4 ms·

I find it unlikely that any cure for cancer would be so specific that it would work on breast cancer only. Much of the rhetoric that surrounds breast and prost

I find it unlikely that any cure for cancer would be so specific that it would work on breast cancer only. Much of the rhetoric that surrounds breast and prostate cancer irks me as though it be more rooted in identity politics than medicine. — I don't think such a specific claim would easily be made about, say, colon cancer or leukæmia.

jwdunne 6y ago
Why? Breast cancer is cancer of the breast tissue. It’s a different disease to prostate cancer, which is again a different disease to colon cancer and leukaemia. That’s why there probably won’t be a universal “cure for cancer”. Breast or prostate cancer are the most common cancers in women and men respectively. No matter what you identify as, if you have either breast or prostate tissue, there’s a real risk to most people. That’s why we hear about it more. We don’t hear as much about mesothelioma because it’s rarer. I don’t think it has anything to do with identity politics and everything to do with the medicine.
- sterlind 6y ago
  As an example, Gleevec has turned CML from a terminal cancer into a chronic, manageable condition for most patients. Life expectancy for CML is nearly the same as the general population now. [0] But Gleevec doesn't work on prostate or breast cancer. Cancers happen when mutations in a cell cause it to proliferate uncontrollably; the genetic circuits that need to be activated differ by cell type. For instance, prostate cancer can be treated with anti-androgens, since testosterone is required for prostate cells to reproduce. The cancer can evolve to resist anti-androgen therapy by mutating the androgen receptor so it's always stuck on. It's all circuits, and all the circuits are different. 0. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/103/7/553/2517175 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/103/7/553/2517175
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Why? Breast cancer is cancer of the breast tissue. It’s a different disease to prostate cancer, which is again a different disease to colon cancer and leukaemia. Yet most cancer treatment at the moment is not so specific. The exact same drugs are used to treat many different forms of cancer[1]; lukæmia is indeed treated with the same drugs as breast cancer is. > Breast or prostate cancer are the most common cancers in women and men respectively. The most common form of cancer is lung cancer[2], and while breast cancer takes a second place, prostate cancer is fairly low down the list at 5. Furthermore, in terms of lethality, both take a rather strong backseat to many other forms[3] > I don’t think it has anything to do with identity politics and everything to do with the medicine. I see no evidence for your claim that breast cancer is so fundamentally different and the link I posted indicates that the same treatments are very much used for different locations of cancer. - [1] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000910.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000910.htm - [2] https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/worldwide-cancer-data https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/worldwide-c... - [3] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-deaths/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de...
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    There are some specific treatments for breast cancer with hormones. More details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#Hormonal_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#Hormonal_therapy
  - Delk 6y ago
    Many anti-cancer drugs target cell division, or DNA replication, or something along those lines. It wouldn't be surprising that the same agents are used against different kinds of cancers (which consist of different kinds of cells/tissue), since the common factor in all kinds of cancer is uncontrolled growth. The drugs might still be more effective against one type of cancer than against another for whatever reasons. I'm not knowledgeable of those reasons, but a bit of research might tell something about them. Chemotherapy drugs have hiked cure rates for testicular cancer to somewhere around 90%. I think I've read that it was somewhere around 50% before the discovery of those drugs in the 1960's or 1970's. The same combinations of drugs (or some of the same drugs combined with something else) are also used for other kinds of cancer, such as ovarian or cervical cancer if my memory serves. Yet those drugs or drug combinations still aren't quite as effective against those other types of cancer as they are against testicular cancer. That's probably just a matter of them happening to work well against some specific kinds of neoplasms, not a matter of what anybody wants them to work against. You may be right that some types of cancer get more attention because they primarily affect intimate organs, and thus provoke