Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Treating Cancer with Beams of Anti-Matter 55

Posted by michael from the dr.-mccoy-is-more-dangerous-than-he-looks dept.
Zeinfeld writes "According to this Economist article scientists at CERN are using beams of antimatter to destroy cancer cells. The basic idea is that you make some anti-protons, whizz them round in a accelerator to get them moving at a decent rate then fire them at living tissue. They burrow down to the desired depth, find a friendly proton and do a spot of mutual anihilation, releasing sufficient energy in the process to kill a cell or two. The trick is that matter/anti-matter anihilation is a bit like nuclear fission, it does not work if the particles are moving too fast. The anti-proton has to be moving slowly enough to get pulled into the orbit of some atomic nucleus and actually collide. This allows the treatment to be fine tuned so it only affects the tissues at a very specific depth - unlike traditional therapies which zap everything in the line of fire."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Treating Cancer with Beams of Anti-Matter More

Treating Cancer with Beams of Anti-Matter

Comments Filter:

  • Old information (Score:1, Informative)

    by halfnerd ( 553515 )
    This is what they told me when I was only visiting CERN last May. I'd imagine that the information could have been aquired on the cern website for a long time before that.

  • So hospitals... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @12:05PM (#7639632)
    are going to need multi-km particle accelerator/colliders now?

    Why do I get the feeling I can't afford to have cancer...

    • Re:So hospitals... (Score:4, Informative)

      by confused one ( 671304 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @12:25PM (#7639839)
      Many hospitals already have particle accelerators in them. It's just a matter of scaling them up...

      • Re:So hospitals... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        By way of explaination, PET (positron emission tomography) scanners require particle accelerators in order to produce on-demand isotopes with very short half-lifes. Thus, any hospital with a PET scanner already has a particle accelerator.
        • They also use accelerators for radiation therapy. The regional hospital here has one, for targeted irradiation of tumors.
          • One question about PET scans. I understand (mostly from other comments in the discussion) that radioisotope compounds that tend to accumulate in tumors are injected into the body. These isotopes generate positrons that are detected by the scanner.

            But if they're generating positrons, what happens when the resulting positrons happen to encounter electrons? Is there enough energy released to help with the treatment, or is the energy negligible, or do the positive and negative charges prevent most collision
    • You can afford to have cancer, it's the living through it part you might have a problem with.
  • now all I need to get my warp reactor going again is to build a cancer cell injector.

  • Star Trek becoming reality, one cool invention at a time.

  • Its not a death ray... (Score:3, Funny)

    by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @12:25PM (#7639838)
    Your honor it isn't a death ray that I've developed, it is a cancer treatment device.

  • Antimatter (Score:5, Informative)

    by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @12:28PM (#7639871) Homepage
    For dolts (like me) who had no clue what antimatter really is, I found this article [sciam.com] over at Scientific American that gives a good overview and explains what exactly (and why) antimatter is. It's readable, too, to a non-physics geek.

    --trb
  • Faster treatment of cancer patients can be achieved by sticking them in the nearest available warp core.

  • My anti-self (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05, 2003 @12:56PM (#7640153)
    So now you're giving my anti-self my cancer. That's kinda mean.

    • Re:My anti-self (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well have you SEEN that evil goatee he has? I'm sure he deserves it.
    • I would think that you would be killing the anti-cancer that your anti-self already had. So that would be a Good Thing. Right?


  • This allows the treatment to be fine tuned so it only affects the tissues at a very specific depth - unlike traditional therapies which zap everything in the line of fire.

    Ever heard [amershamhealth.com] of a Bragg [protons.com] Peak? [nejm.org]

    Ever heard of multi-beam treatment?

    Sheesh!

    • Re:Zap everything in the line of fire??? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dastardly ( 4204 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @01:57PM (#7640707)
      Ever heard of a Bragg Peak?

      Ever heard of multi-beam treatment?

      Sheesh!

      Actually, if you read the article instead of the Slashdot synopsis. The point of using anti-protons is that you get the same effect as Bragg Peak (didn't know the name until you mentioned it thanks!) with regular protons. In addition, shortly after dumping most of the ionization energy into the tumor tissue, the anti-proton meets a proton causing more damage at the targeted location. I think the idea is that even while proton treatments can be well targeted they still deliver radiation doses to intervening tissue, by using anti protons you can deliver more radiation for the same dose to intervening tissue.

      • Thanks for the reply. I did RT[F]A - my "Sheesh" was aimed at the author of the Slashdot synopsis, not the author of the article. Current treatments don't "Zap everything in the line of fire" - they do have some incidental exposure, but nothing like it used to be before multi-beam and utilizing the Bragg Peak to deposit the dose where you want it.

