Cancer's Origin Story Features Predictable Plot Line (stanford.edu) 23
Cancer cells-to-be accumulate a series of specific genetic changes in a predictable and sequential way years before they are identifiable as pre-malignancies, researchers at Stanford Medicine have found. Stanford Medicine blog: Many of these changes affect pathways that control cell division, structure and internal messaging -- leaving the cells poised to go bad long before any visible signs or symptoms occur. The study is the first to exhaustively observe the natural evolution of the earliest stages of human cancers, starting with cells that have a single cancer-priming mutation and culminating with a panel of descendants harboring a galaxy of genetic abnormalities.
Identifying the first steps associated with future cancer development could not only facilitate earlier-than-ever diagnosis -- when a deadly outcome is but a twinkle in a rogue cell's eye -- but may also highlight novel interventions that could stop the disease in its tracks, the researchers say. "Ideally, we would find ways to intercept this progression before the cells become truly cancerous," said Christina Curtis, PhD, professor of medicine, of genetics and of biomedical data science. "Can we identify a minimal constellation of genetic alterations that imply the cell will progress? And, if so, can we intervene? The striking reproducibility in the genetic changes we observed from multiple donors suggests it's possible."
Identifying the first steps associated with future cancer development could not only facilitate earlier-than-ever diagnosis -- when a deadly outcome is but a twinkle in a rogue cell's eye -- but may also highlight novel interventions that could stop the disease in its tracks, the researchers say. "Ideally, we would find ways to intercept this progression before the cells become truly cancerous," said Christina Curtis, PhD, professor of medicine, of genetics and of biomedical data science. "Can we identify a minimal constellation of genetic alterations that imply the cell will progress? And, if so, can we intervene? The striking reproducibility in the genetic changes we observed from multiple donors suggests it's possible."
Kill It & Send It To Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Took my wife. Took my friends.
Fuck cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause of cancer (Score:2)
"a panel of descendants harboring a galaxy of genetic abnormalities."
So 5G phones from Samsung do cause cancer
Long ago (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading long ago that cancer wasn't so much a series of novel mutations that happen to result in a 'new program' in your DNA, but rather a series of specific failures that restrain other bits of DNA.
Basic cellular function isn't particularly cooperative with neighbours, but to be a multi-cellular organism there need to be a lot of additional functions that are contra-survival at the level of the individual cell. The evolutionary payoff is a greater survival rate for the genome that the entire organism shares.
So you don't have to have a whole new 'reproduce' function, or a whole new 'trick the surrounding body into supplying more blood' function. You just need to cut the brakes that are holding back the existing systems. Still complicated - the right bits of DNA have to break in just the wrong way - but far, far more likely than entirely new functions evolving into cancer from scratch.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, something like a cell should respond to the outside signal to self-destruct but cells that have become cancer have that response turned off. That is just one of the body's defense mechanisms.
But I have also read that before becoming cancer cells, normal cells apparently first go through a phase called "senescence" where they are effectively a zombie -- neither performing their function nor turning into indistructible parasitic form. It is during that intermediate phase that the body has a chance to cle
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, populations where poor nutrition is more prevalent, average lifespans probably solve the cancer problem by assuring no one reaches an age where the more common "geriatric" cancers form. Breast cancer and prostate cancer, while they can appear in younger people, tend to be more concentrated in middle age, and if you never make it to middle age, presto change-o, the prevalence of these cancers will inevitably be lower. I wouldn't call that a cure for cancer, any more than jumping in front of a bus at 4
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, populations where poor nutrition is more prevalent, average lifespans probably solve the cancer problem by assuring no one reaches an age where the more common "geriatric" cancers form. Breast cancer and prostate cancer, while they can appear in younger people, tend to be more concentrated in middle age, and if you never make it to middle age, presto change-o, the prevalence of these cancers will inevitably be lower. I wouldn't call that a cure for cancer, any more than jumping in front of a bus at 40 is a cure for dementia.
