Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 *shrug* I have no idea. I guess I just like the idea of being the foremost authority in any given field. haha, ok, fair enough Cancer research? Hi five! I'm involved with breast cancer research on mice model right now. I'm looking to transition into developing new methods of cancer treatments in the clinical setting. I have some radical ideas, but I'll keep that to myself for now . I'll just say its elegantly simple. Hopefully you'll be reading about it in like 20-30 years, and be able to take advantage of it in like 30-40yrs. Its the main reason I want to specialize in radiology oncology. chances are if you think you're found some "elegantly simple" solution to treat cancer, someone else has and it hasn't worked. haha, YES, I knew I'd run into some other cancer nerds on here. Although NewfieMike does kind of have a point. When I first started working on cancer research I was like "Well, if the majority of human cancers have a mutated form of p53, then why don't we just inject a wildtype version of p53 into the tumors and there's your cure! No?".....haha, pretty naive of me but still....the cure could be something really simple and we've just been going about it the wrong way the whole time. I mean, look at how they developed PCR? The guy was on an LSD trip for Christ's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 how heroic of you to have it figured out now but want to wait 20 years so you can take all the credit... why not tell someone now and save lives sooner? prestige hunting, perhaps? More like I don't want mega-bucks pharm companies to monopolize on it, charge the rich into the poor house for it, and prevent the average/poor person from even having a chance of getting it. And I hate the expression "cure for cancer". No such thing. There is no magic bullet that will cure all cancers. Only TREAT certain types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 So you're going to be running randomized controlled trials to test its efficacy out of your own pocket then? :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 More like I don't want mega-bucks pharm companies to monopolize on it, charge the rich into the poor house for it, and prevent the average/poor person from even having a chance of getting it. And I hate the expression "cure for cancer". No such thing. There is no magic bullet that will cure all cancers. Only TREAT certain types. true that. I think we'll tackle the common cold before we tackle cancer. although this guy thinks otherwise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7y9PO-qAoQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 And I hate the expression "cure for cancer". No such thing. There is no magic bullet that will cure all cancers. Only TREAT certain types. I disagree actually. Over 50% of human cancers have a mutated form of p53 and the rest have something wrong with the p53 pathway, either upstream or downstream. I personally think this is where the cure lies....but that's just my opinion But you're right in that some types of cancer like AML are currently very treatable without involving this pathway. So maybe it's a combination of both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I hate the expression "cure for cancer". No such thing. what about Ian Wong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 what about Ian Wong? bahahhahahahahahahhahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 So you're going to be running randomized controlled trials to test its efficacy out of your own pocket then? :\ Not unless I somehow make $100s of millions by myself :S. No but I know people that are really good at business and that have the same ideals and think the same way as me (again, back to achieving life goals using your best skill set). Seeing as how these people are worth ~500k last year (its much less than normal due to the recession) while doing undergrad part time, and knowing their business plan in the future, I have no doubt it can be done. Plus I know researchers in the field right now, who I'm sure will support me in the future. I think I'm coming off as some keener that thinks he is the chosen one, destined for greatness and can change the world, LOL. I'm really not like that in person. I have an idea, and I'm going to try and make it work. If I'm dead wrong, so be it. At least I'll hopefully have an MD so I can go back to treating people in the clinical setting the regular way . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 An idea would seem like a long way from postitive in vitro to say nothing of animal results. Clinical trials cost hundreds of millions of dollars. What's the "elegantly simple" idea anyhow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 An idea would seem like a long way from postitive in vitro to say nothing of animal results. Clinical trials cost hundreds of millions of dollars. What's the "elegantly simple" idea anyhow? if deeman told you that, they wouldn't get to publish it in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 An idea would seem like a long way from postitive in vitro to say nothing of animal results. Clinical trials cost hundreds of millions of dollars. What's the "elegantly simple" idea anyhow? Its actually pretty simple. Nothing really fancy or clever actually. But its an interdisciplinary approach, spanning physics, biology, engineering and chemistry. So I guess no one from each specific field thought of combining all of it together yet. And its not a "cure" at all; just a much more effective means of treating cancer (not all types). If theres one thing my supervisor told me, its "keep your ideas to yourself. People have no problem taking credit for your work". Although he