010 8:42 PM Subscribe
Are we looking at end of Cancer? Human trials of nanobot treatment for cancer have proven the concept:
Targeted nanoparticles deliver RNA substrands that interfere with cancer cells' growth, effectively killing them without side effects. Waste materiels pass out through the urine, effectively ending the need for destructive chemo and radiation therapy in many cases.
Targeted nanoparticles deliver RNA substrands that interfere with cancer cells' growth, effectively killing them without side effects. Waste materiels pass out through the urine, effectively ending the need for destructive chemo and radiation therapy in many cases.
It's too late.
posted by clockzero at 8:51 PM on March 24, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 8:51 PM on March 24, 2010 [2 favorites]
please please please please please please
posted by sallybrown at 8:53 PM on March 24, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:53 PM on March 24, 2010 [2 favorites]
This is really exciting, but obviously a lot of praise surrounding it is premature as StrikeTheViol's comment shows. I think the CalTech press release encourages this by not listing any of the other remaining roadblocks, or explaining what else has to be accomplished before this is a viable treatment. I read it closely and, for a press release, it's pretty vague on what exactly this means.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:54 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:54 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]
Could we please correct the egregious error of calling these "nanobots"? They're nanoparticles. No moving parts, no little robot pinchers, no potential for grey goo.
posted by TBAcceptor at 9:12 PM on March 24, 2010 [19 favorites]
posted by TBAcceptor at 9:12 PM on March 24, 2010 [19 favorites]
Okay, there's a huge difference between "targeted nano-particles" and "nanobots"
posted by delmoi at 9:14 PM on March 24, 2010
posted by delmoi at 9:14 PM on March 24, 2010
It's too late.
I feel this, and I want to favorite it, but I just can't. It's too late for someone I care about, but It's not too late for so many others.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:15 PM on March 24, 2010 [25 favorites]
I feel this, and I want to favorite it, but I just can't. It's too late for someone I care about, but It's not too late for so many others.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:15 PM on March 24, 2010 [25 favorites]
There is potential for grey goo even without nanobots.
Off to clean the kitchen
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:18 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]
Off to clean the kitchen
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 9:18 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]
I wonder how much work goes into manufacturing these things.
posted by delmoi at 9:19 PM on March 24, 2010
posted by delmoi at 9:19 PM on March 24, 2010
Shit; they did a great job with the PR on this one.
"Nanobot". Heh.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:19 PM on March 24, 2010
"Nanobot". Heh.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:19 PM on March 24, 2010
No, it's not the end of cancer.
It will thrive in people
who can't afford treament,
or who can't get treatment,
or who don't merit treatment,
or who are denied treatment.
posted by the Real Dan at 9:22 PM on March 24, 2010 [26 favorites]
It will thrive in people
who can't afford treament,
or who can't get treatment,
or who don't merit treatment,
or who are denied treatment.
posted by the Real Dan at 9:22 PM on March 24, 2010 [26 favorites]
You are of course right, LastOfHisKind. I didn't mean to be excessively negative.
posted by clockzero at 9:26 PM on March 24, 2010
posted by clockzero at 9:26 PM on March 24, 2010
Cancer cured via press release!
posted by benzenedream at 9:27 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 9:27 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]
A scientific research press release is over hyped? Say it ain't so.
posted by demiurge at 9:27 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by demiurge at 9:27 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
A few months after my dad was diagnosed, the New York Times ran a long front page story touting what was then the latest "this could be it" breakthrough.
He just laughed. That was 12 years ago.
posted by stargell at 9:29 PM on March 24, 2010 [7 favorites]
He just laughed. That was 12 years ago.
posted by stargell at 9:29 PM on March 24, 2010 [7 favorites]
Could we please correct the egregious error of calling these "nanobots"?
You just did.
This mean smoking can become chic again?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:59 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
You just did.
This mean smoking can become chic again?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:59 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
Keep in mind that what you call "cancer" is really about 200 different diseases.
posted by neuron at 10:07 PM on March 24, 2010 [7 favorites]
posted by neuron at 10:07 PM on March 24, 2010 [7 favorites]
I feel like I see this headline at least once a year. It's like a bizarro version of the boy who cried wolf.
Eight years into remission, even with the likelihood of decades to spare, I've learned to measure hope out with a spoon & instead focus on being thankful that I'm still around to be reading about things like effin' nanotechnology on the internet.
posted by Hesychia at 10:24 PM on March 24, 2010 [12 favorites]
Eight years into remission, even with the likelihood of decades to spare, I've learned to measure hope out with a spoon & instead focus on being thankful that I'm still around to be reading about things like effin' nanotechnology on the internet.
posted by Hesychia at 10:24 PM on March 24, 2010 [12 favorites]
"Scientists have engineered nanoparticles to target some types of cancer cells, and this is truly wonderful," says Dr. Michael Harbut, director of the Environmental Cancer Initiative at Michigan's Karmanos Cancer Institute. "But until we have sufficient knowledge of, and experience with, this 21st-century version of the surgical scalpel, we run a very real risk of simultaneously destroying healthy cells."--Sweeping AOL News Investigative Report on Nanotech
posted by surewouldoutlaw at 10:31 PM on March 24, 2010
posted by surewouldoutlaw at 10:31 PM on March 24, 2010
This mean smoking can become chic again?
This will be a real concern if an effective general treatment for cancer becomes available. When retro-viral cocktails turned AIDS from a death sentence into an expensive lifelong habit, condom use among at-risk populations went through the floor.
posted by fatbird at 10:40 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
This will be a real concern if an effective general treatment for cancer becomes available. When retro-viral cocktails turned AIDS from a death sentence into an expensive lifelong habit, condom use among at-risk populations went through the floor.
posted by fatbird at 10:40 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
neuron:"cancer" is really about 200 different diseases
from the Nature paper news release: Virtually any gene can be targeted, every protein is now druggable."
While the experiment involved fifteen (inoperable) melanoma patients, the mechanism applies to all types of cancer: it interferes with specific mRNA sequences synthesizing the targeted proteins (RNAi is their term for these mRNA interfering polymers).
To me, this is very exciting new direction for research which until now has only two successful branches: seeing which toxic shit mice can tolerate or blasting different parts of mice with high power microwave radiation.
posted by dongolier at 10:57 PM on March 24, 2010 [5 favorites]
from the Nature paper news release: Virtually any gene can be targeted, every protein is now druggable."
While the experiment involved fifteen (inoperable) melanoma patients, the mechanism applies to all types of cancer: it interferes with specific mRNA sequences synthesizing the targeted proteins (RNAi is their term for these mRNA interfering polymers).
To me, this is very exciting new direction for research which until now has only two successful branches: seeing which toxic shit mice can tolerate or blasting different parts of mice with high power microwave radiation.
posted by dongolier at 10:57 PM on March 24, 2010 [5 favorites]
stargell: According to Wikipedia, those chemicals are still being tested. Here's some recent research using human cells in test-tubes.
But Karl Zimmer had an article about treatments a treatments for heart disease, apparently the time it took from discovery of some cause to actual treatment was like 100 years.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 PM on March 24, 2010
But Karl Zimmer had an article about treatments a treatments for heart disease, apparently the time it took from discovery of some cause to actual treatment was like 100 years.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 PM on March 24, 2010
This will be a real concern if an effective general treatment for cancer becomes available. When retro-viral cocktails turned AIDS from a death sentence into an expensive lifelong habit, condom use among at-risk populations went through the floor.
Oh man, when i was in high school we were having a class discussion about smoking or something, and some kind said he didn't have to worry about it because obviously cancer would just get cured.
posted by delmoi at 11:02 PM on March 24, 2010
Oh man, when i was in high school we were having a class discussion about smoking or something, and some kind said he didn't have to worry about it because obviously cancer would just get cured.
posted by delmoi at 11:02 PM on March 24, 2010
As one whose entire family is prone to being hit with the cancer stick, I'll reserve my jubilation for a headline that says all forms of cancer have been definitely cured.
Until then I remain merely hopeful.
posted by bwg at 11:13 PM on March 24, 2010
Until then I remain merely hopeful.
posted by bwg at 11:13 PM on March 24, 2010
delmoi: "Oh man, when i was in high school we were having a class discussion about smoking or something, and some kind said he didn't have to worry about it because obviously cancer would just get cured."
I'm alternately depressed by and proud of that statement.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:13 PM on March 24, 2010
I'm alternately depressed by and proud of that statement.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:13 PM on March 24, 2010
"You have actually cured cancer?"
"Yes. Yes. Yes we have."
posted by gottabefunky at 11:21 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Yes. Yes. Yes we have."
posted by gottabefunky at 11:21 PM on March 24, 2010 [1 favorite]
First we use the nanoparticles to put inside of us, then the revolution starts ... and the earth turns into a giant cube that glides through space assimilating others.
Sounds good. Let's go.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:46 PM on March 24, 2010
Sounds good. Let's go.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:46 PM on March 24, 2010
Surely this!
posted by bicyclefish at 12:06 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by bicyclefish at 12:06 AM on March 25, 2010
If something similar to this becomes an actual cure for cancer, then it better end up like fluoride in water, and not $50k per treatment.
posted by dglynn at 12:10 AM on March 25, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by dglynn at 12:10 AM on March 25, 2010 [5 favorites]
Also, as a general principle, if a media headline (or even, dare I add, FPP) is phrased in the form of a question, the answer will be, in every instance, "Probably not, but thanks for taking the bait."
