Glowing cancer cells help surgeons remove more of the disease

[ack]

Also major news yesterday http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/ret...help-surgeons-remove-tumors-from-ovaries/6692

 

[Steve Williams]

I think you are an aspiring oncologist Peter. Another interesting read

 

[ack]

Unfortunately, my family has had its own share of this disease - and statistically speaking, we pretty much all herein have, within 2 degrees of separation. But at least it feels like we've been making great progress in the medical field against major diseases in the last 2-3 years or so, and this is great news for our kids and their own. I am equally happy with the advances in the audio field the last 2-3 years as well - it's a great time to be an audiophile!

 

[Gregadd]

Unfortunately, my family has had its own share of this disease - and statistically speaking, we pretty much all herein have, within 2 degrees of separation. But at least it feels like we've been making great progress in the medical field against major diseases in the last 2-3 years or so, and this is great news for our kids and their own. I am equally happy with the advances in the audio field the last 2-3 years as well - it's a great time to be an audiophile!

If only we could pay for it.

 

[Whatmore]

Dumb question perhaps but if they can make the tumour glow, why can't they attach a drug that kills it ?

 

[Orb]

They may be able to at some point.
Moving forward it would utilise the same recent research into HIV and the green fluorescent protein (used on cats that have their own version of HIV).
Here is an article on GFP considered for cancer;
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/8094/making-cancer-cells-glow.html

Cheers
Orb

 

[MylesBAstor]

Dumb question perhaps but if they can make the tumour glow, why can't they attach a drug that kills it ?

Oncologists have tried for quite some time and are still trying to use either radiolabelled or chemotherapy drug attached antibodies. In fact for brain tumors, oncologists have used Pt with a chemotherapy drug; the objective was to have a "slow" release to treat the tumor. Problem with the former is that the radiation tends to break down the chemical bonds; with the latter, it's how the drug is attached can often affect whether the drug can reach its target and its activity. Also remember, not all cells in a tumor are created equal! Some are cycling; others aren't. Some have a good oxygen supply; others don't. Others are near a capillary and ergo get the drug (remember that with some drugs, only 10% or less actually makes it to the intended target) and others aren't. And there is a selection process within tumors over time. Or say in the case of prostate tumors, you kill all the cells that have the receptor and then find out that there are tumor cells lacking that receptor. Or in the case of breast, maybe 30% might express a particular antigen on the cell surface. Unfortunately it's not as simple as it seems and if every drug or RX that "cured" cancer in mice worked in humans, we'd have eliminated cancer 30 years ago

Back to the original question though. The important question to ask (and I don't remember, perhaps Steve does) is where do women with ovarian cancer fail: locally or systemically? If it's the latter, this treatment would be of limited usefullness.

 

[Gregadd]

Hope that substance does not cause cancer.