28 ms·

New iron nanomaterial wipes out cancer cells without harming healthy tissue

322 points by gradus_ad 8mo ago

mcc1ane 8mo ago
in mice?
- YarickR2 8mo ago
  Human breast cancer, in mice.
- jbotz 8mo ago
  Yes, in mice, but human cancer cells: "When we systemically administered our nanoagent in mice bearing human breast cancer cells, it efficiently accumulated in tumors, robustly generated reactive oxygen species and completely eradicated the cancer without adverse effects ..." So it kills human cancer and doesn't harm the mouse in the process.
  - greygoo222 8mo ago
    Xenografted human tumors in mice != human cancer. The support structure of the tumor (tumor microenvironment) differs between model mice and humans, cells derived from human cancer that can be cultivated in a lab and xenografted differ from typical human cancer cells, and xenografting requires immunodeficient mice, just to name a few factors that affect treatment response. Mice models of cancer are useful, but you should never be too surprised when something that works in mice doesn't work in the clinic, xenografting or no. Cancer is complicated.
  - yyyk 8mo ago
    Doesn't harm the mouse. But would it harm the normal human cells?
dyauspitr 8mo ago
Anything that doesn’t genetically target cancer cells is just not the solution long term. Any progress is good though.
- lightedman 8mo ago
  Literally reactive oxygen species targets cancer cell DNA. We are taking advantage of the unique chemical environment of the inside of a cancer cell and using it to generate oxygen in a double-whammy to destroy itself. This is perhaps the best targeted method devised as it seems to collect basically entirely in tumors. Chemo and Radio therapy just aren't that targeted.
msie 8mo ago
They should give it to some people with fatal stages of cancer.
- gimmeThaBeet 8mo ago
  I agree, or at least I would stress that people should be allowed to consent to that. I don't know what the prevailing medical ethics of doing that kind of thing in consenting patients in that state, but my uninformed intuition is I would disagree with it. Though one thing that I might think researchers might not want is people may be too sick to recover even if their cancer disappeared tomorrow.
  - tyre 8mo ago
    In the US, the FDA has a Compassionate Use exemption to clinical trials for exactly this circumstance! There must be informed consent, no reasonable alternatives (which, in cases we deem terminal, is often the case), and some evidence pointing to the treatment possibly being helpful. It's an excellent ethical program that gives patients a choice and advances science.
    - throwup238 8mo ago
      In my experience most legitimate biotech companies working on promising drugs and therapies don’t want to touch the exemption with a 30 foot pole. Since they raise most of their money from the public to fund clinical trials, a single bad reaction could generate enough bad PR to derail fundraising and kill the drug. Sticking to clinical trials allows them to control that blast radius so even though the FDA approves >95% of applications, in practice very few drugs are available that way. The biggest exception is oncology. Since everyone knows that chemotherapy is hell, cancer drugs tend to get a pass and pre-approval companies are (slightly) more willing to work with compassionate use exemptions.
  - greygoo222 8mo ago
    Both patient participation in clinical trials and compassionate use of experimental treatments are fairly common for cancer patients, with various accessibility barriers. (One issue with the latter, for example, is that the incentives aren't lined up for companies to provide unapproved drugs to dying patients, you're way more likely to get a horrible complication that leads to bad press than a miraculous recovery). Here's an insightful blog series about Jake Seliger's experience participating in clinical trials. He was a regular HackerNews user who passed away in 2024: https://bessstillman.substack.com/p/please-be-dying-but-not-too-quickly https://bessstillman.substack.com/p/please-be-dying-but-not-...
esafak 8mo ago
If it worked, how much might it roughly cost per treatment, at scale?
- stevekemp 8mo ago
  Does the cost matter? Many countries subsidize healthcare, so there's either no charge or a token payment which doesn't even pretend to cover the cost of treatment. Other countries use insurance, so once again the end cost is essentially irrelevant.
  - esafak 8mo ago
    Of course it does. Countries have budgets. Expensive drugs aren't doled out like candy; they require screening, waits, connections, and even bribes.
  - Groxx 8mo ago
    Yes? Countries that subsidize healthcare don't calculate infinite value per person.
  - nickjj 8mo ago
    > Other countries use insurance, so once again the end cost is essentially irrelevant. I think it matters because oftentimes insurance companies won't cover treatments if a cheaper form of treatment exists. It doesn't matter if the old treatment is less effective or a much worse outcome for a patient. This is especially true for "new" treatments.