        • Thanks for the reply. I did RT[F]A - my "Sheesh" was aimed at the author of the Slashdot synopsis, not the author of the article.

          Hey don't blame me. Do you guys understand what it takes to get a story accepted by Slashdot? Giving an accurate and concise review of the facts gets you nowhere in this town.

          Its breathless tabloidese or your post goes straight into the bit bucket. I had to spend several hours working out how to turn it into an anti-Microsoft story first.

  • Stone Age Medicine (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcelrath ( 8027 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @02:09PM (#7640805) Homepage
    Beam therapy, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy are all nothing more than stone-age attempts at medicine. They are essentially high-tech versions of "Let's beat it with a big stick until it goes away". Their success rates are not great. Since they don't address the fundamental problem, there's no guarantee that the cancer won't recur. I have much more hope for genetic and other biologic treatments that are upcoming.

    Fermilab has had a neutron beam therapy [fnal.gov] very similar to the CERN anti-proton therapy since 1976. Neutrons are radioactive by themselves with a half life of about 14 minutes. Once deposited in some tissue they will either decay or combine with an atom to form a radioactive isotope (which then decays).

    There are other unique radio therapies including Brachytherapy [brachytherapy.com] (place radioactive isotopes in the tumor) and Radioimmunotherapy [bexxar.com] (attach a radioactive isotope to a nonoclonal antibody). The latter sounds very neat and targeted. But none address the fundamental problem -- why do cells turn cancerous.

    -- Bob

    • How do you feel about nanotechnology? I think it's closer to your biological treatments. The nano doods would go in and bash the bad cells still, and then stick around if it comes back.

      1^2 = (-1)^2, but when you take the root you get (+/-)1, so (+/-)1 = (+/-)1

      M@
      • Well when a viable nanotechnolical device is created, I'll formulate an opinion about it. One can always argue that many biological treatments are a form of nanotechnology. i.e. targeted, genetically engineered viruses and such. But there are major hurdles to overcome before we can contemplate putting a mechanical nanotech device in a living organism. (i.e. silicon is toxic, entropy is a bitch, and 3D structure formation is only a pipe dream at the moment)

        -- Bob

    • 1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.

      (-1)^2=(1)^2; sqrt((-1)^2)=sqrt(1^2); 1=1.
      Because, sqrt((-1)^2)=|-1|, not -1, and therefore is 1. Right?
    • Go read some about imatinib. And the other small-molecule proteine kinase inhibitors and the various monoclonal antibodies.

    • Re:Stone Age Medicine (Score:4, Informative)

      by yet another coward ( 510 ) <yacowardNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday December 05, 2003 @09:38PM (#7644899)
      I used to believe as you do. The treatments you list are aimed at killing cancer cells. A big stick, however, does not discriminate well. Swing it, and it bops whatever is in its way. These treatments are more toxic to cancer cells than to normal cells. The damaged caused by radiation beams is more lethal to malignant cells than to normal cells. The same holds for chemotherapy drugs. In general, cancer cells divide faster than normal cells. Many cancer treatments target aspects of cell division. Your points about the need for better targeting and specificity is definitely true.

      We know many reasons that cells turn cancerous. They accumulate genetic mutations that allow them to divide and spread without responding to normal signals that inhibit those processes. The genetics of particular tumors and even of particular tumor types remains an area of intense research.

      The causes of mutations are many. One is the intrinsic randomness of enzymes within cells. They make mistakes. DNA enzymes can introduces mistakes, and they can fail to repair mistakes. Some chemicals and some forms of radiation can damage DNA. Certain people are more likely to incur such damage over a lifetime than others because their starting genetic makeup includes defects.

      It would be wonderful to have therapies that reverse harmful mutations. No such therapies exist. I know of no research pursuing such therapies. Instead, the goal of all cancer therapies is to kill malignant cells.
    • The latter sounds very neat and targeted. But none address the fundamental problem -- why do cells turn cancerous.

      Biologists have a pretty good understanding of how cells turn cancerous, but that doesn't result in clear and obvious treatments.

      In fact, the body has the ability to kill cancer cells if it recognizes that there is a problem and if the cancer hasn't become too large or encapsulated. All those crude methods help shift the balance back in the body's favor.

      Think of it this way: if there is a 1
      • Biologists have a pretty good understanding of how cells turn cancerous, but that doesn't result in clear and obvious treatments.

        Biologists have a good idea of what causes cancer in general, but not necessarily for a given individual. There are many causes to cancer - carcinogens, genetic predisposition, etc. - and often several of these factors will combine before someone gets cancer.