Eg.
"Does Gaga have boy parts?"
"Finally, a computer mom can use?"
"Has Rush Limbaugh finally gone too far?"
"Is this the end of racoons as we know them?"
posted by bicyclefish at 12:15 AM on March 25, 2010 [11 favorites]
Eg.
"Does Gaga have boy parts?"
"Finally, a computer mom can use?"
"Has Rush Limbaugh finally gone too far?"
"Is this the end of racoons as we know them?"
posted by bicyclefish at 12:15 AM on March 25, 2010 [11 favorites]
If something similar to this becomes an actual cure for cancer, then it better end up like fluoride in water, and not $50k per treatment.
If everyone can't get it, then no one should get it.
posted by Faze at 12:20 AM on March 25, 2010
If everyone can't get it, then no one should get it.
posted by Faze at 12:20 AM on March 25, 2010
But it causes autism!!1!
posted by ryanrs at 1:00 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 1:00 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
Within a cancerous growth, there is a population of varieties of growths, each populated with different collections of mutations. One of the problems with chemo is that it isn't always enough, in that surviving cancer cells may be from a subpopulation more resistent to subsequent courses of chemotherapy, in a "survival of the fittest" way.
While this therapy looks on the surface to be the famed "magic bullet" or holy grail of sorts of the cancer research field, there is still work to be done to ensure not only that the RNA interference technique hits cancer cells and not healthy tissue, but that the therapy is genetically "broad" enough to knock down or knock out all of the malignant subpopulations, or can be combined with judicious use of other more damaging therapies in a multi-pronged attack that wipes it all out.
I'm hopeful, though. RNAi is a pretty cool and highly specific mechanism to engineer to our purposes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:36 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
While this therapy looks on the surface to be the famed "magic bullet" or holy grail of sorts of the cancer research field, there is still work to be done to ensure not only that the RNA interference technique hits cancer cells and not healthy tissue, but that the therapy is genetically "broad" enough to knock down or knock out all of the malignant subpopulations, or can be combined with judicious use of other more damaging therapies in a multi-pronged attack that wipes it all out.
I'm hopeful, though. RNAi is a pretty cool and highly specific mechanism to engineer to our purposes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:36 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
I wonder if this could be used on other cell types as well. Like to cause your certain tissues to regrow in a very specific way. Nerve tissue for example.
posted by delmoi at 2:10 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by delmoi at 2:10 AM on March 25, 2010
Real progress will be made when prevention is recognized as the long sought after "cure". Unfortunately, the components of that prevention are essential to our current economy - - eg: pollution, processed foods - - so we'll continue to hear stories like this, nibbling away at the back end of the problem.
posted by fairmettle at 2:25 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by fairmettle at 2:25 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
Real progress will be made when prevention is recognized as the long sought after "cure"
There is no way to prevent cancer, only delay it.
posted by delmoi at 2:52 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
There is no way to prevent cancer, only delay it.
posted by delmoi at 2:52 AM on March 25, 2010 [3 favorites]
Wow, if a site devoted to the Singularity says you are overhyping nanotechnology, you know you have a problem.
posted by DU at 3:06 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by DU at 3:06 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
There is no way to prevent cancer, only delay it.
Limiting exposure to carcinogens can prevent some forms of cancer.
posted by tommyD at 3:33 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Limiting exposure to carcinogens can prevent some forms of cancer.
posted by tommyD at 3:33 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
A few months after my dad was diagnosed, the New York Times ran a long front page story touting what was then the latest "this could be it" breakthrough.
He just laughed. That was 12 years ago.
My dad was diagnosed early last year. It doesn't look like the cavalry will arrive in time for him. The closest he got to a new cure was a place on an experimental drug trial which he was pulled out of because it had adverse side effects.
posted by acb at 4:00 AM on March 25, 2010
He just laughed. That was 12 years ago.
My dad was diagnosed early last year. It doesn't look like the cavalry will arrive in time for him. The closest he got to a new cure was a place on an experimental drug trial which he was pulled out of because it had adverse side effects.
posted by acb at 4:00 AM on March 25, 2010
Limiting exposure to carcinogens can prevent some forms of cancer.
Sure, but not all types, obviously.
posted by delmoi at 4:09 AM on March 25, 2010
Sure, but not all types, obviously.
posted by delmoi at 4:09 AM on March 25, 2010
Maybe I've just seen one too many dystopian sci-fi flicks, but the more medical technology advances the more likely it seems to me that we will end up with an insanely stratified system of medical care. One level of care for the masses, another for the well-off, and a third tier for the uber-rich featuring nanotech, cybernetic implants, altered DNA, and some other crazy shit no one has thought of yet.
In the US we've already got this to some extent, but I can't help feeling that it's only going to grow worse from here.
posted by rbellon at 4:17 AM on March 25, 2010
In the US we've already got this to some extent, but I can't help feeling that it's only going to grow worse from here.
posted by rbellon at 4:17 AM on March 25, 2010
This mean smoking can become chic again?
Sure, as soon as they add emphysema, heart disease, and bad breath to the list of things that have been cured.
posted by TedW at 4:19 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
Sure, as soon as they add emphysema, heart disease, and bad breath to the list of things that have been cured.
posted by TedW at 4:19 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
There is no way to prevent cancer, only delay it.
Human Papillomavirus
posted by DU at 4:27 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
Human Papillomavirus
posted by DU at 4:27 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
Are we looking at end of Cancer?
No, the end of Cancer is in July. We're right at the start of Aries.
posted by Malor at 4:34 AM on March 25, 2010 [9 favorites]
No, the end of Cancer is in July. We're right at the start of Aries.
posted by Malor at 4:34 AM on March 25, 2010 [9 favorites]
[Clink]. Adds another nickel to the jar labeled "everytime I hear about an article claiming the cure for cancer".
Hmm. I could buy myself something nice with all of these nickels.
posted by scblackman at 4:35 AM on March 25, 2010
Hmm. I could buy myself something nice with all of these nickels.
posted by scblackman at 4:35 AM on March 25, 2010
Real progress will be made when prevention is recognized as the long sought after "cure"
To put it gently, this is a giant load of dingoes kidneys. There are obviously preventable cancers, but there are also a lot of cancers which just attack the crap out of people for no individually discernable reason. You know, (particularly childhood) lukemia, bone cancer, even lung cancer in people who never smoked a day in their life.
Additionally, cancer predates processed food by several centuries that we know of at least, and hence that's a giant red herring. We diagnose it a lot more now, but that's got a lot more to do with the fact that people aren't dying of other shit, and that we now recognise it when we see it. This is not a bad thing.
Fuck cancer. Seriously. It completely sucks having people you love deal with that shit. But fuck the "it's your fault/it's the modern worlds" fault too. The past sucks, non-smokers get lung cancer, and some people just get a fucked up set of genes for reasons that we havn't yet worked out. And current treatments, which include cutting indiscriminately, and blasting someone with enough radiation to kill every cell in their body twice, completely suck*.
It'd be nice if we could just generate a list of shit to do, and then you never get cancer. But this list would probably only contain the item "don't be alive".
* (i don't mean suck like the usual mefi "that sucks". it sucks, as far as i can tell from watching a loved one have it, like nothing you can possibly imagine).
posted by jaymzjulian at 4:54 AM on March 25, 2010 [13 favorites]
To put it gently, this is a giant load of dingoes kidneys. There are obviously preventable cancers, but there are also a lot of cancers which just attack the crap out of people for no individually discernable reason. You know, (particularly childhood) lukemia, bone cancer, even lung cancer in people who never smoked a day in their life.
Additionally, cancer predates processed food by several centuries that we know of at least, and hence that's a giant red herring. We diagnose it a lot more now, but that's got a lot more to do with the fact that people aren't dying of other shit, and that we now recognise it when we see it. This is not a bad thing.
Fuck cancer. Seriously. It completely sucks having people you love deal with that shit. But fuck the "it's your fault/it's the modern worlds" fault too. The past sucks, non-smokers get lung cancer, and some people just get a fucked up set of genes for reasons that we havn't yet worked out. And current treatments, which include cutting indiscriminately, and blasting someone with enough radiation to kill every cell in their body twice, completely suck*.
It'd be nice if we could just generate a list of shit to do, and then you never get cancer. But this list would probably only contain the item "don't be alive".
* (i don't mean suck like the usual mefi "that sucks". it sucks, as far as i can tell from watching a loved one have it, like nothing you can possibly imagine).
posted by jaymzjulian at 4:54 AM on March 25, 2010 [13 favorites]
Resistance... is... not futile?
posted by kaibutsu at 5:00 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by kaibutsu at 5:00 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
"When we look for donations, we say give us a million $$ so we can find a cure for cancer ... sounds a lot better than give us a million $$ to find a million cures for a million types of cancer.
Or, as a professor once told me, there is no single cure for cancer because cancer is not one disease.
