Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Fighting Cancer with Math

Posted by Zonk on Tue May 31, 2005 11:39 PM
from the what-can't-math-do? dept.
Math Science
zoloback writes "A group of scientists have developed a mathematical method to fight certain forms of cancer. The study has taken the team several years, but the first trial on a human has been successful. You can read the actual paper. It looks like a huge advancement in science, because there's a possibility to extrapolate the method to other types of cancer" From the article: "The researchers have evidence to show that all tumors grow in the same way, irrespective of the tissue or species in which they develop. In a previous paper, these researchers reported that tumor growth, rather than being exponential as commonly believed, is a much slower "linear" process similar to the growth of certain crystals and other natural phenomena."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Fighting Cancer with Math 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • But she blinded me with science!

    I'm Dancin Santa, bitch!
  • If this works the way they say it does, then all I can say is that someone has just won a nobel prize.
    • Seriously. First thing that crossed my mind reading the summary was "wow, that took some serious out-of-the-box thinking".

      If this works, these guys deserve a world of recognition.
        • Weeeeeeee! #1!

          Come on; english is my second language, but "out of the box thinking" is a common expresion for someone who attacks a problem in a completely new and unthought-before way. Relax.
    • Um, Nobel Prize?
      There is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (and it has nothing to Alfred Nobel's wife). [snopes.com]
      But yes, the mathematicians might get a Nobel for "Physiology/Medicine". Cool! The only other Mathematician I know who has won a Nobel Prize is of course John Nash, for economics.

    • Re:If this is true (Score:4, Informative)

      by greenskyx (609089) * on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:02AM (#12691326)
      I thought I'd send a quick response to this. You can't get a nobel prize in Mathematics [mathforum.org]. I'm not sure if they could get one with this research for medicine though. I'm guessing it's that possible. Peace.
    • From the article:

      "By using a mathematical formula formula designed to strengthen the immune system, a team of scientists in Spain have succeeded in curing a patient who was in the last stage of terminal liver cancer."

      A cure for cancer? By using math? Astounding! Unfortunately, the paper is rather short, and only speaks about the linear growth aspect.

    • Re:If this is true - unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spitshine (259841) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:31AM (#12691428) Homepage
      The paper was published in 2003 and was cited twice in total - by themselves (I just checked Web of Science [isiknowledge.com]).
      If there would be a real advancement behind this, many people would use it. Sad but true, but they sound like quacks.
    • Growth front analysis based on fractal theory is a pretty common method. It can also be used to describe advancing flames, the growth of thin films, growths of plants and bacteria colonies etc.

      Its application in medical sciences may be rare - mostly because med. people are not really fond of mathematics.

      Given the background of these methods I would be suprised if this was the first time it is applied to the growth of cancer. The article seems to be well written and pretty comprehensive though, thus it is

  • Not really (Score:4, Informative)

    by fgl (792403) <daniel@notforsale.co.nz> on Tuesday May 31 2005, @11:44PM (#12691243) Homepage Journal
    Im very Impressed Im sure. But its not really fighting cancer with math, just creating a good model on how to repond with the treatments we have.

  • Giving Myself the Finger (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday May 31 2005, @11:46PM (#12691246) Homepage Journal
    I've been recovering from a broken finger the past month or so. I've studied the stemcell research describing the process. And what would otherwise be vague itching, swelling and aching instead resolves to actual awareness of incremental growth in the new tissue. I've modified the splint in feedback with the changing critical anatomical areas, and already have much more mobility than the literature describes. Before it's even completely healed. As we do more research on these self-organizing cellular growth systems, we'll be able to work with these tissues, facilitating their growth for maximum recovery with minimum risk and downtime. Theraputic stemcells are just the mannered cousins of tumorcells - we might very well live to see a day when they're all domesticated for our health, and even recreation.
    • Who needs stem cell research it for "recreational" use. I've got a mail box full of 'enhancing' growth pills. And I'm sure they didn't use stem cell research to get those 'doctor' approved pills to add inches etc...

      If you want, I could forward them to you. :D

      cheers.