stronger emotions. However, for example the chemotherapy that's still used for testicular cancer was discovered decades ago, and probably has nothing to do with any kind of identity politics. TC is also rare enough that it's probably off most people's radars, and the reason it's got a ~90% cure rate is probably just that a treatment was discovered that happens to work against it. While emotional reasons may certainly direct the general interest towards particular kinds of cancer, I disagree with your general notion that a cure for a particular kind of cancer would be for some reason less likely than a general one. On the contrary, finding a specific drug (or having a general drug work better against one or a few types of cancer than others) would be much more likely than a cure-all. There's even an example of the former, and it's not because of present-day identity politics.
- corty 6y ago
  Cancer comes in variants per cell type times the number of ways this cell can mutate. Each of your organs comprises a number of cell types. And for any given cell type there is often more than one place in which a mutation can cause cancer (other mutations may be harmless or cause cell death). Each of those different cancers of the same cell type may have it's own characteristic symptoms, progression and treatment. For almost all cancers, there are common treatment options like surgery. External beam radiation can very often be used if the area is targetable. Internal radiation works far less often, but there are some specifics that make some cancers unique there, like Thyroid cells that are susceptible to radioactive iodine. Chemotherapy with cell-division-inhibiting drugs also works, but there differences really start to show, because the various cancer cells have different division rates and susceptibilities to certain inhibitors, making some chemo drug better or worse than another. And then there are some cancers, where very specific treatments may be available, like e.g. antibodies that target those specific cancer cells since they have unique surface features that can be targeted. The more targeted the method the better, since you will have less collateral damage and can use a higher, more potent dose. So superficially, there might seem to be three main options, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy. But even those very common options can have vast differences that aren't always obvious to the layman who just gets to hear about the rough categories of treatments.
reedf1 6y ago
These days I'm seeing the anti-identity-politics folks bring up identity-politics more than anyone else...
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  And what of it? I did not attack identity politics on frequency of occurrence, but on medical inaccuracy. — absent any attack on the accuracy of my arguments, yours is essentially an argument of. “These days, I'm seeing attacks on inaccuracy brought up more than inaccuracy.”. I may certainly hope that you see such.
blackbear_ 6y ago
> I find it unlikely that any cure for cancer would be so specific that it would work on breast cancer only. Then allow me to introduce you to the world of personalized cancer vaccines, that can even be targeted to a specific cancer of a specific patient. Here are some readings to get you started: - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-020-00460-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-020-00460-2 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064988/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064988/ - http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aar7112 http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aar7112 - http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nri.2017.131 http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nri.2017.131 - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23003 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23003
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Nothing in any of the literature you've shown suggests that this could lead to a cure of one specific type of cancer. All the literature speaks of that this technique can be used to treat cancer in general, even though the treatment's nature itself relies on the specific properties of specific cancer cells as to not be as destructive as most treatments that exist today.
  - blackbear_ 6y ago
    > Nothing in any of the literature you've shown suggests that this could lead to a cure of one specific type of cancer. These vaccines are based on neoantigens, which, quoting the abstract of one of those articles, "are highly specific to tumours of individual patients". The technique is generally applicable to several types of cancer, but the cure will be specific to only one type.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Yes, but the technology and research will allow a cure to be developed for all types even though the cures that come from it themselves are quite specific. It still won't lead to developing a cure for only one type of cancer.