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:07 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Or, as a professor once told me, there is no single cure for cancer because cancer is not one disease.
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:07 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
The best ever explanation I've seen for "why we'll never have a cure for cancer". It explains the problems with cancer research -- and what it's like to actually work on it -- beautifully.
This is a really promising delivery technique for a very powerful tool: RNAi has fantastic potential for switching off expression of various genes fairly easily, and they've demonstrated it very well. Also, they seem to have achieved pretty good delivery by treating the patients by i.v. injection. Plenty of groups have tried this with other methods but tend to lose their drug/virus/whatever as its broken down int the blood, filtered out by the liver, swept up by the immune system or is just too big to work its way between the cells into the tumour.
However, killing cancer cells is not all that difficult; rather targeting cancer cells is hard. It's all about the therapeutic index, i.e. the ratio of damage done to cancer cells against damage done to healthy tissue. While they showed the beginnings of a dose-dependant response, from skimming the paper itself I don't think they've shown that their particles are selective, i.e. they don't know where else their particles are ending up. If they're really confident that the genes they're knocking out are only needed in cancer cells that's fine, but I'd be wary of this treatment until there's a good understanding of where else the nanoparticle is going and what effects its having.
Talking about cancer as "a disease" is a big misnomer; at best it's a huge family of diseases (really nice explanation in this comic). Patterns do emerge -- certain tissues tend to have similar patterns of gene expression between people and therefore tend to give rise to similar cancers -- but each cancer that arises comes about in a different way, and evolves in response to different selective pressures within the body. The biggest of these pressures are fairly obvious like the need for neutrients (so "successful" cancers are the ones that evolve the ability to encourage blood vessels to grow around them) and evading the immune system. So, almost by definition, the outside of a cancer cell is forced to look as similar as possible to the outside or a healthy cell in the same tissue, to avoid detection. So finding a marker on the outside of the cell that we can use as a target for systems like this is very difficult.
Here they've used an ion import molecule called transferrin receptor (or "TFR"). They mention that it's upregulated on the surface of a lot of malignant cells, but they don't mention which healthy cells also express it at high levels. It's not something I know much about, so I don't know whether the answer is "it's a really specific marker for cancer" or "it's upregulated in cancer, we don't really know how it behaves elsewhere". Your target molecule's biodistribution is tremendously important if you're using it to decide which cells live or die.
There are some exploitable internal differences. Most cancers (but by no means all, or even close to all) express hTERT, a gene responsible for repairing the telomeres, whose degradation would otherwise limit the cells' replication. So some researchers (including my former lab) are working on techniques to exploit that e.g. viruses that can only kill cells expressing hTERT. The downside is that some legitimate cells also express hTERT, most notably your stem cells (bone marrow, some other tissues).
Another popular method is just targeting all cells that are highly metabolically active. Cancer cells tend to be working unusually hard (most cells in your body just sit there gently ticking over most of the time), so some cancer therapies target any cells that are burning through a lot of glucose (e.g. radiolabelled glucose is used as a source for imaging techniques like Positron Emission Tomography) or that are doing a lot of DNA replication as part of cell division. Again, though, this targets many cells in your body which are working this hard as a normal part of their programmes.
So this system has fantastic promise, but it has some major hurdles to overcome. They really need a solid demonstration that their target molecule(s) of choice are specific enough to cause acceptable side effects, and that the gene knockouts they're achieving are both toxic to cancer cells and pretty benign for all other cell types.
If we already knew for sure what ligands to tie these particles to for targeting and how to persuade these huge particles to move against a pressure gradient and through a dense, disorganised extra-cellular matrix, cancers wouldn't be half the problem that they actually are. We could be using targeted viruses (Easy to do if you know what you're targeting and if the surrounding tissue isn't too dense), metal nanoparticles, targeted liposomes (little hollow balls of fat) containing toxins or toxin precursors, modified antibodies to alert the immune system to the cancer cells, etc, etc.
Curing a cancer would be pretty easy: throw enough researchers and resources at one patient's specific tumour and we'll come up with a damn fine treatment. But curing all cancers -- different tumours arising from different tissues in different patients -- is seriously hard. We'll see fantastic advances in treating specific cancer types, and huge advances in personally tailored treatments as genome and proteome analysis techniques continue to plummet in price and soar in sophistication. However, I seriously doubt that "a cure for cancer" is possible within our lifetimes.
Although, heh, if you prove me wrong I won't be too upset :).
posted by metaBugs at 5:25 AM on March 25, 2010 [21 favorites]
This is a really promising delivery technique for a very powerful tool: RNAi has fantastic potential for switching off expression of various genes fairly easily, and they've demonstrated it very well. Also, they seem to have achieved pretty good delivery by treating the patients by i.v. injection. Plenty of groups have tried this with other methods but tend to lose their drug/virus/whatever as its broken down int the blood, filtered out by the liver, swept up by the immune system or is just too big to work its way between the cells into the tumour.
However, killing cancer cells is not all that difficult; rather targeting cancer cells is hard. It's all about the therapeutic index, i.e. the ratio of damage done to cancer cells against damage done to healthy tissue. While they showed the beginnings of a dose-dependant response, from skimming the paper itself I don't think they've shown that their particles are selective, i.e. they don't know where else their particles are ending up. If they're really confident that the genes they're knocking out are only needed in cancer cells that's fine, but I'd be wary of this treatment until there's a good understanding of where else the nanoparticle is going and what effects its having.
Talking about cancer as "a disease" is a big misnomer; at best it's a huge family of diseases (really nice explanation in this comic). Patterns do emerge -- certain tissues tend to have similar patterns of gene expression between people and therefore tend to give rise to similar cancers -- but each cancer that arises comes about in a different way, and evolves in response to different selective pressures within the body. The biggest of these pressures are fairly obvious like the need for neutrients (so "successful" cancers are the ones that evolve the ability to encourage blood vessels to grow around them) and evading the immune system. So, almost by definition, the outside of a cancer cell is forced to look as similar as possible to the outside or a healthy cell in the same tissue, to avoid detection. So finding a marker on the outside of the cell that we can use as a target for systems like this is very difficult.
Here they've used an ion import molecule called transferrin receptor (or "TFR"). They mention that it's upregulated on the surface of a lot of malignant cells, but they don't mention which healthy cells also express it at high levels. It's not something I know much about, so I don't know whether the answer is "it's a really specific marker for cancer" or "it's upregulated in cancer, we don't really know how it behaves elsewhere". Your target molecule's biodistribution is tremendously important if you're using it to decide which cells live or die.
There are some exploitable internal differences. Most cancers (but by no means all, or even close to all) express hTERT, a gene responsible for repairing the telomeres, whose degradation would otherwise limit the cells' replication. So some researchers (including my former lab) are working on techniques to exploit that e.g. viruses that can only kill cells expressing hTERT. The downside is that some legitimate cells also express hTERT, most notably your stem cells (bone marrow, some other tissues).
Another popular method is just targeting all cells that are highly metabolically active. Cancer cells tend to be working unusually hard (most cells in your body just sit there gently ticking over most of the time), so some cancer therapies target any cells that are burning through a lot of glucose (e.g. radiolabelled glucose is used as a source for imaging techniques like Positron Emission Tomography) or that are doing a lot of DNA replication as part of cell division. Again, though, this targets many cells in your body which are working this hard as a normal part of their programmes.
So this system has fantastic promise, but it has some major hurdles to overcome. They really need a solid demonstration that their target molecule(s) of choice are specific enough to cause acceptable side effects, and that the gene knockouts they're achieving are both toxic to cancer cells and pretty benign for all other cell types.
If we already knew for sure what ligands to tie these particles to for targeting and how to persuade these huge particles to move against a pressure gradient and through a dense, disorganised extra-cellular matrix, cancers wouldn't be half the problem that they actually are. We could be using targeted viruses (Easy to do if you know what you're targeting and if the surrounding tissue isn't too dense), metal nanoparticles, targeted liposomes (little hollow balls of fat) containing toxins or toxin precursors, modified antibodies to alert the immune system to the cancer cells, etc, etc.
Curing a cancer would be pretty easy: throw enough researchers and resources at one patient's specific tumour and we'll come up with a damn fine treatment. But curing all cancers -- different tumours arising from different tissues in different patients -- is seriously hard. We'll see fantastic advances in treating specific cancer types, and huge advances in personally tailored treatments as genome and proteome analysis techniques continue to plummet in price and soar in sophistication. However, I seriously doubt that "a cure for cancer" is possible within our lifetimes.
Although, heh, if you prove me wrong I won't be too upset :).
posted by metaBugs at 5:25 AM on March 25, 2010 [21 favorites]
If everyone can't get it, then no one should get it.
Caltech does get a hell of a lot of the funding for their labs from the government, Faze.
posted by JaredSeth at 5:44 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Caltech does get a hell of a lot of the funding for their labs from the government, Faze.
posted by JaredSeth at 5:44 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
I sure hope so. Then again Lily is suing Hospira to prevent them in making a generic cancer drug. Oh the humanity that people can actually aford their cancer drug.