        In fact, the body has the ability to kill cancer cells if it recognizes that there is a problem and if the cancer hasn
        • Often, once a cell actually becomes cancerous and is growing out of control, it's too late for the body to do anything.

          No, that's just wrong. Surgery and chemotherapy result in much improved rates of survival for many cancers, yet they clearly leave many viable cancerous cells behind. If your statement were correct, such treatments wouldn't help at all because those surviving cells would just go on to create new tumors immediately.

          Biologists have a good idea of what causes cancer in general, but not n
    • But none address the fundamental problem -- why do cells turn cancerous.

      It's incredibly simple. They divide. They don't do a perfect job when copying themselves. Occasionally they fuck up the bits that control their internal processes, like how fast they divide. All the wonderful chemicals we've surrounded ourselves with make 'em screw up more.

      Is it any particular wonder that cancer rates are skyrocketing in the last half decade, with all the chemical crap we've come up with and dumped into the envi

      • It's incredibly simple. They divide. They don't do a perfect job when copying themselves. Occasionally they fuck up the bits that control their internal processes, like how fast they divide. All the wonderful chemicals we've surrounded ourselves with make 'em screw up more.

        Unfortunately, it's not incredibly simple. Under normal circumstances, a cell has many checkpoints and regulatory processes to ensure that it doesn't divide too often and begin growing out of control. Cancerous cells have mutations o
        • A typical human cell has 32 generations from a stem cell before it goes bad and then it will go bad.

          Modern humans as very good at pushing thouse odds. Skin cancer tends to happen in people that raipidly destory their skin cells. Lung cancer tends to happen when people breath in a large number radioactive substances such as potassium 40 (found in coal and other inhaled recreational pharmaceuticals). Bowl cancer tends to happen in people with diets that leave excessive amounts of junk in places for too lo
    • Trouble is that once the cells have mutated to become cancerous, you can't (so far as anyone knows) change them back again. Nor would you want to, because you'd still have a large growth at that point, even if it was no longer expanding. The *only* solution is to break down the cancer in some way. Surgery does this by physical removal, other methods do this by killing the cancer in situ and allowing the body to clean up the remains. Actually the success rates are pretty damn good if you catch the tumour
      • Of course I agree with the "kill the tumor" strategy. If you have a tumor, you gotta get rid of it... But it is a reactive rather than proactive strategy. There are many more promising therapies (see other replies to my post).

        Yes, I'm looking for genetic engineering, targetted viruses, and various ways of convincing the body's own immune system to attack cancer cells. We're getting there.

        It is "stone age" because it is akin to amputation. i.e. we don't know what's wrong, we can't fix it, so we're g

    • A cmall cut is better than a big stick on a few cells. The problem is that there isn't a good way to kill a few select cells using the modern "drill a hole" systems that are in place.

      The scary bit is that there is a better solution out there but the guy who was pushing it died of cancer and no one at NASA picked up on what he was doing.

      The scary bit is that it was the same techonology that brought us holography.
  • Somebody please put a name to this:

    Several years ago, there were articles about a type of treatment that aimed two energy beams at a point in the body. Each beam was harmless (radio or such) but when they interfered, they created an ionizing radiation of sorts. So, you could precisely place the destruction where it was needed and not damage 'everything in the line of fire'. It was less exotic than antimatter.

    Of course I can't remember what it was called. :)

  • Shades of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 2marcus ( 704338 ) on Friday December 05, 2003 @10:36PM (#7645242)
    So, sometime in the 1970s, MIT and Mass General were working on an experimental treatment called Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT for short). The idea was that you could fire thermal neutrons at a person, and they would only interact with elements that had a high neutron capture cross section, such as Boron or Gadolinium.

    Neutron meets Boron, excitement ensues, cells die.

    So, if you can add boron to a compound that is taken up preferentially by cancer cells, and then aim a thin beam of neutrons at the area of the tumor, then you will (theoretically) not kill anything but those cells.

    The treatment was used mainly on large, likely-to-be-fatal brain tumors (at the time, they weren't candidates for operations). Unfortunately, most of the patients died anyway, sometimes from necrotic tissue or brain voids resulting from the decayed/destroyed tumor, sometimes because the boron containing compounds were not specific enough to cancer cells.

    So the US stopped research on BNCT, but Japan and some other countries have continued the research, and I think recently some US researchers are thinking of taking it back up.

    And the neutron source the MIT researchers used was their nuclear reactor (recently featured on NPR's "Wait, wait don't tell me"). One could presumably also use an accelerator.

    -Marcus

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close