jwdunne 6y ago

Why? Breast cancer is cancer of the breast tissue. It’s a different disease to prostate cancer, which is again a different disease to colon cancer and leukaemia. That’s why there probably won’t be a universal “cure for cancer”. Breast or prostate cancer are the most common cancers in women and men respectively. No matter what you identify as, if you have either breast or prostate tissue, there’s a real risk to most people. That’s why we hear about it more. We don’t hear as much about mesothelioma because it’s rarer. I don’t think it has anything to do with identity politics and everything to do with the medicine.

sterlind 6y ago
As an example, Gleevec has turned CML from a terminal cancer into a chronic, manageable condition for most patients. Life expectancy for CML is nearly the same as the general population now. [0] But Gleevec doesn't work on prostate or breast cancer. Cancers happen when mutations in a cell cause it to proliferate uncontrollably; the genetic circuits that need to be activated differ by cell type. For instance, prostate cancer can be treated with anti-androgens, since testosterone is required for prostate cells to reproduce. The cancer can evolve to resist anti-androgen therapy by mutating the androgen receptor so it's always stuck on. It's all circuits, and all the circuits are different. 0. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/103/7/553/2517175 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/103/7/553/2517175
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Why? Breast cancer is cancer of the breast tissue. It’s a different disease to prostate cancer, which is again a different disease to colon cancer and leukaemia. Yet most cancer treatment at the moment is not so specific. The exact same drugs are used to treat many different forms of cancer[1]; lukæmia is indeed treated with the same drugs as breast cancer is. > Breast or prostate cancer are the most common cancers in women and men respectively. The most common form of cancer is lung cancer[2], and while breast cancer takes a second place, prostate cancer is fairly low down the list at 5. Furthermore, in terms of lethality, both take a rather strong backseat to many other forms[3] > I don’t think it has anything to do with identity politics and everything to do with the medicine. I see no evidence for your claim that breast cancer is so fundamentally different and the link I posted indicates that the same treatments are very much used for different locations of cancer. - [1] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000910.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000910.htm - [2] https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/worldwide-cancer-data https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/worldwide-c... - [3] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-deaths/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de...
- gus_massa 6y ago
  There are some specific treatments for breast cancer with hormones. More details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#Hormonal_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#Hormonal_therapy
- Delk 6y ago
  Many anti-cancer drugs target cell division, or DNA replication, or something along those lines. It wouldn't be surprising that the same agents are used against different kinds of cancers (which consist of different kinds of cells/tissue), since the common factor in all kinds of cancer is uncontrolled growth. The drugs might still be more effective against one type of cancer than against another for whatever reasons. I'm not knowledgeable of those reasons, but a bit of research might tell something about them. Chemotherapy drugs have hiked cure rates for testicular cancer to somewhere around 90%. I think I've read that it was somewhere around 50% before the discovery of those drugs in the 1960's or 1970's. The same combinations of drugs (or some of the same drugs combined with something else) are also used for other kinds of cancer, such as ovarian or cervical cancer if my memory serves. Yet those drugs or drug combinations still aren't quite as effective against those other types of cancer as they are against testicular cancer. That's probably just a matter of them happening to work well against some specific kinds of neoplasms, not a matter of what anybody wants them to work against. You may be right that some types of cancer get more attention because they primarily affect intimate organs, and thus provoke stronger emotions. However, for example the chemotherapy that's still used for testicular cancer was discovered decades ago, and probably has nothing to do with any kind of identity politics. TC is also rare enough that it's probably off most people's radars, and the reason it's got a ~90% cure rate is probably just that a treatment was discovered that happens to work against it. While emotional reasons may certainly direct the general interest towards particular kinds of cancer, I disagree with your general notion that a cure for a particular kind of cancer would be for some reason less likely than a general one. On the contrary, finding a specific drug (or having a general drug work better against one or a few types of cancer than others) would be much more likely than a cure-all. There's even an example of the former, and it's not because of present-day identity politics.
corty 6y ago
Cancer comes in variants per cell type times the number of ways this cell can mutate. Each of your organs comprises a number of cell types. And for any given cell type there is often more than one place in which a mutation can cause cancer (other mutations may be harmless or cause cell death). Each of those different cancers of the same cell type may have it's own characteristic symptoms, progression and treatment. For almost all cancers, there are common treatment options like surgery. External beam radiation can very often be used if the area is targetable. Internal radiation works far less often, but there are some specifics that make some cancers unique there, like Thyroid cells that are susceptible to radioactive iodine. Chemotherapy with cell-division-inhibiting drugs also works, but there differences really start to show, because the various cancer cells have different division rates and susceptibilities to certain inhibitors, making some chemo drug better or worse than another. And then there are some cancers, where very specific treatments may be available, like e.g. antibodies that target those specific cancer cells since they have unique surface features that can be targeted. The more targeted the method the better, since you will have less collateral damage and can use a higher, more potent dose. So superficially, there might seem to be three main options, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy. But even those very common options can have vast differences that aren't always obvious to the layman who just gets to hear about the rough categories of treatments.

reedf1 6y ago

These days I'm seeing the anti-identity-politics folks bring up identity-politics more than anyone else...

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
And what of it? I did not attack identity politics on frequency of occurrence, but on medical inaccuracy. — absent any attack on the accuracy of my arguments, yours is essentially an argument of. “These days, I'm seeing attacks on inaccuracy brought up more than inaccuracy.”. I may certainly hope that you see such.

blackbear_ 6y ago

> I find it unlikely that any cure for cancer would be so specific that it would work on breast cancer only. Then allow me to introduce you to the world of personalized cancer vaccines, that can even be targeted to a specific cancer of a specific patient. Here are some readings to get you started: - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-020-00460-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-020-00460-2 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064988/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064988/ - http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aar7112 http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aar7112 - http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nri.2017.131 http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nri.2017.131 - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23003 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23003

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Nothing in any of the literature you've shown suggests that this could lead to a cure of one specific type of cancer. All the literature speaks of that this technique can be used to treat cancer in general, even though the treatment's nature itself relies on the specific properties of specific cancer cells as to not be as destructive as most treatments that exist today.
- blackbear_ 6y ago
  > Nothing in any of the literature you've shown suggests that this could lead to a cure of one specific type of cancer. These vaccines are based on neoantigens, which, quoting the abstract of one of those articles, "are highly specific to tumours of individual patients". The technique is generally applicable to several types of cancer, but the cure will be specific to only one type.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Yes, but the technology and research will allow a cure to be developed for all types even though the cures that come from it themselves are quite specific. It still won't lead to developing a cure for only one type of cancer.