Christ, what assholes!
posted by stormpooper at 6:11 AM on March 25, 2010
Christ, what assholes!
posted by stormpooper at 6:11 AM on March 25, 2010
As long as we're making calls to cease and desist on the nanobot front, could we drop Grey Goo from the lexicon?
I mean I get the fear of a nanotech device that chops things up going rogue or in the wrong hands or whatever. And given the hype that, well, look at the linked article, people believe nanotech is somehow magic and not bound by things like mass action or the conservation of energy or stuff like that.
Think about it for a minute. What sort of things is our nano-scourge really chopping on? Atomic bonds. What kind of bonds? All of them. How many kinds of bonds are there? Uh, er...hell, I have a degree in chemistry and I'm not even going to try and answer that, other than to say that if you think the bonds between the two carbons in ethane, ethanol, acetaldehyde and acetic acid are all the same, you're not going to pass organic.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:12 AM on March 25, 2010
I mean I get the fear of a nanotech device that chops things up going rogue or in the wrong hands or whatever. And given the hype that, well, look at the linked article, people believe nanotech is somehow magic and not bound by things like mass action or the conservation of energy or stuff like that.
Think about it for a minute. What sort of things is our nano-scourge really chopping on? Atomic bonds. What kind of bonds? All of them. How many kinds of bonds are there? Uh, er...hell, I have a degree in chemistry and I'm not even going to try and answer that, other than to say that if you think the bonds between the two carbons in ethane, ethanol, acetaldehyde and acetic acid are all the same, you're not going to pass organic.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:12 AM on March 25, 2010
Grey goo is robot cancer. The obvious way to fight it, of course, is to make green goo from genetically engineered slime molds. That will create a three tiered balance of power, making it just as weak and impotent as the US government.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:28 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:28 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'll second what Metabugs said. This is a fascinating study (although this is the publicity promo, not the publication). It has several key advances in a field that so far has had a lot of promise but not a lot delivered (at least in terms of therapeutics).
But... cancer is not one thing. This same method would have to be re-tailored for hundreds of cancers - if those cancers will benefit from shutting down a rogue protein. Secondly, while shutting down a key protein that is being made can stop such things as proliferation of cancer cells, it is not the same as eliminating the tumor.
These were from phase one trials. The drop out rate between phase one and clinical approval is enormous, I'm guessing one out of a hundred therapies make it. Let's see if these actually cure a single cancer first before we go crazy about this. So far, they've just shown proof of concept - the drug gets to the correct site and has its prescribed action.
My personal preference is that the public ignores these until they pass many more hurdles. It raises false hopes and makes people blame science for being dishonest because of how so many of these eventually fail.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:46 AM on March 25, 2010
But... cancer is not one thing. This same method would have to be re-tailored for hundreds of cancers - if those cancers will benefit from shutting down a rogue protein. Secondly, while shutting down a key protein that is being made can stop such things as proliferation of cancer cells, it is not the same as eliminating the tumor.
These were from phase one trials. The drop out rate between phase one and clinical approval is enormous, I'm guessing one out of a hundred therapies make it. Let's see if these actually cure a single cancer first before we go crazy about this. So far, they've just shown proof of concept - the drug gets to the correct site and has its prescribed action.
My personal preference is that the public ignores these until they pass many more hurdles. It raises false hopes and makes people blame science for being dishonest because of how so many of these eventually fail.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:46 AM on March 25, 2010
That phdcomics link argues its point horribly, and I'm kind of amazed that it's held in such high regard. The five things that cancer does to become cancer, listed in that large central panel? Those are restrictions that mutated cells must satisfy in order to become cancerous- hurdles that a cell must overcome in order to be cancerous. A mutated cell has to do all of those things before it becomes cancerous. Each of those things represents a commonality between cancers.
Yes, cancers are variegated. But they certainly have a lot in common- the comic just enumerated a bunch of things they have in common for you, in the same breath that it says "all cancers are different".
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:04 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yes, cancers are variegated. But they certainly have a lot in common- the comic just enumerated a bunch of things they have in common for you, in the same breath that it says "all cancers are different".
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:04 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
If they got rid of cancer, what would fuel my hypochondriac paranoia?
Ah yes, Lou Gehrig's disease.
posted by bjork24 at 7:16 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
Ah yes, Lou Gehrig's disease.
posted by bjork24 at 7:16 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
Also, as a general principle, if a media headline (or even, dare I add, FPP) is phrased in the form of a question, the answer will be, in every instance, "Probably not, but thanks for taking the bait."
viz the Daily-Mail-O-Matic.
HAS FEMINISM BURGLED THE COUNTRYSIDE?
WILL CHAVS GIVE YOUR PENSION CANCER?
ARE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS HAVING SEX WITH YOUR HOUSE?
IS DUMBING-DOWN HAVING SEX WITH THE CHURCH?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:20 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
viz the Daily-Mail-O-Matic.
HAS FEMINISM BURGLED THE COUNTRYSIDE?
WILL CHAVS GIVE YOUR PENSION CANCER?
ARE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS HAVING SEX WITH YOUR HOUSE?
IS DUMBING-DOWN HAVING SEX WITH THE CHURCH?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:20 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, the components of that prevention are essential to our current economy - - eg: pollution, processed foods
... mitosis ...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:21 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
... mitosis ...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:21 AM on March 25, 2010 [4 favorites]
Doubtful there will be a true end to cancer, or any illness for that matter, unless the cost is high.Just like the cure for AIDS, you'll never see it because then drug companies won't make as much money for the medicine.
posted by bordensize at 7:22 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by bordensize at 7:22 AM on March 25, 2010
Doubtful there will be a true end to cancer, or any illness for that matter, unless the cost is high. Just like the cure for AIDS, you'll never see it because then drug companies won't make as much money for the medicine.
I don't know any cancer researchers and/or drug company execs personally, but I'm going to assume they are actually human beings. The majority of us (maybe even all of us) know someone who has had or even died from cancer. Same with the researchers and execs. Many people have cancer themselves or expect to get it someday due to genetics. Same with the researchers and execs. I find it hard to believe that some researcher/exec would see the end to this plague in sight and turn away because the cost isn't high enough.
Plus, even a fairly cheap or less profitable cancer drug would be a money-maker; demand would be astronomically high.
posted by sallybrown at 7:30 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't know any cancer researchers and/or drug company execs personally, but I'm going to assume they are actually human beings. The majority of us (maybe even all of us) know someone who has had or even died from cancer. Same with the researchers and execs. Many people have cancer themselves or expect to get it someday due to genetics. Same with the researchers and execs. I find it hard to believe that some researcher/exec would see the end to this plague in sight and turn away because the cost isn't high enough.
Plus, even a fairly cheap or less profitable cancer drug would be a money-maker; demand would be astronomically high.
posted by sallybrown at 7:30 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Doubtful there will be a true end to cancer, or any illness for that matter, unless the cost is high. Just like the cure for AIDS, you'll never see it because then drug companies won't make as much money for the medicine.
nobody would choose not to cure cancer out of a fear the money train might stop.
the money train will never stop.
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:58 AM on March 25, 2010
nobody would choose not to cure cancer out of a fear the money train might stop.
the money train will never stop.
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:58 AM on March 25, 2010
Jpfed - I think the comic strikes the right balance between the commonalities and differences.
I agree that it does state the things they have in common strongly and in a fairly attention-grabbing way. Right in the middle, it very clearly describes the phenotypic changes that cells must acquire to become cancerous, which serves as a nice explanation of what's going on in the disease. This is important, to make people understand what we mean when we say "cancer".
However, the text in the surrounding bubbles clearly explains that it's not a single mutation, that many different mutations must combine to have those net effects, and that the process can occur "in many different ways and through many different means, which makes it difficult to find a common cure". This enlarges on the point above it that "...it can change from person to person, and even within the same person" and that they're working toward a "million different cures for a million types of cancers".
So in my reading of the comic, it does a good job of explaining that cancers have common charateristics but that they all arrive at these characteristics through different ways and mechanisms, making treatment development (and choice) hard. Both of these are important for a layperson to understand, and emphasising one over the other would be counterproductive IMO.
I admit I might be biased here. I've been a fan of PhD Comics for a few years, and the sections of this comic about how it feels to be working on cancer really struck home for me, especially as I was trudging through my cancer-related thesis at the time it came out.
bordensize ...Just like the cure for AIDS,...
Wait, what? The cure for AIDS - a rapidly-mutating virus that can lie dormant in outwardly normal-looking immune cells - is a non-trivial problem. There are plenty of scandals in the way that drug companies operate,* but you have to remember that it's not just drug companies who're working on this problem. Plenty of academic labs (funded by universities, govts, charities, rich donors, etc) are working on the problems, as are plenty of smaller labs that are desperate to get an edge on the giant pharma companies. The big conspiracy theories like that one only work if everyone has agreed to stifle the research. Even if the big two or three companies have an informal treaty that none of them are to try, the worst that'd happen is a slightly slower cure, not *no* cure.
Also, sallybrown is right. The argument that "there's a cure for cancer but no-one will release it because of the money" can only work if everyone involved is a totally heartless bastard. Practically everyone knows someone who's suffered from cancer, and many of us in cancer research have worked to get here because we want to contribute to a cure. None of us enjoy being accused of genocide in the name of profits.