  - skeletal88 8mo ago
    The cost absolutely matters. If something costs tens of thousands of € per month for a long time then it will either not be approved or will be used very rarely. The cost is not irrelevant because the insurance does not have infinite money. They need to decide which cures, medicines, operations they fund. They can spend 1000€ to cure 100 people of something or to spend 100k to maybe cure someone with an experimental treatment. This is one of the issues with the modern cancer cures, thst they are very specific to the cancer, the patient, need one off lab work for each patient and this makes them very expensive and not affordable to many. Despite having public healthcare the managers of it still need to decide what to spend their limited funds on.
Flere-Imsaho 8mo ago
[flagged]
- Larrikin 8mo ago
  The people that want to prompt an LLM will do it.
  - greygoo222 8mo ago
    These are all correct observations about the limitations of xenografted mouse models.
    - delecti 8mo ago
      A great deal of effort and money is spent running studies. I'm inclined to assume the experts in the field are more aware of the tradeoffs of that decision and how to mitigate the downsides than probably all, but certainly the overwhelming majority, of people commenting on this thread. Someone who needs to ask an LLM will not be helpful in trying to point out something they missed.
      - greygoo222 8mo ago
        They're not pointing out something the researchers missed, they're pointing out something the people in this thread confidently hyping the results are missing. I'm certain the researchers are familiar with the limitations of the models they used (is it bad that the incentives of science and science journalism leads to overoptimistic coverage that hint at groundbreaking implications without explaining to lay readers what the unknowns are? Probably, but that's not these researchers' faults). The average person in this thread, however, would probably be better informed by asking an LLM for context. They'd be even better informed by taking a few weeks to work through a textbook on cancer biology, but realistically they won't. My horse in the race is that I'm annoyed by overenthusiastic comments that display a lack of understanding of the history of cancer treatment, and I'm going to be even more annoyed in a few months when the rounds of "haven't we had 1000 cures to cancer posted to HN??? why aren't we using any of them???" start showing up again. I'd rather encourage informed, skeptical optimism.
RomanPushkin 8mo ago
Experiencing cancer in my family I can tell for sure all of that buzz is quite exciting, but in the last 5 years there haven't been breakthroughs that would significantly improve outcomes for an average patient.
- Retric 8mo ago
  Major breakthroughs of the kind you’re talking about are extremely uncommon. Instead it’s lots of little gains that keep adding up because cancer isn’t adapting overall people still get the same mutations they got 10,000 years ago. So average person with cancer does better when any individuals cancer treatment improves and it keeps compounding over time. This doesn’t mean everyone with cancer gets a slight improvement, often it’s specific types or stages that improve without impacting others. Where general progress comes from is it’s not the same improvements year after year.
  - SapporoChris 8mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cancer_treatment_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cancer_treatment_d... I won't debate what merits a major breakthrough. I will say, that while there hasn't been any major developments in the past five years, I can't draw any conclusions from that tidbit of information.
    - Retric 8mo ago
      That cuts out in 2015, but 5 year survival rates keep increasing with the USA just crossing 70%. Though across longer timeframes some of that is from early detection; even limited to late stage diagnosis the statistics still show significant improvement. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.70043 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac...
- slapshot 8mo ago
  There have been massive improvements in treatments in the last 5 years. Sure, cancer is far from being "cured" - but survival today is far better than 5 years ago for many forms. Among many others: - CAR T therapy going from lab to oncology suite (first launch 2017, but use rapidly growing) - Approval of Keytruda and similar for many additional forms of cancer (see the 2021-2026 milestones here: https://www.drugs.com/history/keytruda.html https://www.drugs.com/history/keytruda.html ) - Liquid biopsy going from lab to PCP's office - starting with Grail Galleri and moving from there (yes, the NIH results were weak, but the idea of a liquid biopsy at all would be laughed off 10 years ago) - Move of Atezolizumab and Tecentriq from infusion (hour) to injection (minutes) to increase availability - Lower dose CT scanning for lung cancer, including for non-smokers And a long line of immunotherapies that are making the leap from lab to chair right now. The last 5 years have probably been the most exciting in cancer research since the launch of the monoclonal antibodies in the early 2010s. There is still incredibly far to go, but the trend is in the right direction: https://employercoverage.substack.com/p/decline-in-cancer-mortality https://employercoverage.substack.com/p/decline-in-cancer-mo...