  • A joke... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MagicDude (727944) on Tuesday May 31 2005, @11:49PM (#12691265)
    Remind me of the joke on how mathematicians fight fire...

    A physicist, an engineer, and a mathematician are staying in a hotel in separate rooms. A fire breaks out in the physicist's bathroom. The physicist wakes up, sees the fire, does some calculations on his calculator, fills a cup of water, and throws it at the base of the fire putting it out while getting the rest of the bathroom hardly wet at all, and then goes back to sleep.

    A fire breaks out in the engineer's bathroom later that night. The engineer wakes up, sees the fire, runs into the hallway and brings the firehose into the bathroom and lets the stream go full blast. After a minute or so, the fire is out, and the bathroom is soaking wet with water dripping everywhere, but the fire is out and the engineer goes back to bed.

    A fire breaks out in the mathematician's room. The mathematician wakes up and sees the fire, does some lengthy calculations on paper, lights a match and drops it in a glass of water, says "It can be done", and goes back to bed.
    • The way I heard the final bit was:

      "The mathematician wakes up in the middle of the night, lights a match, sets the place on fire, then goes back to bed, having reduced the problem to a previously solved one."
    • I fight cancer with math, too. I have for all my life. For instance, I fight ovarian cancer by having a 0% chance of developing it based on my gender, race, and age.
        • Therefore your gender has nothing to do with your contracting aviary cancer.

          Very astute observation. It's most likely your species that dictates your ability to develop aviary cancer.

    • Re:A joke... (Score:5, Funny)

      by IntelliTubbie (29947) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @01:23AM (#12691611)
      A fire breaks out in the mathematician's room. The mathematician wakes up and sees the fire, does some lengthy calculations on paper, lights a match and drops it in a glass of water, says "It can be done", and goes back to bed.

      A mathematician doing an experiment? Never! (And yes, I am one.) The mathematician sees the fire, notices a glass of water on his nightstand, proclaims, "A solution exists!" and goes back to bed.

      Cheers,
      IT

  • Against my faith. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Seumas (6865) on Tuesday May 31 2005, @11:50PM (#12691271)
    I'm sorry, but my faith does not allow for medical/mathematical intervention. You must allow my child to die to fulfill god's glorious plan.

    You can stuff all your "evolution" and "math" voodoo. Fucking heathens!
    • I'm sorry, but my faith does not allow for medical/mathematical intervention. You must allow my child to die to fulfill god's glorious plan.

      Shouldn't be a problem if you're Catholic. Remember: it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to prevent pregnancy with mathematics, though sinful to use physics or chemistry.
  • What's next, a 'Grow Your Own Cancer' kit like those crystal ones? I hope it works better than the crystal ones do...

  • sound methodology... (Score:5, Funny)

    by aendeuryu (844048) on Tuesday May 31 2005, @11:53PM (#12691280)
    1. Confuse the tumours with complex calculus.
    2. When they're not expecting it, nab 'em!
  • "The patient responded well to the treatment immediately and has since made a total recovery and has returned to work."

    I find it really sad to consider that a person almost died and that the "positive outcome" is that he returned to work.
    • Well, maybe that was best for that particular person, but I get your point.

      Hey, you reading this. You are going to die. Subtract the number 68 from your age. That's a good guess at how much time you have left, but no guarantees. What are you doing with your life between now and then? And if you have to die in the next minute, are you going to be satisfied with the way you've used your time? If not, start changing now.

      Bruce

      • Hey, you reading this. You are going to die. Subtract the number 68 from your age. That's a good guess at how much time you have left, but no guarantees.

        Damn, I'm already decades in the hole. On the bright side, someone who's 100 years old still has 32 years left!
    • "I find it really sad to consider that a person almost died and that the "positive outcome" is that he returned to work."

      Would you have preferred it if the outcome was "The patient responded well to the treatment immediately, but was unable to regain enough of his normal life to return to work"?

  • 3.141592654 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kinky Bass Junk (880011) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:02AM (#12691322)
    Now fighting cancer is easy as pi!

