6 ms·

The real question is always "but how good is it at killing non-cancer cells?" A bullet fired from a gun would be great at killing cancer cells too. Although in

The real question is always "but how good is it at killing non-cancer cells?" A bullet fired from a gun would be great at killing cancer cells too. Although in this case it seems like it's just an alternative to surgery, rather than a cancer cure? Just a way of vibrating cells in a certain location to death? Does anybody who actually understands medicine know if this is a great breakthrough or not?

H8crilA 3y ago
Every single cancer treatment is about destroying cancer cells. Given the clickbait level of the headline it's clear that it is not worth clicking.
- inkcapmushroom 3y ago
  >Given the clickbait level of the headline That is not a clickbait headline, it's very descriptive of the contents of the article. Clickbait would be like "Crazy new cancer cure will literally punch cancer cells to death! You won't believe it!"
  - H8crilA 3y ago
    Title was changed.
pvaldes 3y ago
If I understood it correctly, the "hammers" seek (or are coupled with a system that attach mainly to) the cancer cells, so they destroy it later. Looks like a clever system.
_nalply 3y ago
These chemicals were used to detect cancer cells by coloring them. Now it seems that they don't only color specifically, but with the help of infrared light they can even destroy. As far as I know these coloring chemicals are very specific for cancer types. This means perhaps they are a cure but not for all cancer types. Or the chemicals are poisonous and typically only used on biopsies. Or they are not specific enough. I don't know. We will see whether it is THE miraculous cure. I am afraid not, but let's hope. EDIT: let's cite: > Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer, they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching themselves to the outside of cells.
benjijay 3y ago
I am not a biologist but I've known a few in my time; It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, however this is a seemingly reasonably good breakthrough in treatment - being able to destroy cancerous cells without exposing the patient to further harm via targeted radiation or harsh chemo drugs (basically targeted poisoning) feels like a win. If we can break the cells down and let the body's immune system take care of the remnants instead of having to slice someone open, huge win!
- once_inc 3y ago
  > It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, "It doesn't make sense to say 'cure for cancer.' Cancer is a wide variety of disorders with different manifestations and etiology. It makes as much sense as saying 'a cure for virus'." > https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    An enhanced immune system would functionally be a “cure for virus”. It’s conceivable we could find a technique that targets and ruptures any cancer cell, functionally becoming a “cure for cancer”.
    - stvltvs 3y ago
      Which could increase the risk for autoimmune disease. Current immunotherapy treatments for cancer that I'm aware of have to be carefully monitored so they don't kill the patient.
- dghughes 3y ago
  Or better yet find out how to prevent cancers since it's better to not be sick than to treat you once you are sick. Things like the HPV vaccine which in my province saw a 90% drop in just a few years. I think everyone should get it no questions asked which maybe they don't anymore? The Hepatitis B vaccine too since having the disease is a cause of liver cancer. But if all else fails it's also good to have a tools to try to get rid of cancers.
mo_42 3y ago
I had the same question when reading this. They use the light only at places where cancerous cells were found plus some safety margin I guess. In that sense it's an alternative to surgery.
- adamredwoods 3y ago
  Essentially correct. They use near-infra red light, which can only penetrate about 3cm of skin, so this is not a complete replacement to surgery. New modern chemotherapy (anti-body drug conjugates) are also similar to how it "adheres" to cancer cells, by binding to specific cell expression. It's not re-inventing this technology, just finding a new way to leverage it. The drug will also bind to normal cells, but by directing light to a specific area the goal is to minimize damage and side effects.
sungam 3y ago
It is a long way off clinical application but could potentially be useful for treatment of "in transit" metastases - e.g. multiple metastases spreading from a distal site on a limb and growing on the skin. At the moment these are usually removed surgically or treated with electrochemotherapy. Unlikely to replace conventional treatments such as immunotherapy (checkpoint inhibitors), targeted inhibitors (BRAF/MEK) or emerging treatments such as personalised mRNA vaccines. (Lead clinician for the melanoma multidisciplinary team at a major teaching hospital in London for what it's worth)
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
We are currently using radiation therapy which focuses gamma rays on a piece of tissue with cancer cells to kill it. If you can do the same but instead of gamma rays use infrared, even if it kills indiscriminately, that should still be a net positive, don't you think? And the main benefit here is that you can get these molecules into specific cells which in theory should allow killing cells based on some chemical characteristic.
ta988 3y ago
https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
mcint 3y ago
Even if this just becomes chemotherapy but locally activated by near-infrared light, that would be great. It means, at worst, don't go outside or be in bright sun-lit spaces, but also, we can shine a flashlight on where the cancer is to kill it. Even if it weren't very selective (which could be adjusted with other targeting molecules), light-trigged theraputics are easy to understand the propagation of.

