11 ms·
Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago>The minimally invasive technology involves a rod that enters the prostate gland via the urethra Ouch.
- jcims 7y agoSeems there are different standards for invasive in the medical industry. Geez.
- ceejayoz 7y ago"Invasive" tends to mean "chopping a hole in the patient" in this context.
- kingkawn 7y agoThat sounds like the most invasive option
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- post_break 7y agoThe alternative is death right? So give me some pills, knock me out, and go to town.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoJust when I was freaking the hell out I read this and realized, yeah, knock me the hell out. Don't even wake me up till long after. I'm wondering if it's just that the tool scrapes it out or something. As painful as it is to think about.
- Waterluvian 7y agoAnd then of course in this huge wild planet of ours there's people who get a kick out of doing that for fun.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoUhhhh just remembered hearing of such things. I have not been able to unsee certain things, but that one is one I am glad I have never looked at.
- ryanmercer 7y agoSo, I clear international freight through customs for a living. Maybe a decade ago we had this shipment from a now defunct website that was (I think, maybe it had the c) 'fuk.it'. In the package were various 'sexual toys'. Some sort of electronic shock device, some comically large anal 'toy' and a 'deep hole dick spreader' which was a urethral sound being marketed as a sex 'toy'. We had to go to the website to try and figure out how to classify the stuff with names like the above and 'colon snake' and not only did they sell these torture implements but they sold a variety of -caine local anesthetics. Humans never cease to amaze and confuse me.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoI'm both disgusted and amused by this. Thank you for sharing. I love hearing stories like these on HN, random windows into the lives of people on HN.
- penagwin 7y agoIdk if they would knock you out or just give you anesthetic but keep you semi-aware. "Knocking people out" is generally avoided, but this obviously depends on the specific situation. Are there any medically experienced people that know if this could be more likely to be a full "knock them out" kind of procedure?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- loarake 7y agoWhatever you do, don't Google "prostate brachytherapy" ;)
- FussyZeus 7y agoDo you not like the "sound" of that? :D
- lawlessone 7y agoi would actually prefer to be cut open.
- coldtea 7y agoApparently (at least according to some porn site "categories") people pay to have this done to them for fun. Google "sounding xxx" (or don't).
- johnpowell 7y agoI went 40 years without getting a flu shot because I was terrified of needles. And I mean I would look away if someone was getting a shot on tv. Absolutely terrified of needles. A little over a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I have had all my teeth removed, had a feeding tube (PEG) installed, chemo, liver biopsy, and more random horrible shit. I went from terrified of needles to getting more of them than I can count. You adjust.
- red9350 7y agoWhy did you have your teeth removed?
- johnpowell 7y agoMouth/neck cancer. 35 treatments of radiation. It has been a year and my gums are still destroyed. My teeth were not in the best shape going into this. But the risk was high that the radiation would kill my teeth and need to be removed anyway. The problem here is that I was going to be monumentally fucked from the radiation/chemo and they weren't sure my body could handle pulling teeth if they died. And dead teeth just sitting in there could cause osteonecrosis of the jaw. Essentially a dead jaw. Then they would have to remove my jaw and that would be insane. So I opted to just have all my teeth pulled in one shot and get dentures later. And it wasn't some random dentist looking to profit saying I needed to have them pulled. Two ear, neck and throat doctors, a oral surgeon, two oncologists, and a radiologists all agreed that it was essential.
- AchieveLife 7y agoWow, that's terrible. Wishing you the best in your recovery and life :)
- ryanmercer 7y agoMy mother had thyroid cancer the better part of a decade ago, just the one dose of the radioactive iodine sabotaged her teeth to. Like you she didn't have the best of dental health as it was but she's been losing a few teeth a year since. My father died of cancer just before I turned 13 and he wasn't sick very long, over the course of a year or so he had a port installed, had a roughly horseshoe shaped and size scar on his scalp, had headgear bolted into his skull in multiple locations and the day we had to take him to the ER he had worked all day and by that night was effectively drowning in is own bodily fluids with his lungs mostly full of fluid at which point he went on a respirator, went unconscious and was taken off life support less than a week later. Cancer sucks man, I'm sorry you got dealt that hand.
- clort 7y agoI had a recurrent kidney infection a few years ago, and they inserted a camera up into my bladder this way to have a look. It really wasn't that bad but I did notice that when the doctor was getting ready, the nurse subtly became very close at my other side in a very casual manner and I suspect she was ready to restrain me. I did wonder how often the doctor got a black eye for his trouble..
- buboard 7y agoSome people do it for fun! you might be saying "ooohh"
- hsnewman 7y agoMy father and brother both got prostate cancer, the effects of surgery are life changing. I've been monitoring my PSA and it's still low (at 60). This is so much less intrusive and gives me hope that if I do get prostate cancer, I might be able to lead a normal life if I'm lucky enough to get this treatment. This is no joke of a disease.
