Researchers Use 'Decoy' Molecule to Treat Cancer 40
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
These things are always too late for someone we loved, but hopefully in time for others.
Steve
Re: (Score:2)
This, alas, is so.
It is said that not the first victim in a war is the most tragical one; it is the last one.
It is the same with illnesses: the most futile death seems that of someone who died days before a medicine is found.
Re: (Score:3)
Only problem is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sad thing is that *if* a treatment ever makes it to the market, it won't be until 5 or 10 years from now.
All too true, litigation after (sometimes perceived) errors by scientists and drug companies has caused reluctance to make new medicines rapidly available.
But in cases of terminal illness such reluctance has more than once been overruled as a potentially failed treatment is never worse than the alternative.
From TFA:
But Dr. Sadar said the researchers are confident that their findings will quickly lead to a human drug that, while it might initially be used to treat advanced prostate cancer patients, might eventually be developed for use at earlier stages, to avoid prostate surgery.
"I don't think we're years and years away from it," she said of the creation of a drug. "Now that the paper has just come out there will certainly be pharmaceutical companies that will be jumping on this. I believe this is a paper, or work, that will cascade, to have very rapid screening against this therapeutic target," she said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Another Canadian research breakthrough (Score:5, Interesting)
Is cancer research a major industry in Canada, or is this an abnormally productive period for their universities? It seems like a lot of recent discoveries in that field have come from my Frozen Northern Neighbor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the real question is why are American universities apparently less productive than their Frozen Northern Neighbours?
Re: (Score:2)
"the the Globe story explains" (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was impossible to stutter when typing. Once again, Slashdot has taught me something new.
Article (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/4/13
Soon, soon, soon.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This from someone with advertisements for a pocket pussy on the site in their signature !
Thanks, that's the funniest thing I've seen in quite awhile.
All that lacks is a leadership plan. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to hear of anyone contracting and STD or cancer from a pocket vagina ;)
...but something close, perhaps?
the 1996 Ig Nobel Prize for public health [wikipedia.org] goes to....
Ellen Kleist of Nuuk, Greenland and Harald Moi of Oslo, Norway, for their cautionary medical report "Transmission of Gonorrhea Through an Inflatable Doll." [Published in "Genitourinary Medicine," vol. 69, no. 4, Aug. 1993, p. 322.]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Cancer is a group of diseases with different genetic causes, so it's highly unlikely that there will ever be a single cure. There might be a breakthrough in the distant future with regard to gene therapy, but cancer "cures" will have to be tailored to each type of cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but "C-Prize [geocities.com]" is already taken by the artificial intelligence guys. I think the problem with a contest like that is that curing cancer isn't really something that can be done by the average Joe, barring some amazing accidental discovery like Penicillin. Granted, launching a scpacecraft to win the X-Prize isn't something most people can do in their back yard, but at least it's something tangible. You ca
Re: (Score:2)
A little more info (Score:5, Informative)
They managed to test against human tumors which had been xenografted into mice, they packaged their new therapeutic transgene into a modified lentivirus then injected the virus directly into the tumor site.
While this result is promising, it suffers from the same drawbacks as many gene therapies: we can figure out what to put into the cell to fix it, but the big problem is finding a very effective vehicle (virus) to target a high proportion of the required cells.
Re:A little more info (Score:4, Interesting)
The real irony is when we succeed in wiping out cancer in mice a full decade before we do it for people.
Re: (Score:1)
As it stands, this therapy - as interesting as it is - cannot brought to bear on humans (or even normal mice) due to the primary roadblock inherant in the current state of gene therapy technology: the target will resist the
Terry Fox (Score:2)
I wonder if its because of Terry Fox [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
In Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Until you die of course. By then I don't think you'll mind too much though.
Re: (Score:2)
You're way more likely to get thyroid cancer -- without ever knowing it or suffering any ill effects from it
Where's you pull that statistic from?
Re: (Score:1)
s/prostate//
Such as?
Re: (Score:1)
moo (Score:2)
Usually it is breast cancer. That isn't bad but it seems like all the research are on that and "men's" types are ignored.
I wonder what the ratio of breast cancer funds to prostate is? I'd guess more that 1 to 1, quite a bit more.
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This helps (Score:1)
Simple Dichloroacetate vs. patentable molecule (Score:2)
Slashdot already covered Dichloroacetate an easily synthesizable
compound and FDA authorized drug that "restarts" the deactivated mitochondria in cancer cells which in turn "recognize" the cell as malfunctioning and trigger the cell destruction mechanism.
The only major drawback of DCA is of course that it is priced way too low for the occasion (people desperate for their lives) and is probably even easier to make than aspirin. Oh and it isn't paten
Misleading description (Score:1)