is American. I guess he got burned somewhere in his career . NewfieMike: you still hatin'? LOL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8onbDZmAwhE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Its actually pretty simple. Nothing really fancy or clever actually. But I its an interdisciplinary approach, spanning physics, biology, engineering and chemistry. So I guess no one from each specific field thought of combining all of it together yet. And its not a "cure" at all; just a much more effective means of treating cancer (not all types). If theres one thing my supervisor told me, its "keep your ideas to yourself. People have no problem taking credit for your work". Although he is American. I guess he got burned somewhere in his career . haha, true, although I'll share my idea and see what you think. I personally think that the cure lies in using oncolytic viruses. These viruses specifically target cancer cells, leaving normal healthy cells alone and therefore you don't get the side effects normally associated with chemo. And then you could also alter/insert genes into the viral genome depending on the type of cancer you are treating. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Its actually pretty simple. Nothing really fancy or clever actually. But I its an interdisciplinary approach, spanning physics, biology, engineering and chemistry. So I guess no one from each specific field thought of combining all of it together yet. And its not a "cure" at all; just a much more effective means of treating cancer (not all types). If theres one thing my supervisor told me, its "keep your ideas to yourself. People have no problem taking credit for your work". Although he is American. I guess he got burned somewhere in his career . you gave it away!!! You develop nanorobots that are chemically programmed to seek out cancer induced cells and specifically carry them out of the body, while hugging remaining healthy cells to keep them safe. When they're all done, you just piss em out (into a test tube obviously, might as well recycle them. I doubt they're gonna be cheap to manufature). Was I close? edit: I wasn't hatin'. Your initial comment just raised a red flag as being total arrogant horse ****. But you've developed an argument beyond the initial comment that I was hoping wasn't going to be "i've found the cure but im not telling anyone" and thankfully you haven't! And I was just jokin about the nature article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 haha, true, although I'll share my idea and see what you think. I personally think that the cure lies in using oncolytic viruses. These viruses specifically target cancer cells, leaving normal healthy cells alone and therefore you don't get the side effects normally associated with chemo. And then you could also alter/insert genes into the viral genome depending on the type of cancer you are treating. Thoughts? Thats interesting. But how would these viruses target cancers in specific? How would they differentiate between cancerous and normal cells? The thing that makes cancer so hard is there is no nice "prototype" to go on. Unless you are thinking of inserting genes into the viral genome for each specific type of cancer. But then it requires synthesizing and testing many different strains for different types of cancers. I guess it can be done, similar to how they synthesize and test new flu vaccines every year. But the logistics are not insignificant there. My approach is much more "physical" (ie. radiation). Saying any more would totally give it away. BTW, I'm going to a conference this week (in Hawaii!), hosted by the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine http://ismrm.org, so I'm hoping to broaden my horizons about oncology a lot more over there. NewfieMike: OMG!! You figured it out! NOOOOOO!!!!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I saw a really cool radiation treatment for gliomas a few months ago. The philosophy was that radiation is so terrible because since the cancer deep within the body, radiation must be strong enough to kill it but healthy cells die too, so why not produce radiation from the inside out? They did this by: -removing most of the brain tumor -filling the empty space with a balloon which was attached to a thin tube that they attached to the top of the skull under the scalp -sealed the scalp -inserted a needle into the tube and fed into the balloon a radioactive substance that would slowly leak from the balloon, so the concentration of radiation to remaining cancer cells would be the same as external radiation but the damage to healthy cells would be minimal -after a few weeks, insert a needle and draw out the fluid. cool, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Thats interesting. But how would these viruses target cancers in specific? How would they differentiate between cancerous and normal cells? Well you could add/delete certains genes within the viral genome that would only allow the virus to replicate in cancerous cells. For example, the adenovirus has the E1B protein that helps repress p53. So you could create an adenovirus strain that has E1B deleted. This way, if the virus were to infect regular cells, it wouldn't be able to replicate since p53 would still be active. However, it WOULD be able to replicate in cancer cells that have mutated p53, and therefore kill only the cancer cells. By the way, this idea is apparently already being tested out in China so I'm not taking credit for it...I just think it's the right way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I saw a really cool radiation treatment for gliomas a few months ago. The philosophy was that radiation is so terrible because since the cancer deep within the