*If you want to be angry about drug companies and AIDS: The vast majority of world AIDS cases are in the southern half of Africa, with a sizable chunk in parts of Asia. Penetrance of the disease through those countries is terrifying and, in many places, transmission isn't slowing down.** Now, HIV has evolved into several different strains, called "clades": like different versions of the flu, a vaccine for one won't protect against the others. Guess where all the billions spent on HIV vaccines are going... that's right, to the clade most prevalent in North America and most of Western Europe. Far, far, fewer patients saved but far, far bigger profit margains. To be fair to conspiracy nuts everywhere, they are sliding toward "supervillain" territory there. But it's not like a cure is being suppressed, or totally ignored; govt and charity funded labs around the globe are tending to focus on vaccines and treatments for Africa and Asia. Because there's a huge army of scientists out there who are decent human beings and have the freedom to research outside the limits of direct profitability.
**It doesn't help that Bush refused to fund aid agencies that handed out condoms... abstainance-only education was good enough for American kids so it was good enough for everywhere that desperately needed help with rampaging and deadly STIs. The Catholic Church has done an astonishing amount of damage in Africa and South America for much the same reasons. But I digress
posted by metaBugs at 7:58 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
I agree that it does state the things they have in common strongly and in a fairly attention-grabbing way. Right in the middle, it very clearly describes the phenotypic changes that cells must acquire to become cancerous, which serves as a nice explanation of what's going on in the disease. This is important, to make people understand what we mean when we say "cancer".
However, the text in the surrounding bubbles clearly explains that it's not a single mutation, that many different mutations must combine to have those net effects, and that the process can occur "in many different ways and through many different means, which makes it difficult to find a common cure". This enlarges on the point above it that "...it can change from person to person, and even within the same person" and that they're working toward a "million different cures for a million types of cancers".
So in my reading of the comic, it does a good job of explaining that cancers have common charateristics but that they all arrive at these characteristics through different ways and mechanisms, making treatment development (and choice) hard. Both of these are important for a layperson to understand, and emphasising one over the other would be counterproductive IMO.
I admit I might be biased here. I've been a fan of PhD Comics for a few years, and the sections of this comic about how it feels to be working on cancer really struck home for me, especially as I was trudging through my cancer-related thesis at the time it came out.
bordensize ...Just like the cure for AIDS,...
Wait, what? The cure for AIDS - a rapidly-mutating virus that can lie dormant in outwardly normal-looking immune cells - is a non-trivial problem. There are plenty of scandals in the way that drug companies operate,* but you have to remember that it's not just drug companies who're working on this problem. Plenty of academic labs (funded by universities, govts, charities, rich donors, etc) are working on the problems, as are plenty of smaller labs that are desperate to get an edge on the giant pharma companies. The big conspiracy theories like that one only work if everyone has agreed to stifle the research. Even if the big two or three companies have an informal treaty that none of them are to try, the worst that'd happen is a slightly slower cure, not *no* cure.
Also, sallybrown is right. The argument that "there's a cure for cancer but no-one will release it because of the money" can only work if everyone involved is a totally heartless bastard. Practically everyone knows someone who's suffered from cancer, and many of us in cancer research have worked to get here because we want to contribute to a cure. None of us enjoy being accused of genocide in the name of profits.
*If you want to be angry about drug companies and AIDS: The vast majority of world AIDS cases are in the southern half of Africa, with a sizable chunk in parts of Asia. Penetrance of the disease through those countries is terrifying and, in many places, transmission isn't slowing down.** Now, HIV has evolved into several different strains, called "clades": like different versions of the flu, a vaccine for one won't protect against the others. Guess where all the billions spent on HIV vaccines are going... that's right, to the clade most prevalent in North America and most of Western Europe. Far, far, fewer patients saved but far, far bigger profit margains. To be fair to conspiracy nuts everywhere, they are sliding toward "supervillain" territory there. But it's not like a cure is being suppressed, or totally ignored; govt and charity funded labs around the globe are tending to focus on vaccines and treatments for Africa and Asia. Because there's a huge army of scientists out there who are decent human beings and have the freedom to research outside the limits of direct profitability.
**It doesn't help that Bush refused to fund aid agencies that handed out condoms... abstainance-only education was good enough for American kids so it was good enough for everywhere that desperately needed help with rampaging and deadly STIs. The Catholic Church has done an astonishing amount of damage in Africa and South America for much the same reasons. But I digress
posted by metaBugs at 7:58 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
metaBugs- the number of mutations would be especially relevant if we were treating the cancer specifically by targeting the mutations themselves in some way. But it seems like there would be other possible approaches.
For example, and take my words with a grain of salt because I am not a biologist in any capacity and it's been a long time since I've taken any biology courses, but if cancer cells are reproducing really fast, then either they
1. have also found a way to get their mitochondria to reproduce really fast (if there are fewer ways to do this, this could be a bottleneck to target)
2. are relying on converting glucose to pyruvic acid for most of their energy (weak sauce)
3. have found a new way to make ATP (seems unlikely)
4. are doing something else that I don't know about (admittedly a possibility)
If they're relying on breaking down glucose to pyruvic acid for most of their energy (and I thought that most of our cells get a pittance of energy from this process) might we get some headway against a wide variety of cells that reproduce really fast by somehow attacking/slowing that breakdown?
This is all just to say that even the broad similarities might afford some avenues of attack.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:20 AM on March 25, 2010
For example, and take my words with a grain of salt because I am not a biologist in any capacity and it's been a long time since I've taken any biology courses, but if cancer cells are reproducing really fast, then either they
1. have also found a way to get their mitochondria to reproduce really fast (if there are fewer ways to do this, this could be a bottleneck to target)
2. are relying on converting glucose to pyruvic acid for most of their energy (weak sauce)
3. have found a new way to make ATP (seems unlikely)
4. are doing something else that I don't know about (admittedly a possibility)
If they're relying on breaking down glucose to pyruvic acid for most of their energy (and I thought that most of our cells get a pittance of energy from this process) might we get some headway against a wide variety of cells that reproduce really fast by somehow attacking/slowing that breakdown?
This is all just to say that even the broad similarities might afford some avenues of attack.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:20 AM on March 25, 2010
Plus, even a fairly cheap or less profitable cancer drug would be a money-maker; demand would be astronomically high.
I once worked with a guy who had worked in a pharmaceutical company. He claimed that the pharmaceutical companies spend 70% of their budget buying out and burying any research that may lead to a cure for (as opposed to lifelong, lucratively expensive, treatment for) profitable illnesses like cancer.
If you get cancer, you're supposed to lease your life back from the drug companies for $1000/month. Technology is supposed to extend how long the deal goes (until you become medically bankrupt, ideally). It's not supposed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
posted by acb at 8:20 AM on March 25, 2010
I once worked with a guy who had worked in a pharmaceutical company. He claimed that the pharmaceutical companies spend 70% of their budget buying out and burying any research that may lead to a cure for (as opposed to lifelong, lucratively expensive, treatment for) profitable illnesses like cancer.
If you get cancer, you're supposed to lease your life back from the drug companies for $1000/month. Technology is supposed to extend how long the deal goes (until you become medically bankrupt, ideally). It's not supposed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
posted by acb at 8:20 AM on March 25, 2010
I find it hard to believe that some researcher/exec would see the end to this plague in sight and turn away because the cost isn't high enough.
awwww....look at yer little CHEEKS!
posted by DU at 8:21 AM on March 25, 2010
awwww....look at yer little CHEEKS!
posted by DU at 8:21 AM on March 25, 2010
Well, I'm crossing my fingers at least. A good friend was just diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. Early 40's, and a vegetarian to boot - talk about unexpected...
posted by chundo at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by chundo at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2010
I once worked with a guy who had worked in a pharmaceutical company. He claimed that the pharmaceutical companies spend 70% of their budget buying out and burying any research that may lead to a cure for (as opposed to lifelong, lucratively expensive, treatment for) profitable illnesses like cancer.
This is, of course, nonsense.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:48 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
This is, of course, nonsense.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:48 AM on March 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
I don't know if the guy you worked with was pulling your leg, or crazy, or just a pathological liar, but I've been pretty closely involved in this kind of research for the past 10 years, and the claim that drug companies "buy out and bury" state-of-the-art cancer research is simply false. Most treatments of this kind die in the regulatory approval process. This particular research is promising because it's looking good in phase I. Still two phases to go, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:50 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by mr_roboto at 8:50 AM on March 25, 2010
I find it hard to believe that some researcher/exec would see the end to this plague in sight and turn away because the cost isn't high enough.
awwww....look at yer little CHEEKS!
I won't deny that I'm naive about these issues (or that I have adorable cheeks), but isn't it also naive to think that a large number of people around the world would band together with their direct competitors and choose not to cure a disease that many of them could die from--and that even if this happened, no one inside these companies would blow the whistle and no one outside these companies would hear about it?
posted by sallybrown at 8:54 AM on March 25, 2010
awwww....look at yer little CHEEKS!
