Researchers Use 'Decoy' Molecule to Treat Cancer

Jerry Rivers writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that scientists in British Columbia have successfully used a 'decoy' molecule to shrink advanced prostate tumors. Citing a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the the Globe story explains how the researchers are the first to find a way to block the process of androgen reception in cells and prevent, a key trigger in the onset of prostate cancer."

Too late but in time

[SteveAstro]

I lost a couple of close relatives to prostate cancer, from whom I learned a lot and who always had time for me.

These things are always too late for someone we loved, but hopefully in time for others.

Steve

Only problem is..

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Sad thing is that *if* a treatment ever makes it to the market, it won't be until 5 or 10 years from now.

Soon, soon, soon....

[blankoboy]

that seems to be the word uttered in many of these 'cure' articles. I really wish they wouldn't build up false hopes for those suffering from these horrible diseases. If you want venture capital support, surely there's got to be a better way to go about getting it.

We had X-Prize for getting into space. Can we not get C-Prize started to find a cure for cancer? With all the hacking skills in the tech world I am certain we could nip cancer in the bud if that talent was applied to hacking the disease.

In Perspective

[RonBurk]

All new methods of interfering with cancer are welcome news; only the significance varies.

a) This is a mouse study. A required early step for a cancer treatment, but by no means indicative of significance. We have many, many treatments that cure cancer pretty well in lab mice.

b) The line of attack here is interfering with a growth factor. Unfortunately, cancer is generally good at mutating and "learning about" new growth factors. Hence, the saying "prostate cancer doesn't kill people -- prostate cancer metastasis kills people." It would be unsurprising if this technique joined the (already swollen) ranks of treatments that can successfully lower PSA without actually significantly reducing the number of patients who die, or significantly extending their lives.

c) On the plus side, keep in mind that prostate cancer is a rather indolent cancer (compared to, say, breast cancer). If you ain't got it, the tedious and ancient prescription of eating your vegetables, exercising, and not getting fat are a really good bet for decreasing the odds you'll ever die from it. We now overdetect prostate cancer (find/treat lots of cases that were never going to actually kill anyone), so don't get too anxious about the statistics that say you're pretty likely to get it in your lifetime. You're way more likely to get thyroid cancer -- without ever knowing it or suffering any ill effects from it.

Re:Only problem is..

[Wilson_6500]

.... litigation after (sometimes perceived) errors by scientists and drug companies has caused reluctance to make new medicines rapidly available.

And then people complain that doctors have some kind of conspiracy to hold back new medications. It's a sad, vicious cycle.

(Please note: I'm not accusing anyone in this discussion of this. I'm speaking only of majority or vocal minority opinion. It's only understandable to wish that a cure had come just a few years sooner.)

Re:moo

[xilmaril]

As a half-corillary I think it is better than AIDS treatments. Most of that is completely preventable. Just don't have sex, not a problem of /.ers, or use protection, and don't share needles.

unless you were born with it, or you have no real sex education. (see major portions of africa)

I know you mean that it's completely avoidable for slashdotters and people in wealthy societies, and I agree, but I just had to throw that out there.