Futurismic

In the Western world at least, cancer is one of our most intractable enemies; medical science has advanced hugely in the last half-century, and cancer mortality rates have fallen as a result of preventative measures, but the essential approach remains the same as it ever has been – eradicate the tumour cells from the body at any cost.

Mathematical oncologist Robert Gatenby reckons that’s the wrong route, though. He suggests that rather than doing our utmost to purge cancer from the body, we should instead seek to reach a form of compromise with it – playing it to a stalemate, in other words, treating it as an inevitability to be controlled rather than an alien incursion to be expelled.

How people treat invasive species can provide an analogy for thinking about cancer therapy. In treating a field for a pest, for example, you might treat three-quarters of it with a pesticide, and leave the other quarter untreated. Pesticide-sensitive pests remain there, and they spread out into the field after treatment, preventing pesticide resistance from becoming dominant.

Using pesticides on an entire field is like what we’re doing with cancer now. And we all agree that we’d rather get rid of the pests altogether, but if you can’t do it, if every time you have an infestation you treat it and get resistance, then you try a different strategy. The alternative is to try to reduce the pest population so that it doesn’t damage your crop, and accept the fact that they’re going to be there. That’s what I’m talking about with cancer.

There’s a certain seductive logic to Gatenby’s idea; it chimes in harmony with the more systemic approaches we’re starting to take to agriculture and the environment, for example. Obviously, there’s a lot of research to be done to check whether or not he’s on to something, but the prospect of higher cancer survival rates using the drugs and treatments we already have to hand is a heartening one. [image by euthman]

A fascinating concept: researchers at the University of Oxford have developed a method that uses modified viruses to destroy cancerous cells, whilst leaving healthy cells intact:

The research team modified a common virus – called an adenovirus – so that it could deliver genetic therapy to destroy tumours without poisoning the liver.

The changes enabled the virus to keeps its natural ‘infectious’ characteristics to replicate in, and kill, cancer cells in mice.

But for the first time the virus is also recognised and destroyed by healthy mouse liver cells, so it is no longer toxic.

Poachers make the best gamekeepers, no?

[from Physorg][image from Physorg]

The race to find a cure for cancer continues among a number of vectors, the better known of which are chemotherapy and gene therapy. But there are other methods being developed, including oncolytic viruses.

The Seneca Valley Virus is a naturally-occurring (and untweaked) virus which has been shown in clinical trials to be remarkably effective at treating some of the more nasty human cancer types while presenting no threat to the human body itself.

The biggest upside of oncolytic viral treatments is that they can be used on cancers for which there is no viable surgical procedure, though their ability to travel through the bloodstream and work on metastatic cases as well as local ones is good news too. [image from Wikimedia Commons]

In typical Daily Mail style I begin with the ever-dependable “X Causes Cancer Shock” blog post. [image by shaymus]

That’s right! The Magic Molecules of the Future or carbon nanotubes – shortly to be used in every worthwhile human pursuit from watching pornography to curing cancer – may in fact cause cancer themselves.

That is to say: a couple of studies, one published in Nature Nanotechnology and another published by The Japanese Journal of Toxicological Science suggest that certain kinds of carbon nanotubes induce lesions and mesothelioma in a manner similar to another wonder-material, asbestos.

The report in Nature suggests that nanotubes longer than about 20 nm micrometers are the chief culprits:

Carbon nanotubes that are straight and 20 micrometers or longer in length–qualities that are well suited for composite materials used in sports equipment–resemble asbestos fibers. This has long led many experts to suggest that these carbon nanotubes might pose the same health risks as asbestos, a fire-resistant material that can cause mesothelioma, a cancer of a type of tissue surrounding the lungs. But until now, strong scientific evidence for this theory was lacking.

Fortunately in order to be as thoroughly unpleasant as asbestos, carbon nanotubes would need to become airborne and and be inhaled, something that carbon nanotubes are apparently not inclined to do.

As ever, more research is needed.

From a science fictional perspective: what will be the tabloid healthcare-stories of decades hence?

The problem with things like asbestos and thalidomide is that their terrible side-effects only come to light after millions of lives are damaged. And these tragedies are by definition black swans, inherently unpredictable and devastating with it.

Where is the next hubristic-but-unpredictable human-derived disaster going to come from? Carbon nanotubes? Quantum computing? Could it be something so boringly innocuous that you use it every day without thinking, whilst it eats away at every cell in your body?

I’m not talking about global warming or bird flu – I mean really out-there, mind-blowingly awful stuff we haven’t thought of yet. Stuff that’s affecting us right now that we don’t know about.

Anyway, less gloom and more cheer. Here is a funny story about a crazy luddite!

Well, as long as I’m posting about nanotechnology, check this out (Via PhysOrg):

Researchers from the Nano Machine Center at the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA have developed a novel type of nanomachine that can capture and store anticancer drugs inside tiny pores and release them into cancer cells in response to light. Known as a “nanoimpeller,” the device is the first light-powered nanomachine that operates inside a living cell, a development that has strong implications for cancer treatment.

The study was conducted jointly by Jeffrey Zink, UCLA professor of chemistry and biochemistry, and Fuyu Tamanoi, UCLA professor of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics. A little further along in the press release:

The pores of the particles can be loaded with cargo molecules, such as dyes or anticancer drugs. In response to light exposure, a wagging motion occurs, causing the cargo molecules to escape from the pores and attack the cell. Confocal microscopic images showed that the impeller operation can be regulated precisely by the intensity of the light, the excitation time and the specific wavelength.

The cells they killed were only in vitro, of course, and there’s the usual caveat:

Tamanoi and Zink say the research represents an exciting first step in developing nanomachines for cancer therapy and that further steps are required to demonstrate actual inhibition of tumor growth.

The accomplishment is detailed in the nanotechnology journal Small. You can find the citation here, but you’ll have to pay to read the article.

And look out for the fine print. One would think that in a nanotechnology journal, it might be very fine indeed.

(Image: Wikimedia Commons.)

[tags]nanotechnology, cancer, medicine, nanomachines[/tags]