Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fighting Cancer with Math

Posted by Zonk on from the what-can't-math-do? dept.

zoloback writes "A group of scientists have developed a mathematical method to fight certain forms of cancer. The study has taken the team several years, but the first trial on a human has been successful. You can read the actual paper. It looks like a huge advancement in science, because there's a possibility to extrapolate the method to other types of cancer" From the article: "The researchers have evidence to show that all tumors grow in the same way, irrespective of the tissue or species in which they develop. In a previous paper, these researchers reported that tumor growth, rather than being exponential as commonly believed, is a much slower "linear" process similar to the growth of certain crystals and other natural phenomena."

10 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. If this is true by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this works the way they say it does, then all I can say is that someone has just won a nobel prize.

    1. Re:If this is true by gerddie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      English is me second language too, but "out-of-the-box" is just what it is, you have the solution "in your box" and you just take it out. What you probably mean is "thinking outside of the box".

  2. more in depth links... by kesuki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34220

    http://physics.about.com/b/a/088887.htm

    the blog entry that they linked to was kinda vauge on details ;) turns out the only math the used was in calculating how tumours grow, and how they prevent immune responses, so they figured out an immune system response they can trigger that will cause the cells that cause tumours to grow to become a 'target' of the patients immune system. no math equasion used to 'cure' it at all, just a little deductive reasoning and science...

    --
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  3. Re:Could they elaborate a bit? by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... so instead of treating the tumor by trying to kill the cells via radio or chemical therapy, they attack the factors that (in a mathematical model) determine the growth of the tumor, turning them into negative variables and therefore extinguishing the mass.

    Unfortunately some of the most promising drugs that work to shrink tumors are not improving survival rates whatsoever. They are, in fact, shrinking the tumors "like they're supposed to", but this isn't doing anything to stop progression of the cancer.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  4. Re:If this is true - unlikely by spitshine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The paper was published in 2003 and was cited twice in total - by themselves (I just checked Web of Science).
    If there would be a real advancement behind this, many people would use it. Sad but true, but they sound like quacks.

  5. No cure here... by hung_himself · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From what I read in the article, they were just able to simulate something resembling real tumours using a linear growth model. But then the article itself says in the discussion that no one has ever observed non-linear exponential growth in real tumors anyways so people (with the possible exception of other modelers) have obviously taken this into account. Not clear to me whether any of the results from their model are novel nor are their assertions about the nutrient dependence of tumor growth convincing without some real experiments.

    As a computational biologist, I'm not knocking the usefulness of these types of mathematical approaches - and what they seem to have is a nice and maybe even a correct tumorigensis model, but let's keep it real - this is far from a cure for cancer...

  6. Not as "new" or "revolutionary" as advertised by cascino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This stuff's been done for years - just google "gompertz cancer" and you'll see what I mean. I was part of a team that developed a mathematical model for the growth (and cure - using a modified virus, but that's a whole different story) of multiple myeloma in immunodeficient mice. Perhaps they've applied a new model (I only glanced at the paper), but this certainly isn't the first time and it certainly won't be the last time research along these lines has taken place. A lot of very smart people have spent decades working on such research.

    Of course it's great to see an advancement in science, particularly applied math, but those calling for the Nobel should take a deep breath and relax - cancer isn't going away anytime soon.

  7. Re:Wow. by lastchance_000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That's all well and good, but, umm... can we toss a bone to the people actually working to cure cancer?

    Thank you.

  8. bad /. headline, interesting paper by cahiha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tumor growth rates are a hotly debated topic. This paper contains some interesting ideas. But the headline incorrectly suggests that "fighting cancer with math" is something new. Biologists have been using mathematics, including differential equations and fractals for as long as they have been around (in fact, a lot of math comes from biological problems).

    On quick reading, this paper seems to argue primarily that it is not nutrients, but cell diffusion, that limits cancer growth rates. That hypothesis is supported by observing similarities between the growth behavior and shapes created by processes in that class and real tumors. Interesting, but only weak evidence. They'll need to refine their hypothesis and test it more directly experimentally.

  9. Re:Still early days. by bcwengerter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That their devised strategy worked on a single human subject is cause for optimism, and nothing more. That work has not been published (that I could find), so there is no way to properly assess the result.

    Actually, I think it has: J Clin Res 2005; 8: 9-13.

    Here's the abstract:

    Bru A, Albertos S, Garcia-Hoz F, Bru I. Regulation of neutrophilia by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a new cancer therapy that reversed a case of terminal hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Res 2005; 8: 9-13

    This work reports the possible cure of a 56-year-old patient with advanced hepatocarcinoma. Intense peritumoral neutrophilia was achieved by administering granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), an experimental treatment based on the theory of universal tumour dynamics. After the first 8-week cycle of treatment, the patient's alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels were reduced to normal and his general condition improved sufficiently to allow him to return to work. Following a second cycle of treatment, administered because of doubt regarding the tumoral or inflammatory nature of the now smaller liver mass, the patient's AFP levels remained normal and he continued to enjoy good general health.

    One caveat I must add is that I haven't read the full article. It seems that my institution doesn't provide online access to this journal, which might allow me to find answers to some questions:

    1. How long was the followup time?
    2. By how much was the tumor size reduced?
    3. How else is the patient being monitored (beyond AFP, which is a measure of a protein product of some tumors)?

    It seems like their basic strategy is to stimulate an intense immune response locally to destroy the tumor. Can anyone explain to me why they were interested in stimulating neutrophils? According to my understanding, neutrophils are more important in the response to bacteria. Why not stimulate T cells, the effectors of cellular immunity (used primarily in fighting off viruses, cancer, TB, etc.)?