xbar 8mo ago
I lost my brother yesterday to cancer. I hope one day this can save lives. Go Beavs.
- Barbing 8mo ago
  <3 awful buddy me too
- Tagbert 8mo ago
  I'm sorry you have to go through that. Speaking from experience.
- calgoo 8mo ago
  <3
- throwup238 8mo ago
  > Go Beavs. That's also Caltech's mascot! Bernoulli the Beaver.
  - javiramos 8mo ago
    And MIT's!
  - efavdb 8mo ago
    I never heard the “Bernoulli” part, new?
    - throwup238 8mo ago
      Yeah it was named a few years ago after a student/faculty poll https://tech.caltech.edu/2023/05/update-on-bernoulli-the-beaver/ https://tech.caltech.edu/2023/05/update-on-bernoulli-the-bea...
- javiramos 8mo ago
  <3
- Zeetah 8mo ago
fnord77 8mo ago
Command-F "mice" yup. every time
- bahmboo 8mo ago
  Yes, but they were human cancer cells.
  - kulahan 8mo ago
    The result that it didn't affect any other cells really doesn't matter nearly as much when the other unaffected cells are literally from a completely different animal.
quantummagic 8mo ago
Hope this makes it to people soon. Have a family friend who was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. It was here in Canada, so they offered her assisted suicide, literally within 30 seconds after telling her she had cancer. She didn't even really process the diagnosis before they were offering to help her die. They didn't offer to try any experimental medicine.
- MagicMoonlight 8mo ago
  Were you actually there? Because that doesn’t sound very likely.
  - zdragnar 8mo ago
    Not a comment on the parent post's situation, but MAID in Canada isn't quite turning out how it was promised. A recent report making a splash in certain circles pointed out that ~200 people in Ontario in 2023 got assisted suicide either the same day or the day after they filed their paperwork. The most notable case was a woman who, after submitting her paperwork, changed her mind and wanted hospice instead. However, she was denied hospice care and subsequently was put down. Bit by bit, Canada risks defaulting to suicide over expensive care. That's not what people voted for when it was first proposed. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-Report-2024.4_Same-Day-Next-Day-Provisions_Final.pdf https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-...
    - gamblor956 8mo ago
      ...because her spouse made an urgent request for MAiD and her spouse had medical POA...
      - zdragnar 8mo ago
        The problem isn't that the urgent request went through, it's that she requested hospice or palliative care and was denied. And, let's be honest, POA should not be sufficient to euthanize a person who is awake, aware, and revoked consent. "Do no harm" has been replaced with "put them down if it's cheaper and we can get away with it"
MagicMoonlight 8mo ago
That sounds extremely promising
fghorow 8mo ago
What is the delivery mechanism for the MOF. The chemistry sounds promising (to this amateur, at least) but how does it get to and enter cancer cells?
- kulahan 8mo ago
  It sounds like their method auto-accumulates in the cells because they're the only one with the right conditions to attract these chemicals?
- nicwilson 8mo ago
  (Having not read the article), most likely because the cancer cells (at least at more advanced stages) are busy trying to replicate as fast as possible, so they take up nutrients at a much faster rate than non-cancerous cells. As to why Iron in particular, it is used as a cofactor for enzyme and if Iron is a limiting factor for replication then supplying it will lead to a burst of growth which then (presumably by applying strong oscillatory magnetic fields) you can target those cells directly to locally boil them. How do the iron nano materials get there? probably a combination of vasculature and diffusion. They have done this kind of stuff before with gold nanoparticles, iron is a lot more abundant.
  - mcswell 8mo ago
    It seems like you could also help direct the iron to the tumor with magnets. That seems too simple to be true, but I don't see why it wouldn't be.
v3ss0n 8mo ago
Will this be buried like rest if cancer cures?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
stevenjgarner 8mo ago
Actual paper: https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/new-cancer-killing-material-developed-oregon-state-university-nanomedicine-researchers https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/new-cancer-killing-materia...