I won't deny that I'm naive about these issues (or that I have adorable cheeks), but isn't it also naive to think that a large number of people around the world would band together with their direct competitors and choose not to cure a disease that many of them could die from--and that even if this happened, no one inside these companies would blow the whistle and no one outside these companies would hear about it?
posted by sallybrown at 8:54 AM on March 25, 2010
Cancer survivor check in. Represent!
Can they cure cancer? I hope so. But I won't hold my breath.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:57 AM on March 25, 2010
Can they cure cancer? I hope so. But I won't hold my breath.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:57 AM on March 25, 2010
As a cancer researcher, I want to voice caution. There have been many such breaksthrough (heh, heh, like "passersby") over the years, such as platinum. targeted therapies, antiagiogenesis that raised such hopes, but the reality turns out to be so much less.
That said, I hope this does turn out to be a major or even the principal weapon of choice in cancer therapy that can stop most of them in their tracks. I'm still most hopeful for prevention strategies that mean no one will ever have to hear "You have cancer." We have that potential now for cervical cancer (HPV vaccines) and for colon cancer (removal of polyps), but much work to do in other cancer sites.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:57 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
That said, I hope this does turn out to be a major or even the principal weapon of choice in cancer therapy that can stop most of them in their tracks. I'm still most hopeful for prevention strategies that mean no one will ever have to hear "You have cancer." We have that potential now for cervical cancer (HPV vaccines) and for colon cancer (removal of polyps), but much work to do in other cancer sites.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:57 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
If something similar to this becomes an actual cure for cancer, then it better end up like fluoride in water
posted by dglynn
A communist plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids?
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:03 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by dglynn
A communist plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids?
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:03 AM on March 25, 2010
...isn't it also naive to think that a large number of people around the world would band together with their direct competitors and choose not to cure a disease that many of them could die from--and that even if this happened, no one inside these companies would blow the whistle and no one outside these companies would hear about it?
If you don't think people won't act against their own direct and obvious self-interest for short-term greed (or simple stupidity) you haven't been watching the Republican rank and file for very long.
I'm not saying that Big Pharma is deliberately suppressing anything. But the argument that "they are human beings who could be harming someone they love" applies equally well to HCR opposition, wars based on lies and climate-change denial and all those things are happening.
posted by DU at 9:05 AM on March 25, 2010
If you don't think people won't act against their own direct and obvious self-interest for short-term greed (or simple stupidity) you haven't been watching the Republican rank and file for very long.
I'm not saying that Big Pharma is deliberately suppressing anything. But the argument that "they are human beings who could be harming someone they love" applies equally well to HCR opposition, wars based on lies and climate-change denial and all those things are happening.
posted by DU at 9:05 AM on March 25, 2010
@Jpfed: Not to mention the fact that, if you can figure out how to disrupt any of those common traits, you win or at least buy a huge amount of time. That doesn't seem hopeless to me.
That said, cured in _our_ lifetimes? GLWT.
posted by paanta at 9:23 AM on March 25, 2010
That said, cured in _our_ lifetimes? GLWT.
posted by paanta at 9:23 AM on March 25, 2010
Cancer got my mom 22 years ago; she died when she was just a few months older than I am now. When I think about cancer, what goes through my head is pretty much James Earl Jones riffing on a classic Bill Cosby routine: "Natural selection brought you into this world, and natural selection can take you out." So, rock on with those nanoparticles, because that's pretty much how I expect to go.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:26 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:26 AM on March 25, 2010
The argument that "there's a cure for cancer but no-one will release it because of the money" can only work if everyone involved is a totally heartless bastard. Practically everyone knows someone who's suffered from cancer, and many of us in cancer research have worked to get here because we want to contribute to a cure.
I work for a non-profit cancer research statistical lab. Our CEO's motto is "Our job is to try and lose our jobs." There's a lot of reasons to dislike pharma, but "not wanting to find cures" really isn't one of them. Imagine, say, a drug company actually did manage to find a cure for, oh, follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They'd make billions, not only in drug revenue, but the incredible PR? Unimaginable.
posted by Skot at 9:33 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
I work for a non-profit cancer research statistical lab. Our CEO's motto is "Our job is to try and lose our jobs." There's a lot of reasons to dislike pharma, but "not wanting to find cures" really isn't one of them. Imagine, say, a drug company actually did manage to find a cure for, oh, follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They'd make billions, not only in drug revenue, but the incredible PR? Unimaginable.
posted by Skot at 9:33 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
If I were a betting man, I'd confidently bet that this is no cure for cancer - it probably isn't even a cure for a single form of cancer... the odds are against it. Do you have any idea how many therapies and "breakthroughs" were heralded as the "cure for cancer"? Heck, the entire biotechnology industry bubble back in the 80's arose on that hope - how little we have to show for all those billions. And this press release will join a Mount Everest of other press releases over the past century, soon to be rendered equally irrelevant. Having read this release, I think that at best, this will be a useful technique in a limited number of cases, and actually probably in diseases or conditions having nothing to do with cancer - and that's the good case... but the odds are, nothing whatever useful will come of this (other than a spur for developing other techniques). That doesn't mean we shouldn't fund further research - I'm all for spending at least as much on medical research as we do on the military, but we should keep things in perspective.
posted by VikingSword at 9:36 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by VikingSword at 9:36 AM on March 25, 2010
Imagine, say, a drug company actually did manage to find a cure for, oh, follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They'd make billions, not only in drug revenue, but the incredible PR?
I agree, but notice that in your scenario they are motivated not by their human feelings but by profit.
posted by DU at 9:38 AM on March 25, 2010
I agree, but notice that in your scenario they are motivated not by their human feelings but by profit.
posted by DU at 9:38 AM on March 25, 2010
I agree, but notice that in your scenario they are motivated not by their human feelings but by profit.
Ye-e-e-s . . . it's hard not to notice. I'm not sure what your point is. I never argued that pharma operates out of pure goodwill. I was merely rebuffing suggestions above that they actively suppressed viable treatment options and/or (devoutly hoped for) cures.
posted by Skot at 9:46 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Ye-e-e-s . . . it's hard not to notice. I'm not sure what your point is. I never argued that pharma operates out of pure goodwill. I was merely rebuffing suggestions above that they actively suppressed viable treatment options and/or (devoutly hoped for) cures.
posted by Skot at 9:46 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
As far as the grey goo scare, I do worry about unintended consequences. My brother was given thyroid radiation as a child, to fix something that probably didn't need to be fixed, but now he has to get tested for thyroid cancer. Targeting treatment to cells sounds fine, but the possibility that a lab will create a nanocritter that heals something, but also causes some other effect that isn't immediately recognized, seems likely. Being cautious is not a bad idea.
posted by theora55 at 10:02 AM on March 25, 2010
posted by theora55 at 10:02 AM on March 25, 2010
I'm totally ready for nano-particles to be part of my future. If it means I'll stay in remission, then sign me up!
... still waiting for that non-invasive Star Trek medicine.
posted by _paegan_ at 10:22 AM on March 25, 2010
... still waiting for that non-invasive Star Trek medicine.
posted by _paegan_ at 10:22 AM on March 25, 2010
Sorry, I don't spend much time at the computer during the day so I'm not great at keeping up with conversations like this.
Jpfed - If they're relying on breaking down glucose to pyruvic acid for most of their energy (and I thought that most of our cells get a pittance of energy from this process) might we get some headway against a wide variety of cells that reproduce really fast by somehow attacking/slowing that breakdown? ...
This is all just to say that even the broad similarities might afford some avenues of attack.
Yes. In most cancers (well, maybe just "many"; I'm not sure), there's a big shift toward anaerobic respiration. I've never read up on it much, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a limit on how fast mitochondria can be reproduced is a limiting factor. (As a side note: this makes solid tumours somewhat acidic environments, which I think is where some of the nonsense about acid/alkiline diet to treat cancer comes from.) At least a few groups are exploring the reasons for this shift, the consequences for the cell and how we might be able to exploit it as a target. Of course, there's the usual problem that plenty of cells need to use this pathway for perfectly legitamate reasons, so the therapeutic index might not be great. It's an area that's being actively researched, though.
I agree with you up to a point, I think it's just one of those cases where the "broad similarities" they share are too broad to be very useful. Generally, something that they all do will just be an exagguration of something that all cells do anyway (e.g. cancer cells are undergoing more DNA replication, burning more glucose, using more anaerobic respiration... etc) so it's very hard to target one of those activities without a lot of collattoral damage. Indeed, this is why chemotherapy is so horrible: Chemo drugs just tend to kill all cells that are dividing a lot. This gets the cancer cells but gets others (manufacturing blood, skin, hair, mucous membranes, etc) in the crossfire. To get a really selective drug we need something almost unique to the cancer. Unfortunately, all the truly wacky stuff that a cancer does has either evolved de novo or, more commonly, come about through one of an astronomical number of possible combinations of mutations.
DU - I'm not saying that Big Pharma is deliberately suppressing anything. But the argument that "they are human beings who could be harming someone they love" applies equally well to HCR opposition, wars based on lies and climate-change denial and all those things are happening.