body, radiation must be strong enough to kill it but healthy cells die too, so why not produce radiation from the inside out? They did this by: -removing most of the brain tumor -filling the empty space with a balloon which was attached to a thin tube that they attached to the top of the skull under the scalp -sealed the scalp -inserted a needle into the tube and fed into the balloon a radioactive substance that would slowly leak from the balloon, so the concentration of radiation to remaining cancer cells would be the same as external radiation but the damage to healthy cells would be minimal -after a few weeks, insert a needle and draw out the fluid. cool, huh? Woahhhh!!!! Cool! Where did you see this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Well you could add/delete certains genes within the viral genome that would only allow the virus to replicate in cancerous cells. For example, the adenovirus has the E1B protein that helps repress p53. So if the virus were to infect regular cells, it wouldn't be able to replicate since p53 would still be active. However, it WOULD be able to replicate in cancer cells that have mutated p53, and therefore kill only the cancer cells. By the way, this idea is apparently already being tested out in China so I'm not taking credit for it...I just think it's the right way to go. I don't follow. Wouldn't adenovirus infection cause p53 to be suppressed, and hence inhibit its tumour suppressor function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I don't follow. Wouldn't adenovirus infection cause p53 to be suppressed, and hence inhibit its tumour suppressor function? haha, sorry, I missed one crucial part. I went back and edited my original post. Now does it make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Yes. Though I'm not clear on why adenovirus would be able to replicate only if p53 was suppressed. I'm no virologist, but wouldn't the surface receptors on both cancer and normal cells be crucial to this? (So, maybe it work on adenoma/adenocarcinomas...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I saw a really cool radiation treatment for gliomas a few months ago. The philosophy was that radiation is so terrible because since the cancer deep within the body, radiation must be strong enough to kill it but healthy cells die too, so why not produce radiation from the inside out? They did this by: -removing most of the brain tumor -filling the empty space with a balloon which was attached to a thin tube that they attached to the top of the skull under the scalp -sealed the scalp -inserted a needle into the tube and fed into the balloon a radioactive substance that would slowly leak from the balloon, so the concentration of radiation to remaining cancer cells would be the same as external radiation but the damage to healthy cells would be minimal -after a few weeks, insert a needle and draw out the fluid. cool, huh? Dude! Thats a logistical nightmare right there! What if there is a tear in the balloon. What if the person had some kind of head trauma during treatment? What if the microglia attacked the balloon lining and caused it to leak? What if the balloon with radioactive agent was so heavy that it put pressure on regions of the brain and caused lesions? I'm not going to be signing up for that anytime soon, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Well you could add/delete certains genes within the viral genome that would only allow the virus to replicate in cancerous cells. For example, the adenovirus has the E1B protein that helps repress p53. So you could create an adenovirus strain that has E1B deleted. This way, if the virus were to infect regular cells, it wouldn't be able to replicate since p53 would still be active. However, it WOULD be able to replicate in cancer cells that have mutated p53, and therefore kill only the cancer cells. By the way, this idea is apparently already being tested out in China so I'm not taking credit for it...I just think it's the right way to go. What if cancer cells mutate to nullify this virus? And what if the virus mutates and goes rogue? And what is the cell surface receptor that adenovirus use anyways to enter host cells? If it enters cancerous and non-cancerous cells alike, can it undergo recombination to mutate into other forms? Playing devils advocate . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Well, I don't know the details, but I'm sure - by definition - it has affinity for receptors on the surface of epithelial/glandular tissue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Dude! Thats a logistical nightmare right there! What if there is a tear in the balloon. What if the person had some kind of head trauma during treatment? What if the microglia attacked the balloon lining and caused it to leak? What if the balloon with radioactive agent was so heavy that it put pressure on regions of the brain and caused lesions? I'm not going to be signing up for that anytime soon, LOL. .... you don't think they talked those issues out before trying this in a clinical trial? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6342788379330262056 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman101 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Well, I don't know the details, but I'm sure - by definition - it has affinity for receptors on the surface of epithelial/glandular tissue. But cancer cells are known to lose surface receptors. So would it still work in that case? If the cancer cells do not lose surface receptors, would it work on other types of tissue too? ex: glial or meningeal tissue of the brain. Oh yea thats the other problem. Do adenoviruses cross the blood-brain barrier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.