322 points by gradus_ad 8mo ago

mcc1ane 8mo ago

in mice?

YarickR2 8mo ago
Human breast cancer, in mice.
jbotz 8mo ago
Yes, in mice, but human cancer cells: "When we systemically administered our nanoagent in mice bearing human breast cancer cells, it efficiently accumulated in tumors, robustly generated reactive oxygen species and completely eradicated the cancer without adverse effects ..." So it kills human cancer and doesn't harm the mouse in the process.
- greygoo222 8mo ago
  Xenografted human tumors in mice != human cancer. The support structure of the tumor (tumor microenvironment) differs between model mice and humans, cells derived from human cancer that can be cultivated in a lab and xenografted differ from typical human cancer cells, and xenografting requires immunodeficient mice, just to name a few factors that affect treatment response. Mice models of cancer are useful, but you should never be too surprised when something that works in mice doesn't work in the clinic, xenografting or no. Cancer is complicated.
- yyyk 8mo ago
  Doesn't harm the mouse. But would it harm the normal human cells?

dyauspitr 8mo ago

Anything that doesn’t genetically target cancer cells is just not the solution long term. Any progress is good though.

lightedman 8mo ago
Literally reactive oxygen species targets cancer cell DNA. We are taking advantage of the unique chemical environment of the inside of a cancer cell and using it to generate oxygen in a double-whammy to destroy itself. This is perhaps the best targeted method devised as it seems to collect basically entirely in tumors. Chemo and Radio therapy just aren't that targeted.

msie 8mo ago

They should give it to some people with fatal stages of cancer.

gimmeThaBeet 8mo ago
I agree, or at least I would stress that people should be allowed to consent to that. I don't know what the prevailing medical ethics of doing that kind of thing in consenting patients in that state, but my uninformed intuition is I would disagree with it. Though one thing that I might think researchers might not want is people may be too sick to recover even if their cancer disappeared tomorrow.
- tyre 8mo ago
  In the US, the FDA has a Compassionate Use exemption to clinical trials for exactly this circumstance! There must be informed consent, no reasonable alternatives (which, in cases we deem terminal, is often the case), and some evidence pointing to the treatment possibly being helpful. It's an excellent ethical program that gives patients a choice and advances science.
  - throwup238 8mo ago
    In my experience most legitimate biotech companies working on promising drugs and therapies don’t want to touch the exemption with a 30 foot pole. Since they raise most of their money from the public to fund clinical trials, a single bad reaction could generate enough bad PR to derail fundraising and kill the drug. Sticking to clinical trials allows them to control that blast radius so even though the FDA approves >95% of applications, in practice very few drugs are available that way. The biggest exception is oncology. Since everyone knows that chemotherapy is hell, cancer drugs tend to get a pass and pre-approval companies are (slightly) more willing to work with compassionate use exemptions.
- greygoo222 8mo ago
  Both patient participation in clinical trials and compassionate use of experimental treatments are fairly common for cancer patients, with various accessibility barriers. (One issue with the latter, for example, is that the incentives aren't lined up for companies to provide unapproved drugs to dying patients, you're way more likely to get a horrible complication that leads to bad press than a miraculous recovery). Here's an insightful blog series about Jake Seliger's experience participating in clinical trials. He was a regular HackerNews user who passed away in 2024: https://bessstillman.substack.com/p/please-be-dying-but-not-too-quickly https://bessstillman.substack.com/p/please-be-dying-but-not-...

esafak 8mo ago

If it worked, how much might it roughly cost per treatment, at scale?