  • more in depth links... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kesuki (321456) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:05AM (#12691337) Journal
    http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34220 [hypography.com]

    http://physics.about.com/b/a/088887.htm [about.com]

    the blog entry that they linked to was kinda vauge on details ;) turns out the only math the used was in calculating how tumours grow, and how they prevent immune responses, so they figured out an immune system response they can trigger that will cause the cells that cause tumours to grow to become a 'target' of the patients immune system. no math equasion used to 'cure' it at all, just a little deductive reasoning and science...
  • From the article:

    "create a treatment based on neutrofiles that strengthened the patient's immune system. The patient responded well to the treatment immediately and has since made a total recovery and has returned to work."

    So it wasn't just math. Biology also helped.

  • No cure here... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hung_himself (774451) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:49AM (#12691499)
    From what I read in the article, they were just able to simulate something resembling real tumours using a linear growth model. But then the article itself says in the discussion that no one has ever observed non-linear exponential growth in real tumors anyways so people (with the possible exception of other modelers) have obviously taken this into account. Not clear to me whether any of the results from their model are novel nor are their assertions about the nutrient dependence of tumor growth convincing without some real experiments.

    As a computational biologist, I'm not knocking the usefulness of these types of mathematical approaches - and what they seem to have is a nice and maybe even a correct tumorigensis model, but let's keep it real - this is far from a cure for cancer...

  • Not as "new" or "revolutionary" as advertised (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cascino (454769) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:55AM (#12691517) Homepage
    This stuff's been done for years - just google "gompertz cancer" and you'll see what I mean. I was part of a team that developed a mathematical model for the growth (and cure - using a modified virus, but that's a whole different story) of multiple myeloma in immunodeficient mice. Perhaps they've applied a new model (I only glanced at the paper), but this certainly isn't the first time and it certainly won't be the last time research along these lines has taken place. A lot of very smart people have spent decades working on such research.

    Of course it's great to see an advancement in science, particularly applied math, but those calling for the Nobel should take a deep breath and relax - cancer isn't going away anytime soon.
  • This has to be the coolest thing I've read on Slashdot in months. I will eat spanish food for a week in their honor and will buy twenty Euros and hang it on my cubicle wall.

  • Still early days. (Score:5, Informative)

    by scottZed (787286) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @01:09AM (#12691575)

    There is a follow-up article criticizing the original article: abstract [nih.gov]

    And a response by the original authors: abstract [nih.gov]

    In any event, it's a little premature to celebrate. Their follow-up work in mice (abstract [nih.gov]) used implanted tumours. It is already known that tumours have the capacity to evade immune response, and we should not be surprised that implanting a foreign tumour mass into a host and stimulating the immune system will provoke a favourable response. The situation is more complicated when trying to raise the immune system to attack a tumour comprised of one's own cells. It seems to me that, at this point, they are trying to prove their particular growth model, not developing a de facto cure.

    That their devised strategy worked on a single human subject is cause for optimism, and nothing more. That work has not been published (that I could find), so there is no way to properly assess the result. At this point, they are more than likely drumming up press to ensure continued funding for their research... not that there's anything wrong with that ;).

  • Some Background... (Score:3, Informative)

    by KrackHouse (628313) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @01:23AM (#12691616) Homepage
    This is from an old article describing the results on mice...
    Link [about.com]
    "In 16 mice with a tumor mass in the muscle, the researchers induced neutrophil production by administering an immune system booster known as GM-CSF over two months. In a short time, they observed that GM-CSF altered the growth dynamics of the cells. The tumors of two mice regressed completely and 80-90% tumor-cell death was seen in the rest. If the growth dynamics of tumors are universal, there is every reason to be hopeful the same result could be obtained in humans."

    And some detail on how it works...
    "Tumor cells, they have found, grow through the diffusion or migration of cancer cells at the tumor's outer edges. Only the cells close to the edge of the tumor proliferate--those inside the tumor do not, contrary to previous assumptions. According to the researchers' observations, cells formed at the edge of the tumor diffuse at the border of the tumor mass until they settle in curved depressions where the competition for space is lowest and where they are best protected from the immune system. In their new paper, Bru and co-workers show that the mechanical pressure exerted by immune-system cells known as "neutrophils" around mouse tumors can prevent the diffusion of these cells and thus prevent tumor growth."