- Dolores12 7y agoThis is good video[0] explaining how it works. Chosen resonating waves may destroy bridges, not to mention some cell membrane. The problem is there is no money in that for big pharma & co. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0_kazbb_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0_kazbb_U
- mrtksn 7y agoI always approach these statements with skepticism. Okay, let’s say that there’s no money for the big pharma, what about governments with socialized health care? What about rich people and their loved ones who suffer from cancer? The “not much money in this” aspect seems believable only when the condition is a rare one but cancer is a huge unsolved issue for everyone, including rich people and politicians. How can they not pursue cancer treatment option that’s not profitable enough for commercial players?
- adventured 7y agoFurther to that point, there is radically more money in big healthcare than there is in big pharma. In the US big healthcare is 8x-10x larger than big pharma. There is a lot of money to be made by big healthcare in any procedure in the US, including one as described by the article. Hospitals, admin, doctors, nurses, techs, medtech, they'll all be thrilled to ring the cash register instead of big pharma.
- dmix 7y agoAnd “big pharma” or “big health” isn’t a homogenous unit protecting their own interests (well not entirely). There’s no way one firm won’t pass up on a hundred million to save 50 firms from losing a billion. The only time that happens is when BigCo gets the government to ban things, regulate the small firms out before they can even start selling stuff, or when the FDA drags its feet for a decade. The fact the latter happens so often is one of the best reasons for public health insurance (IMO) because the US health industry is in many ways very far from a market where competition can efficiently account for stuff like this. But it’s not as bad to completely squeeze out whole new classes of treatments (new patented drugs is another story) which would be worse case scenario. Instead it tends to work through a million small rules but that only let the big guys exploit new stuff while potentially dragging their feet or charging 10x the cost, rather than completely excluding the market from it.
- HorizonXP 7y agoI did my Masters' thesis with the group that invented and developed this in Toronto. I know some of the co-authors on the paper personally since we worked together. AMA.
- radicalbyte 7y agoIs there any chance that these techniques could be equally effective for other cancers? For example Liver, Kidney, Lung cancers?
- ceejayoz 7y agoMy understanding is prostate cancer has a particular need for this sort of less invasive approach, as surgical procedures there tend to damage the sensitive equipment nearby - incontinence and impotence are common side effects of it, and often not worth it when prostate cancer tends not to be deadly. Things like liver cancer you're probably better off just doing a surgery for, as you'll have more chance of getting it all, spotting metastasized offshoots, etc., and it's fairly accessible.
- HorizonXP 7y agoYes, very much so. Ultrasound in medicine is very cool technology. Obviously many of us have experience with ultrasound imaging, which has revolutionized medicine in a number of ways. But we also learned that if you crank up the amplitude and frequency, you can heat the tissue. Our research group was one of several that figured out that you can use MRI-based thermometry to measure that heating, and use it as the input to your control loop. Then, it's a matter of adjusting the frequency, amplitude, and positioning (i.e. in this case, rotation) to "paint" your heat pattern. Thus, at least at our site, it was used to develop treatments for uterine fibroids, some types of breast cancer, and some types of brain cancer (using transcranial ultrasound, which is much harder to do because you have to go through bone and adjust for that medium). Generally, areas that you can reach from the skin and/or with a special probe, are potential treatment targets. Lung cancers are hard to treat with ultrasound, for a few reasons. The biggest is that it moves, which makes it hell for the MRI and system as a whole to keep up without hitting unwanted areas. The other is that ultrasound doesn't travel well through air. For ultrasound ablation to work, you need a good conduction interface. That's why ultrasound technicians slather that clear gel on you when they're imaging you. It's possible to do in the lungs, just exceedingly difficult. It's unlikely that someone will commercialize something there. The liver and kidneys won't be targeted either because the only way to reach them is by performing an incision. You might as well use other techniques like laparoscopy.
- bawana 7y agoThis commenter said it best John Otvos DECEMBER 8, 2019 06:19 AM There’s no free lunch here by treating any disease, let alone pc with some form of invasive therapy. Nerves do get damaged. Cells are set on fire and left to die. In order to reach a man’s doughnut, the treatment regime must pass through many layers of cellular tissue to ‘hit’ the target area. Our healthcare system, whether here in Canada, or stateside, is really about disease management. Far better to stop it before it begins. How? Through a whole foods plant-based lifestyle and diet. None of these major killers of western societies was so prevalent in the early 1900s. Asia did not have them either, ’til they adopted our dietary regimen of highly processed foodstuffs, meat, dairy and junk food. andsoitgoes… Yep, the medical industrial complex will keep on selling new snake oil. 80% of prostate cancers are indolent anyway so treating them is wasteful. Stratification was not used in this study.