stevekemp 8mo ago
Does the cost matter? Many countries subsidize healthcare, so there's either no charge or a token payment which doesn't even pretend to cover the cost of treatment. Other countries use insurance, so once again the end cost is essentially irrelevant.
- esafak 8mo ago
  Of course it does. Countries have budgets. Expensive drugs aren't doled out like candy; they require screening, waits, connections, and even bribes.
- Groxx 8mo ago
  Yes? Countries that subsidize healthcare don't calculate infinite value per person.
- nickjj 8mo ago
  > Other countries use insurance, so once again the end cost is essentially irrelevant. I think it matters because oftentimes insurance companies won't cover treatments if a cheaper form of treatment exists. It doesn't matter if the old treatment is less effective or a much worse outcome for a patient. This is especially true for "new" treatments.
- skeletal88 8mo ago
  The cost absolutely matters. If something costs tens of thousands of € per month for a long time then it will either not be approved or will be used very rarely. The cost is not irrelevant because the insurance does not have infinite money. They need to decide which cures, medicines, operations they fund. They can spend 1000€ to cure 100 people of something or to spend 100k to maybe cure someone with an experimental treatment. This is one of the issues with the modern cancer cures, thst they are very specific to the cancer, the patient, need one off lab work for each patient and this makes them very expensive and not affordable to many. Despite having public healthcare the managers of it still need to decide what to spend their limited funds on.

Flere-Imsaho 8mo ago

[flagged]

Larrikin 8mo ago
The people that want to prompt an LLM will do it.
- greygoo222 8mo ago
  These are all correct observations about the limitations of xenografted mouse models.
  - delecti 8mo ago
    A great deal of effort and money is spent running studies. I'm inclined to assume the experts in the field are more aware of the tradeoffs of that decision and how to mitigate the downsides than probably all, but certainly the overwhelming majority, of people commenting on this thread. Someone who needs to ask an LLM will not be helpful in trying to point out something they missed.
    - greygoo222 8mo ago
      They're not pointing out something the researchers missed, they're pointing out something the people in this thread confidently hyping the results are missing. I'm certain the researchers are familiar with the limitations of the models they used (is it bad that the incentives of science and science journalism leads to overoptimistic coverage that hint at groundbreaking implications without explaining to lay readers what the unknowns are? Probably, but that's not these researchers' faults). The average person in this thread, however, would probably be better informed by asking an LLM for context. They'd be even better informed by taking a few weeks to work through a textbook on cancer biology, but realistically they won't. My horse in the race is that I'm annoyed by overenthusiastic comments that display a lack of understanding of the history of cancer treatment, and I'm going to be even more annoyed in a few months when the rounds of "haven't we had 1000 cures to cancer posted to HN??? why aren't we using any of them???" start showing up again. I'd rather encourage informed, skeptical optimism.

RomanPushkin 8mo ago

Experiencing cancer in my family I can tell for sure all of that buzz is quite exciting, but in the last 5 years there haven't been breakthroughs that would significantly improve outcomes for an average patient.

Retric 8mo ago
Major breakthroughs of the kind you’re talking about are extremely uncommon. Instead it’s lots of little gains that keep adding up because cancer isn’t adapting overall people still get the same mutations they got 10,000 years ago. So average person with cancer does better when any individuals cancer treatment improves and it keeps compounding over time. This doesn’t mean everyone with cancer gets a slight improvement, often it’s specific types or stages that improve without impacting others. Where general progress comes from is it’s not the same improvements year after year.
- SapporoChris 8mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cancer_treatment_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cancer_treatment_d... I won't debate what merits a major breakthrough. I will say, that while there hasn't been any major developments in the past five years, I can't draw any conclusions from that tidbit of information.
  - Retric 8mo ago
    That cuts out in 2015, but 5 year survival rates keep increasing with the USA just crossing 70%. Though across longer timeframes some of that is from early detection; even limited to late stage diagnosis the statistics still show significant improvement. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.70043 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac...
slapshot 8mo ago
There have been massive improvements in treatments in the last 5 years. Sure, cancer is far from being "cured" - but survival today is far better than 5 years ago for many forms. Among many others: - CAR T therapy going from lab to oncology suite (first launch 2017, but use rapidly growing) - Approval of Keytruda and similar for many additional forms of cancer (see the 2021-2026 milestones here: https://www.drugs.com/history/keytruda.html https://www.drugs.com/history/keytruda.html ) - Liquid biopsy going from lab to PCP's office - starting with Grail Galleri and moving from there (yes, the NIH results were weak, but the idea of a liquid biopsy at all would be laughed off 10 years ago) - Move of Atezolizumab and Tecentriq from infusion (hour) to injection (minutes) to increase availability - Lower dose CT scanning for lung cancer, including for non-smokers And a long line of immunotherapies that are making the leap from lab to chair right now. The last 5 years have probably been the most exciting in cancer research since the launch of the monoclonal antibodies in the early 2010s. There is still incredibly far to go, but the trend is in the right direction: https://employercoverage.substack.com/p/decline-in-cancer-mortality https://employercoverage.substack.com/p/decline-in-cancer-mo...

xbar 8mo ago

I lost my brother yesterday to cancer. I hope one day this can save lives. Go Beavs.