Nice way to Dodge (or rather, Provost) the question.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because you need nutrition to build and maintain a healthy immune system to destroy malignant (or senescent) cells. There is a sweet spot for the amount of food -- and fasting -- and probably the most reasonable place to find is to mimic feeding patterns that humans evolved with: occasional abundance followed by periods of scarcity.
I don't know why you bring "fat Americans" into it, most of the world is overweight and weight alone is not the only problem anyway. But I would like to see a study on the he
Re: (Score:2)
No, because you need nutrition to build and maintain a healthy immune system to destroy malignant (or senescent) cells. There is a sweet spot for the amount of food -- and fasting -- and probably the most reasonable place to find is to mimic feeding patterns that humans evolved with: occasional abundance followed by periods of scarcity.
I don't know why you bring "fat Americans" into it, most of the world is overweight and weight alone is not the only problem anyway. But I would like to see a study on the health state of people who have practiced voluntary fasting for years or decades.
So would I; but I really don't think it is as simple as "voluntarily starve yourself"; because, as you correctly state, "You need nutrition to build and maintain a healthy immune system to destroy malignant (or senescent" cells."
Personally, I think that, just like serum lipid levels are very poorly associated with dietary fat intake, that, barring being exposed to highly carcinogenic compounds, an individual's propensity to Cancer is yet another thing that is mostly a luck of the draw of Genetics. Some peop
Re: (Score:3)
First of all I'm glad for your mom and her side of the family (and you hopefully) that you have reduced chances of cancer -- everything else seems less bad. (From a spiritual perspective, and everyone's first person perspective, every illness has an imprint of something that feels like evil, and that taste appears stronger with cancers.) As to why, we may never know, but there is no doubt that genes play a part, since genetic mutations caused by say radioactivity result in cancer. We may never understand ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. (Score:1)
Kurzgesagt did a video on it (Score:3)
Kurzgesagt did a video on it recently - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Basically cancer keeps fighting until it finally tricks your body into thinking it's normal, or it exhausts your body.
You get it, your body fights it off, but if it didn't get everyone, there's a leftover bit that's a bit stronger, and like evolution, survival of the fittest. The cancer that survives your immune system grows stronger and stronger until it overwhelms your body. Catch it early while it's still weak and you can get rid of it before it becomes a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Kurzgesagt do amazing videos, and I love them, but there's just so many on the topic of cancer (or black holes) that I've forgotten about anything else they did.
Over diagnosis (Score:2)
Most people probably are living with cancerous cells and lumps, but they get taken out by the immune system fast enough. Or sometimes the cancer is so benign it goes unnoticed, and people die from other things before that cancer ever gets close to becoming a problem.
There are probably orders of magnitude more of cells with these kinds of mutations that are in all of us all the time. Most of them will not get close to becoming cancerous. Finding them theref
Re:Over diagnosis (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Over-diagnosis is nowhere near a problem as under-diagnosis. If you can see it, or you can feel a lump, it has already progressed to billions of cells and you can be damn certainit knows how to evade the immune system. It’s deadly to ignore a lump. Breast or lung Cancer found in stage I is over 90% curable. In stage IV it is over 90% incurable. 600,000 people just in the USA die of cancer every year. How many die of over diagnosis? While a case can be made that some highly sensitive screening technology is over diagnosing cancer, the risk from under-diagnosis is far worse and the benefit of early detection is high.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Predictable Plot Line (Score:2)
You mean it wasn't Mr. Green in the library with a candlestick? /sarcasm regarding the plot line
Seriously...a good friend has cancer, actually multiple forms of cancer. He has to regularly visit a major medical center for cutting-edge IV drug drips just to keep all of his cancer tumors under control and avoid even more cancer-related surgeries.
He lives on borrowed time since every day is a blessing for him. So I try to visit him as often as possible.
So when anyone says that Cancer Sucks...I totally agree wi