H8crilA 3y ago

Every single cancer treatment is about destroying cancer cells. Given the clickbait level of the headline it's clear that it is not worth clicking.

inkcapmushroom 3y ago
>Given the clickbait level of the headline That is not a clickbait headline, it's very descriptive of the contents of the article. Clickbait would be like "Crazy new cancer cure will literally punch cancer cells to death! You won't believe it!"
- H8crilA 3y ago
  Title was changed.

pvaldes 3y ago

If I understood it correctly, the "hammers" seek (or are coupled with a system that attach mainly to) the cancer cells, so they destroy it later. Looks like a clever system.

_nalply 3y ago

These chemicals were used to detect cancer cells by coloring them. Now it seems that they don't only color specifically, but with the help of infrared light they can even destroy. As far as I know these coloring chemicals are very specific for cancer types. This means perhaps they are a cure but not for all cancer types. Or the chemicals are poisonous and typically only used on biopsies. Or they are not specific enough. I don't know. We will see whether it is THE miraculous cure. I am afraid not, but let's hope. EDIT: let's cite: > Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer, they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching themselves to the outside of cells.

benjijay 3y ago

I am not a biologist but I've known a few in my time; It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, however this is a seemingly reasonably good breakthrough in treatment - being able to destroy cancerous cells without exposing the patient to further harm via targeted radiation or harsh chemo drugs (basically targeted poisoning) feels like a win. If we can break the cells down and let the body's immune system take care of the remnants instead of having to slice someone open, huge win!

once_inc 3y ago
> It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, "It doesn't make sense to say 'cure for cancer.' Cancer is a wide variety of disorders with different manifestations and etiology. It makes as much sense as saying 'a cure for virus'." > https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  An enhanced immune system would functionally be a “cure for virus”. It’s conceivable we could find a technique that targets and ruptures any cancer cell, functionally becoming a “cure for cancer”.
  - stvltvs 3y ago
    Which could increase the risk for autoimmune disease. Current immunotherapy treatments for cancer that I'm aware of have to be carefully monitored so they don't kill the patient.
dghughes 3y ago
Or better yet find out how to prevent cancers since it's better to not be sick than to treat you once you are sick. Things like the HPV vaccine which in my province saw a 90% drop in just a few years. I think everyone should get it no questions asked which maybe they don't anymore? The Hepatitis B vaccine too since having the disease is a cause of liver cancer. But if all else fails it's also good to have a tools to try to get rid of cancers.

mo_42 3y ago

I had the same question when reading this. They use the light only at places where cancerous cells were found plus some safety margin I guess. In that sense it's an alternative to surgery.

adamredwoods 3y ago
Essentially correct. They use near-infra red light, which can only penetrate about 3cm of skin, so this is not a complete replacement to surgery. New modern chemotherapy (anti-body drug conjugates) are also similar to how it "adheres" to cancer cells, by binding to specific cell expression. It's not re-inventing this technology, just finding a new way to leverage it. The drug will also bind to normal cells, but by directing light to a specific area the goal is to minimize damage and side effects.

sungam 3y ago

It is a long way off clinical application but could potentially be useful for treatment of "in transit" metastases - e.g. multiple metastases spreading from a distal site on a limb and growing on the skin. At the moment these are usually removed surgically or treated with electrochemotherapy. Unlikely to replace conventional treatments such as immunotherapy (checkpoint inhibitors), targeted inhibitors (BRAF/MEK) or emerging treatments such as personalised mRNA vaccines. (Lead clinician for the melanoma multidisciplinary team at a major teaching hospital in London for what it's worth)

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

We are currently using radiation therapy which focuses gamma rays on a piece of tissue with cancer cells to kill it. If you can do the same but instead of gamma rays use infrared, even if it kills indiscriminately, that should still be a net positive, don't you think? And the main benefit here is that you can get these molecules into specific cells which in theory should allow killing cells based on some chemical characteristic.

ta988 3y ago

https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/

mcint 3y ago

Even if this just becomes chemotherapy but locally activated by near-infrared light, that would be great. It means, at worst, don't go outside or be in bright sun-lit spaces, but also, we can shine a flashlight on where the cancer is to kill it. Even if it weren't very selective (which could be adjusted with other targeting molecules), light-trigged theraputics are easy to understand the propagation of.