3 ms·

>'"Cancer" isn't a single disease or problem domain, but what could be categorized as a syndrome that shares some basic commonalities.' Cancer is characterized

by nonbel 11y ago

>'"Cancer" isn't a single disease or problem domain, but what could be categorized as a syndrome that shares some basic commonalities.' Cancer is characterized by having cells with an abnormal number of chromosomes and genetic instability. It is one disease. I don't know the origins of it, but this "many disease" claim sounds like an excuse for lack of progress in targeting aneuploid cells. "In contrast to normal cells, aneuploidy--alterations in the number of chromosomes--is consistently observed in virtually all cancers." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15549096 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15549096

fallous 11y ago
Of course cancer is a result of genetics gone amok, but that's about as useful as saying that death is caused by hypoxia... of course it is, all death is the result of lack of oxygen to the brain. Cancer as a disease, in its expression, effects, and treatment, is not a monolith and has been utterly resistant to attempts to treat it as such.
- nonbel 11y ago
  If you could count the chromosomes in every cell of a patient's body and specifically kill cells with/without certain numbers, you could cure the cancer. For practical purposes it is one disease with a single identifying characteristic and molecular target. Only technical limitations are preventing a cure. No disease manifests exactly the same way in every person, so I don't get the point of calling cancer multiple diseases.
  - jack9 11y ago
    > you could cure the cancer Or you could vaccinate against a virus and prevent the cancer. Not all cancers need to be attacked the same way.
    - nonbel 11y ago
      >"Not all cancers need to be attacked the same way." Ok, but what does that have to do with the (apparently new) idea of calling cancer "multiple diseases"?
  - dnautics 11y ago
    Not all cancers have obvious chromosomal aberrations
    - nonbel 11y ago
      I was very surprised to learn a few years ago that this is <10%, possibly much less depending on measurement error (see my ref above). So then there are two diseases: Aneuploid cancer (>90%) and non-aneuploid cancer (<10%).

by nonbel 11y ago

fallous 11y ago

Of course cancer is a result of genetics gone amok, but that's about as useful as saying that death is caused by hypoxia... of course it is, all death is the result of lack of oxygen to the brain. Cancer as a disease, in its expression, effects, and treatment, is not a monolith and has been utterly resistant to attempts to treat it as such.

nonbel 11y ago
If you could count the chromosomes in every cell of a patient's body and specifically kill cells with/without certain numbers, you could cure the cancer. For practical purposes it is one disease with a single identifying characteristic and molecular target. Only technical limitations are preventing a cure. No disease manifests exactly the same way in every person, so I don't get the point of calling cancer multiple diseases.
- jack9 11y ago
  > you could cure the cancer Or you could vaccinate against a virus and prevent the cancer. Not all cancers need to be attacked the same way.
  - nonbel 11y ago
    >"Not all cancers need to be attacked the same way." Ok, but what does that have to do with the (apparently new) idea of calling cancer "multiple diseases"?
- dnautics 11y ago
  Not all cancers have obvious chromosomal aberrations
  - nonbel 11y ago
    I was very surprised to learn a few years ago that this is <10%, possibly much less depending on measurement error (see my ref above). So then there are two diseases: Aneuploid cancer (>90%) and non-aneuploid cancer (<10%).