Yes, and here we are on a website where we regularly talk about these things, read interviews with and articles about whistleblowers and leaked information, and openly mock people who're trying to distort or hide the truth. (Or, at least, what current evidence and theory leads us to believe the truth to be)
Your scenario only works if both:
a) Not a single person (NB: not an automaton in a white coat or company drone, but a person like you and me, who has probably lost relatives and/or friends to cancer) has ever stolen a hard drive, forwarded an email or got drunk at a conference to spill the beans. Because they were mad at their boss, bribed by a rival company, or were struck by the thought that they could gain international fame and heroic status while healthily prolonging millions or billions of lives. Not one, single person has slipped.
AND
b) Only one group saw the research direction and jumped on the idea. Science is a competative field: Everyone reads the literature, and is racing to get to the next step first. If there really was a promising course toward a universal treatment, there's no way that only one lab would be working on it. They'd be racing against their competitors, or trying a slight variant on the same approach to come at it from another angle. The final "breakthrough" is the culmination of thousands of tiny, incremental steps taken by rival or collaborating labs to tease out the details. There's no way that all of those tiny steps happened as normal, but then the breakthrough happened behind closed doors and no-one outside saw the same potential but never thought to follow up on it.
posted by metaBugs at 10:52 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Jpfed - If they're relying on breaking down glucose to pyruvic acid for most of their energy (and I thought that most of our cells get a pittance of energy from this process) might we get some headway against a wide variety of cells that reproduce really fast by somehow attacking/slowing that breakdown? ...
This is all just to say that even the broad similarities might afford some avenues of attack.
Yes. In most cancers (well, maybe just "many"; I'm not sure), there's a big shift toward anaerobic respiration. I've never read up on it much, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a limit on how fast mitochondria can be reproduced is a limiting factor. (As a side note: this makes solid tumours somewhat acidic environments, which I think is where some of the nonsense about acid/alkiline diet to treat cancer comes from.) At least a few groups are exploring the reasons for this shift, the consequences for the cell and how we might be able to exploit it as a target. Of course, there's the usual problem that plenty of cells need to use this pathway for perfectly legitamate reasons, so the therapeutic index might not be great. It's an area that's being actively researched, though.
I agree with you up to a point, I think it's just one of those cases where the "broad similarities" they share are too broad to be very useful. Generally, something that they all do will just be an exagguration of something that all cells do anyway (e.g. cancer cells are undergoing more DNA replication, burning more glucose, using more anaerobic respiration... etc) so it's very hard to target one of those activities without a lot of collattoral damage. Indeed, this is why chemotherapy is so horrible: Chemo drugs just tend to kill all cells that are dividing a lot. This gets the cancer cells but gets others (manufacturing blood, skin, hair, mucous membranes, etc) in the crossfire. To get a really selective drug we need something almost unique to the cancer. Unfortunately, all the truly wacky stuff that a cancer does has either evolved de novo or, more commonly, come about through one of an astronomical number of possible combinations of mutations.
DU - I'm not saying that Big Pharma is deliberately suppressing anything. But the argument that "they are human beings who could be harming someone they love" applies equally well to HCR opposition, wars based on lies and climate-change denial and all those things are happening.
Yes, and here we are on a website where we regularly talk about these things, read interviews with and articles about whistleblowers and leaked information, and openly mock people who're trying to distort or hide the truth. (Or, at least, what current evidence and theory leads us to believe the truth to be)
Your scenario only works if both:
a) Not a single person (NB: not an automaton in a white coat or company drone, but a person like you and me, who has probably lost relatives and/or friends to cancer) has ever stolen a hard drive, forwarded an email or got drunk at a conference to spill the beans. Because they were mad at their boss, bribed by a rival company, or were struck by the thought that they could gain international fame and heroic status while healthily prolonging millions or billions of lives. Not one, single person has slipped.
AND
b) Only one group saw the research direction and jumped on the idea. Science is a competative field: Everyone reads the literature, and is racing to get to the next step first. If there really was a promising course toward a universal treatment, there's no way that only one lab would be working on it. They'd be racing against their competitors, or trying a slight variant on the same approach to come at it from another angle. The final "breakthrough" is the culmination of thousands of tiny, incremental steps taken by rival or collaborating labs to tease out the details. There's no way that all of those tiny steps happened as normal, but then the breakthrough happened behind closed doors and no-one outside saw the same potential but never thought to follow up on it.
posted by metaBugs at 10:52 AM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
What metaBugs said. Take a look at their conclusion:
None of this is to take away from the accomplishment of effective delivery of siRNA (followed by actual targetted inhibition!); siRNA's turned out to be promising but very frustrating to actually use as a therapy, and I'm glad to see people are getting it to work in vivo - and not only in vivo, but in the human body, not a cell culture dish. But this isn't a treatment for cancer yet, let alone a cure.
(And really:
But the argument that "they are human beings who could be harming someone they love" applies equally well to HCR opposition, wars based on lies and climate-change denial and all those things are happening.
Yes, and there are huge numbers of people at all levels of society who hold the opposite viewpoints! Any giant conspiracy to hide climate change and the shittiness of the American health care system is failing, badly. So, to say "yes, some pharma people are probably heartless bastards who would happily hide a cure for cancer if they thought that would be more lucrative" does nothing to prove that anything's actually being hidden. Cancer research doesn't go on in pharma only. Universities and national labs across the world are working hard on the same projects, in many countries. There are too damn many people in too many institutions pursuing similar research related to cancer (including me, in the past) for anything like that to be kept secret for long.
I once worked with a guy who had worked in a pharmaceutical company. He claimed that the pharmaceutical companies spend 70% of their budget buying out and burying any research that may lead to a cure for (as opposed to lifelong, lucratively expensive, treatment for) profitable illnesses like cancer.
If companies actually were doing this, you'd think they'd do a better job of creating "lifelong, lucratively expensive treatment[s]" for cancer. As it is, lots of people die pretty damn fast (not maximally lucrative!), and a lot of people who get better get frequent checkups but aren't on any long-term meds after it looks like the cancer's in remission (also not maximally lucrative!) Plus, 70% of their ginormous budgets? Who's supposed to be getting these billion-dollar payoffs? And again, a conspiracy that would require tens of thousands of people worldwide to keep completely silent? Come on. The expensive part of pharma - in real life - is finding out whether your cancer-killing wonder drug does anything at all in people, and whether it's got unforeseen nasty side effects that didn't show up in the petri dish or in your mouse studies, not to mention paying for the hundreds of drugs who reach this level of testing only to fail.)
posted by ubersturm at 12:27 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
When taken together, the data presented here provide the first, to our knowledge, mechanistic evidence of RNAi in a human from an administered siRNA. Moreover, these data demonstrate the first example of dose-dependent accumulation of targeted nanoparticles in human tumours. The reduction of the RRM2 mRNA and protein by the RRM2-specific siRNA is observed, and the results from 5′-RLM-RACE analyses show that the delivered siRNA engages the RNAi machinery. These data demonstrate that RNAi can occur in a human from a systemically delivered siRNA, and that siRNA can be used as a gene-specific therapeutic.That's a lot more limited than "cure for cancer!" The nanoparticles (not bots!) are arriving in the tumors, and siRNA is getting in, and they've got some evidence it's chopping up some mRNA and maybe even lowering protein levels, and that's great. But - based on that paper at least, since I'll readily admit I don't study this system - I really agree that there's not enough evidence for specificity or for effectiveness as a drug. How frequently does the transferrin receptor they use for uptake show up in healthy cells? Are there entire tissues (or stages of life) where it's upregulated in any normal cells? Once you get healthy cells being hit by your therapeutic method, you've got the same problem we already have with traditional chemotherapy and radiation: the meds hurt you and not just your tumor. That's the big challenge of cancer: it is, in a very real way, us, and it's really really hard to kill only the cancer. (There are other questions I've got about this specific approach: can the target protein be fully knocked down with siRNA at all? Does knocking down the protein have any useful effect on the cancer cells? Will cancer cells be able to figure out a way around using whatever protein is produced - or living with whatever low levels remain after the knockdown? Are there many cancer strains that don't use the transferrin receptor, or that don't have any appropriate transporters that are present in greater numbers primarily in cancer cells? Etc.)
None of this is to take away from the accomplishment of effective delivery of siRNA (followed by actual targetted inhibition!); siRNA's turned out to be promising but very frustrating to actually use as a therapy, and I'm glad to see people are getting it to work in vivo - and not only in vivo, but in the human body, not a cell culture dish. But this isn't a treatment for cancer yet, let alone a cure.
(And really:
But the argument that "they are human beings who could be harming someone they love" applies equally well to HCR opposition, wars based on lies and climate-change denial and all those things are happening.
Yes, and there are huge numbers of people at all levels of society who hold the opposite viewpoints! Any giant conspiracy to hide climate change and the shittiness of the American health care system is failing, badly. So, to say "yes, some pharma people are probably heartless bastards who would happily hide a cure for cancer if they thought that would be more lucrative" does nothing to prove that anything's actually being hidden. Cancer research doesn't go on in pharma only. Universities and national labs across the world are working hard on the same projects, in many countries. There are too damn many people in too many institutions pursuing similar research related to cancer (including me, in the past) for anything like that to be kept secret for long.
