Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Technology

Matching Cancers With the Best Chemical Treatments 68

Roland Piquepaille writes "When oncologists meet a new patient affected by a cancer, they have to take decisions about the best possible treatment. Now, U.S. researchers have devised an algorithm which matches tumor profiles to best treatments. They've used a panel of 60 diverse human cancer cell lines from the National Cancer Institute — called NCI-60 — to develop their "coexpression extrapolation (COXEN) system." As said one researcher, "we believe we have found an effective way to personalize cancer therapy." Preliminary results have been encouraging and clinical trials are now planned."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matching Cancers With the Best Chemical Treatments

Comments Filter:
  • Insurance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChromeAeonium ( 1026952 ) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @01:56AM (#19993103)
    Lets just hope that doctors who use this algorithm still throughly examine every patient before beginning treatment, because, while probably useful, I doubt its as effective as a full examination by a professional. I kinda wonder if this would be used in lesser insurance policies to substitute extensive examinations. Premium insurance plan gets a full examination prior to treatment, the plans that cost less have the cancer run through an equation, and a treatment is printed out.
  • Not a new idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Crashbull ( 1133163 ) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @03:19AM (#19993511)
    There is a lab in Germany that's been doing that for years now. This isn't a new idea. I'm just really surprised and a bit disappointed that no one in the US has bothered to do something like this before.
  • Good news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wamerocity ( 1106155 ) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @06:18AM (#19994333) Journal

    I work at the Huntsman Cancer Hospital, a division of the University of Utah hospital. I draw blood on dozens of patients every day and see the same pattern of treatment as we see similar cancer patients come in. I can only see this as a good thing to help diversify and specialize treatments.

    As someone who won the lottery and was treated in a cancer hospital myself, I found my doctor seemed to put me on a fast track to treatment, straight out of the books, which involved removing an important part of my anatomy (not THAT part). With much resistance on my part, I got him to investigate other options and I actually got to keep my spleen.

    From a doctors POV, I know it can be difficult as well as uneconomical to see every patient as a super-special-individual-with-their-own-needs-and- feelings, but with the type of stigma surrounding the C-word (not THAT C-word) it is pretty much a necessity, at least from my experience. If this new system requires doctors to spend a little more time with a patient and yield a higher success rate, then it is an all-around win.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @08:12AM (#19994851)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) * on Thursday July 26, 2007 @09:23AM (#19995547) Journal
    Oh really? So doctors have hastened the end of the hand-scrawl prescription so they can replace it with a computerized database that automatically checks for possible excessive dosage or condition interaction? So doctors quickly change to empirically validated methodologies that sidestep their "expertise" for a rote checklist? So doctors are interested in lifting the artificial limits on MDs granted? So doctors never wait until a patient "asks his doctor about NewMeda" to research it, and never change their treatment recommendation based on that? (You might want to have a word with pharma ad departments ...)

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...