- ceejayoz 7y ago> None of these major killers of western societies was so prevalent in the early 1900s. This is highly misleading. https://www.ncdemography.org/2014/06/16/mortality-and-cause-of-death-1900-v-2010/ https://www.ncdemography.org/2014/06/16/mortality-and-cause-... > In 1900, the top 3 causes of death were infectious diseases—pneumonia and flu, tuberculosis, and gastrointestinal infections (a fourth infectious disease, diphtheria, was the 10th leading cause of death). Improvements in sanitation, public health (vaccination development and delivery), and medical treatments, such as antibiotics, led to dramatic declines in deaths from infectious diseases during the 20th century. > Mortality from all causes declined 54% between 1900 and 2010. In other words, we cured or learned to treat the formerly top killers. Now we've just got the harder to cure and less prevalent stuff left, but continue to make significant headway on those too.
- bduerst 7y agoCan we not spread these pseudoscience lies on HN? Steve Jobs died in part because he believed he could cure his pancreatic cancer with herbal remedies and diet, which you're espousing.
- brain5ide 7y ago
- mooreed 7y agoAs someone whose family member recently just received a test showing elevated PSA levels (Prostate Cancer indicator); this article is a very real blessing. # Baseline issues with prostate cancer that suck. 1. Don't treat a benign version and possibly live with trouble urinating and follow on problems from that. 2. Don't treat a malignant version and die 3. Treat it and potentially be impotent 4. Treat it and end up with bowel dysfunction 5. Treat it and rehab through surgical scars looking like an upside down T from following from belly-button to waistline or a U shape around the rectum. 6. Of course there is some tail risk of much much worse situations; and while it's worth remembering, it's not worth enumerating. # TULSA method So while this method is not different - it includes things that suck... if you read further upstream of the newatlas article to RSNA primary source [1] you will find that not only do they insert a spinning ultrasound device up the urethra - but it also includes a simultaneous insertion of an endorectal cooling device(ECD)[2]. Given all that: the parts that suck about this method pale in comparison to the traditional list of 6 above. # Conclusion There is much to be squeamish about with this method, as with any prostate remediation methodology; but if applied under careful care of patient and doctor - this looks like a very promising prostate treatment. And as a family friend once put it to me: "Welcome to the world of cancers; where pretty much everything sucks." [1]: https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_target.cfm?id=2129 https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_ta... [2]: https://press.rsna.org/pressrelease/2019_resources/2129/fig_1.jpg https://press.rsna.org/pressrelease/2019_resources/2129/fig_... (edited for formatting)
- hristov 7y agoBy the way, your family member is probably aware of this but there is another ultrasound treatment option for prostate cancer that is completely non-invasive. It is called hifu. https://www.hifu-prostate.com/ https://www.hifu-prostate.com/ Hifu sends ultrasound from a curved emitter from outside the body in such a manner that the ultrasound ray will be focused on the treatment area. Thus, while you have ultrasound going through your body, only in the treatment area does it become high intensity enough to actually destroy tissue. This way they can burn off cancerous parts without damaging other parts of the prostate and the rest of the sensitive parts around there. I am not sure why the new atlas did not mention HIFU, it also uses MRI. HIFU is already cleared by the FDA, and it will become approved by medicare very soon (this coming January, I believe), so it will be paid by medicare and probably most insurance plans (as they tend to follow medicare).
- DarrenDev 7y agoThis from the guy who invented the PSA test, well worth reading, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.html
- stewbrew 7y agoHow is this related to this procedure? Both are about prostate cancer, but that's about it.
- carbocation 7y agoWhat is this number like in a comparator group (i.e., placebo or state-of-the-art therapy)?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- orthopodvt 7y agoThe headlines don't reflect the results reported in the abstract. In particular, a erectile dysfunction rate of 25% at one year is very high. Furthermore, the criteria for cancer oblation seems to be PSA decrease of 75%, which was achieved in 96% of patients. However, one would generally expect a much larger reduction in PSA if the cancer were truly oblated.
- dmix 7y agoThe levels of prostate cancer are very much titled toward older males past their sexual prime: https://www.verywellhealth.com/thmb/Imcc48tegbPKpY2cL18sXOIBFAY=/1501x1001/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/prostate-cancer-gender-chart-5b44d65e46e0fb00373a82a3.jpg https://www.verywellhealth.com/thmb/Imcc48tegbPKpY2cL18sXOIB... ED may be less of a concern with this group compared to other cancers or diseases. Not to mention the high rates of heart disease at that age in America already causing it. Plus the rates must be compared to other modern prostate treatment options.
- chrisweekly 7y agoI lost my father and my uncle to rare forms of prostate cancer. Here's to more research funding and accelerated progress on every front.
- WalterBright 7y agoIt's great to see this. I've often wondered why electromagnetic waves could not be focused on a tumor to destroy just it.
- Ductapemaster 7y agoMy father and my uncle both had this surgery (therapy?) to treat prostate cancer, and not only has it been effective (low to no PSA after over a year), their recoveries and post-surgery experiences are significantly better than any of the individual's they talked to who had a traditional prostatectomy. Not to say they are _unaffected_, but their experiences have not been life changing as the experiences of others they know (eg. incontinence). I'm so happy to see innovative and less invasive treatments for common diseases being approved.