I once worked with a guy who had worked in a pharmaceutical company. He claimed that the pharmaceutical companies spend 70% of their budget buying out and burying any research that may lead to a cure for (as opposed to lifelong, lucratively expensive, treatment for) profitable illnesses like cancer.
If companies actually were doing this, you'd think they'd do a better job of creating "lifelong, lucratively expensive treatment[s]" for cancer. As it is, lots of people die pretty damn fast (not maximally lucrative!), and a lot of people who get better get frequent checkups but aren't on any long-term meds after it looks like the cancer's in remission (also not maximally lucrative!) Plus, 70% of their ginormous budgets? Who's supposed to be getting these billion-dollar payoffs? And again, a conspiracy that would require tens of thousands of people worldwide to keep completely silent? Come on. The expensive part of pharma - in real life - is finding out whether your cancer-killing wonder drug does anything at all in people, and whether it's got unforeseen nasty side effects that didn't show up in the petri dish or in your mouse studies, not to mention paying for the hundreds of drugs who reach this level of testing only to fail.)
posted by ubersturm at 12:27 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Like everyone else has said, this is merely snakeoil up until the point it is shown to improve cancer outcomes in real patients by a randomized trial. And on its own, I doubt this treatment would work well because as others have pointed out, cancer is perfectly suited to evolve immunity to a particular siRNA. This treatment is a dull scalpel that cancers can dodge as soon as the scalpel gets close. However, if we had a microscope to help us aim the scalpel, me might have more luck.
So when combined with the dramatic fall in the cost of nucleic acid sequencing, this RNAi technology becomes extremely fascinating. Prices are changing really fast, but right now we can get a nearly exhaustive catalog of tumor's idiosyncrasies, in terms of mutations and gene levels, for only a few thousand dollars within a few weeks time. In a year, it will cost only a few hundred dollars to sequence all the mRNA in a tumor biopsy. Five years ago, this was hopelessly expensive and would have taken far too long. And in contrast to predicting intelligence or behavior from DNA, it's straightforward and plausible to get a list of genes that are changed in a particular tumor by sequencing the mRNA. We already have a fair amount of knowledge about which genes are important in cancer and how they interact with each other, and this knowledge is only growing, so we can foresee being able to predict the effects of targeting particular genes in a particular tumor.
With a tumor's list of gene aberrations in hand, using RNAi has a huge advantage over traditional drugs. An siRNA is (somewhat) easily targeted to an arbitrary gene, but even with unlimited financial resources it would take years to design a traditional drug, when its even possible. This nanoparticle delivery system gives us hope of being able to combine multiple RNAi treatments to hit multiple parts of a tumor at once. and ordering a customized RNAi cocktail to target multiple genes at once.
If I seem breathless, it's because this really does changes how we can think of attacking cancer. We've never had this type of microscope before, and we've never had this type of molecular scalpel. What we've been able to do up until now is pretty much like swinging a bat around while blindfolded. It causes damage everywhere, and we just hope the cancer feels it more than the patient. "Cancer" as a whole seems to be a hopeless challenge because of its great diversity, and most people are resigned to having to slowly discover a huge portfolio of treatments. Using RNAi gives us the portfolio of targeted treatments by its very design. Even if it doesn't end up actually affecting outcomes, this really does change how we can dream of attacking a tumor, and even targeted siRNA fails completely as a cancer treatment, we still have the microscope and at least know what to try to use as the scalpel.
posted by Llama-Lime at 4:15 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
So when combined with the dramatic fall in the cost of nucleic acid sequencing, this RNAi technology becomes extremely fascinating. Prices are changing really fast, but right now we can get a nearly exhaustive catalog of tumor's idiosyncrasies, in terms of mutations and gene levels, for only a few thousand dollars within a few weeks time. In a year, it will cost only a few hundred dollars to sequence all the mRNA in a tumor biopsy. Five years ago, this was hopelessly expensive and would have taken far too long. And in contrast to predicting intelligence or behavior from DNA, it's straightforward and plausible to get a list of genes that are changed in a particular tumor by sequencing the mRNA. We already have a fair amount of knowledge about which genes are important in cancer and how they interact with each other, and this knowledge is only growing, so we can foresee being able to predict the effects of targeting particular genes in a particular tumor.
With a tumor's list of gene aberrations in hand, using RNAi has a huge advantage over traditional drugs. An siRNA is (somewhat) easily targeted to an arbitrary gene, but even with unlimited financial resources it would take years to design a traditional drug, when its even possible. This nanoparticle delivery system gives us hope of being able to combine multiple RNAi treatments to hit multiple parts of a tumor at once. and ordering a customized RNAi cocktail to target multiple genes at once.
If I seem breathless, it's because this really does changes how we can think of attacking cancer. We've never had this type of microscope before, and we've never had this type of molecular scalpel. What we've been able to do up until now is pretty much like swinging a bat around while blindfolded. It causes damage everywhere, and we just hope the cancer feels it more than the patient. "Cancer" as a whole seems to be a hopeless challenge because of its great diversity, and most people are resigned to having to slowly discover a huge portfolio of treatments. Using RNAi gives us the portfolio of targeted treatments by its very design. Even if it doesn't end up actually affecting outcomes, this really does change how we can dream of attacking a tumor, and even targeted siRNA fails completely as a cancer treatment, we still have the microscope and at least know what to try to use as the scalpel.
posted by Llama-Lime at 4:15 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Cancer survivor check in. Represent!
Can they cure cancer? I hope so. But I won't hold my breath.
posted by Hildegarde at 11:57 AM on March 25 [+] [!]
Renal Cell Carcinoma, clear type, 1 year 3 months postop. :)
I hope everyday they come up with better treatments for cancer. Even prior to me having cancer I was involved with St. Baldrick's Foundation which raises money for research against childhood cancers. I shave my head on the 27th (go to stbaldricks.org and search for Suzy Smith to see my page.)
RCC reoccurs so often that I hope every single day that they will come up with more effective treatments. Right now the drug that has the most hope for RCC patients (who have reoccurrence) has a 7% chance of a cure. 7 percent.
Yeah, I want a cure, but, I don't have much hope for this.
posted by SuzySmith at 6:32 PM on March 25, 2010
For all those still interested I would direct you to read this excellent blog post speaking directly on this article by none other than Derek Lowe who was featured previously on The Blue.
Mr. Lowe, who is listed as a practicing pharmaceutical chemist, says that this research is quite promising.
I'm excited.
posted by Severian at 8:39 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mr. Lowe, who is listed as a practicing pharmaceutical chemist, says that this research is quite promising.
I'm excited.
posted by Severian at 8:39 PM on March 25, 2010 [1 favorite]
Nanobots eh, let's hope they're not created by genetically modified E-coli, that would just be a recipe for disaster!
I kid, I kid! This is very serious. *serious face* I like the idea of nanotech in medicine.
posted by foxy at 7:27 AM on March 26, 2010
I kid, I kid! This is very serious. *serious face* I like the idea of nanotech in medicine.
posted by foxy at 7:27 AM on March 26, 2010
But will these nanobots turn me into a superhero like the radiation treatments will?
posted by HFSH at 8:48 AM on March 26, 2010
posted by HFSH at 8:48 AM on March 26, 2010
Engines of Healing. Chapter 7 of K. Eric Drexler's 1986 book outlining the future possibilities of nanotechnology, Engines of Creation. Yeah, some of Drexler's conclusions are controversial but it is a (was, anyway) a thought provoking book.
posted by bz at 9:01 AM on March 26, 2010
posted by bz at 9:01 AM on March 26, 2010
The "In The Pipeline" post is good, but again, the message I see in it is that this research is promising in the "if we can get these techniques working, it'd open up a lot of possibilities" sense, not the "this is a cure for cancer" sense. Lowe's blog has a lot of entries dealing with just how damn hard it is to go from initial good results to final drug. Regarding this specific paper, he's concerned that one of the three patients didn't show any uptake, and two of the three (including one who did show uptake) only had one round of treatment. (This doesn't even get into the possibility of off-target effects in the rest of the body!) Furthermore, as Lowe says, "is this therapy doing the patients any good? Unfortunately, the trial results themselves are not out yet, so we don't know." And that's a pretty big question!
Again, the research is exciting because we're finally seeing evidence of siRNA introduced into human cells actually getting in and maybe even working, and because we're increasingly able to target delivery of things (siRNA or otherwise) to tumors, if they have certain types of up-regulated membrane proteins. But it's still way premature to say that this particular nanoparticle system is promising as a drug.
posted by ubersturm at 12:09 PM on March 26, 2010
Again, the research is exciting because we're finally seeing evidence of siRNA introduced into human cells actually getting in and maybe even working, and because we're increasingly able to target delivery of things (siRNA or otherwise) to tumors, if they have certain types of up-regulated membrane proteins. But it's still way premature to say that this particular nanoparticle system is promising as a drug.
posted by ubersturm at 12:09 PM on March 26, 2010
« Older HURF DURF 1000 CALORIE EATERS | Murder weapons Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I have three friends who could really use an effective anti-cancer treatment right now.
posted by zarq at 8:46 PM on March 24, 2010 [3 favorites]