Barbing 8mo ago
<3 awful buddy me too
Tagbert 8mo ago
I'm sorry you have to go through that. Speaking from experience.
calgoo 8mo ago
<3
throwup238 8mo ago
> Go Beavs. That's also Caltech's mascot! Bernoulli the Beaver.
- javiramos 8mo ago
  And MIT's!
- efavdb 8mo ago
  I never heard the “Bernoulli” part, new?
  - throwup238 8mo ago
    Yeah it was named a few years ago after a student/faculty poll https://tech.caltech.edu/2023/05/update-on-bernoulli-the-beaver/ https://tech.caltech.edu/2023/05/update-on-bernoulli-the-bea...
javiramos 8mo ago
<3
Zeetah 8mo ago

fnord77 8mo ago

Command-F "mice" yup. every time

bahmboo 8mo ago
Yes, but they were human cancer cells.
- kulahan 8mo ago
  The result that it didn't affect any other cells really doesn't matter nearly as much when the other unaffected cells are literally from a completely different animal.

quantummagic 8mo ago

Hope this makes it to people soon. Have a family friend who was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. It was here in Canada, so they offered her assisted suicide, literally within 30 seconds after telling her she had cancer. She didn't even really process the diagnosis before they were offering to help her die. They didn't offer to try any experimental medicine.

MagicMoonlight 8mo ago
Were you actually there? Because that doesn’t sound very likely.
- zdragnar 8mo ago
  Not a comment on the parent post's situation, but MAID in Canada isn't quite turning out how it was promised. A recent report making a splash in certain circles pointed out that ~200 people in Ontario in 2023 got assisted suicide either the same day or the day after they filed their paperwork. The most notable case was a woman who, after submitting her paperwork, changed her mind and wanted hospice instead. However, she was denied hospice care and subsequently was put down. Bit by bit, Canada risks defaulting to suicide over expensive care. That's not what people voted for when it was first proposed. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-Report-2024.4_Same-Day-Next-Day-Provisions_Final.pdf https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MDRC-...
  - gamblor956 8mo ago
    ...because her spouse made an urgent request for MAiD and her spouse had medical POA...
    - zdragnar 8mo ago
      The problem isn't that the urgent request went through, it's that she requested hospice or palliative care and was denied. And, let's be honest, POA should not be sufficient to euthanize a person who is awake, aware, and revoked consent. "Do no harm" has been replaced with "put them down if it's cheaper and we can get away with it"

MagicMoonlight 8mo ago

That sounds extremely promising

fghorow 8mo ago

What is the delivery mechanism for the MOF. The chemistry sounds promising (to this amateur, at least) but how does it get to and enter cancer cells?

kulahan 8mo ago
It sounds like their method auto-accumulates in the cells because they're the only one with the right conditions to attract these chemicals?
nicwilson 8mo ago
(Having not read the article), most likely because the cancer cells (at least at more advanced stages) are busy trying to replicate as fast as possible, so they take up nutrients at a much faster rate than non-cancerous cells. As to why Iron in particular, it is used as a cofactor for enzyme and if Iron is a limiting factor for replication then supplying it will lead to a burst of growth which then (presumably by applying strong oscillatory magnetic fields) you can target those cells directly to locally boil them. How do the iron nano materials get there? probably a combination of vasculature and diffusion. They have done this kind of stuff before with gold nanoparticles, iron is a lot more abundant.
- mcswell 8mo ago
  It seems like you could also help direct the iron to the tumor with magnets. That seems too simple to be true, but I don't see why it wouldn't be.

v3ss0n 8mo ago

Will this be buried like rest if cancer cures?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

stevenjgarner 8mo ago

Actual paper: https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/new-cancer-killing-material-developed-oregon-state-university-nanomedicine-researchers https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/new-cancer-killing-materia...