    I'm too much of a damn pessimist to believe it's true after reading something similar to this just about every week followed by "could lead to treatments"... Here's hoping I'm wrong.

  • bad /. headline, interesting paper (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cahiha (873942) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @01:40AM (#12691686)
    Tumor growth rates are a hotly debated topic. This paper contains some interesting ideas. But the headline incorrectly suggests that "fighting cancer with math" is something new. Biologists have been using mathematics, including differential equations and fractals for as long as they have been around (in fact, a lot of math comes from biological problems).

    On quick reading, this paper seems to argue primarily that it is not nutrients, but cell diffusion, that limits cancer growth rates. That hypothesis is supported by observing similarities between the growth behavior and shapes created by processes in that class and real tumors. Interesting, but only weak evidence. They'll need to refine their hypothesis and test it more directly experimentally.
    • "Nurse quick I need 20cc's of the quadratic equation STAT!!!"

    • Re:Could they elaborate a bit? (Score:5, Informative)

      by zoloback (785676) on Tuesday May 31 2005, @11:51PM (#12691275)
      The breakthrough lies in the connection between the variables that allow a tumor to grow and the control that can be put over those variables, a lot of these were never considered before (such as barometric pressure inside the mass, and blood vessel proliferation).
      This are easily controllable factors, so instead of treating the tumor by trying to kill the cells via radio or chemical therapy, they attack the factors that (in a mathematical model) determine the growth of the tumor, turning them into negative variables and therefore extinguishing the mass
      • ... so instead of treating the tumor by trying to kill the cells via radio or chemical therapy, they attack the factors that (in a mathematical model) determine the growth of the tumor, turning them into negative variables and therefore extinguishing the mass.

        Unfortunately some of the most promising drugs that work to shrink tumors are not improving survival rates whatsoever. They are, in fact, shrinking the tumors "like they're supposed to", but this isn't doing anything to stop progression of the cancer

    • could someone explain it to me?

      It's simple, really. The cancer can't survive if the host organism is dead. Therefore scientists have proposed boring cancer sufferers to death with complex mathematical proofs, hence killing the cancerous cells and preventing the patient from having to suffer the horrible death that cancer brings.

      It is not the point that the boring mathematical proofs are a more painful death that the years of suffering at the hands of cancer and conventional treatments.

    • Yup. Funny you should mention that because I had a similar thought as soon as I read the article, too. What hit me was, "Reading articles like this makes me glad I subscribe to /."

      To the poster, contributors, and Slashdot creators alike: thanks.

      Oh, and the users are sometimes OK, too. ;-)

    • Re:Interesting Application of Math (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Umm... yeah. That's how radiation therapy works. It isn't because of the fact that cancer cells, as their DNA is often times in an exposed, vulnerable state to to rapid division, is more succeptible to damage from the radiaton (or chemotherapy) dose than most non-carcinomic cells are.

    • Re:Nature is nothing if not clever (Score:5, Informative)

      by bersl2 (689221) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @12:14AM (#12691373) Journal
      how much are we tempting Nature to change the formula

      Cancer is an anomaly of mitosis; it is not an organism and therefore does not evolve. The body regularly squashes cells which go into a sort-of mitotic infinite loop, and that's the end of that. It's the ones that the immune system does not recognize that grow into tumors.
      • it does. there is selection pressure given everytime when tumor cells grow. e.g. immune system, chemo, radiation etc. so if you tried to treat cancer with drugs, chances are, if you do not eliminate them totally, what happen would be tumor cells expressing exporters of drugs.

        in short,

        (1) they reproduce
        (2) they are susceptible to changes

        ==> (3) they evolve
    • Every time we seem to be making progress against some virus or bacteria, it mutates and foils our efforts.

      Every time? What about polio, smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus?

    • Maybe with this new treatment, "Move Along, Nothing to see here" will actually have some relevance.

      Maybe if it's Ben Kenobi who says so.

      "These aren't the cells you're looking for. Move along." (waves hand)

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.