Slashdot Mirror


Cancer Therapy with Radioactive Scorpion Venom

BostonBTS writes "Researchers from TransMolecular, Inc. have used chlorotoxin -- a component of giant yellow scorpion venom -- to target radioactive treatments for the deadly brain cancer glioma. From the article: 'In the study, 18 patients first had surgery to remove malignant gliomas, a lethal kind of brain tumor. Then doctors injected their brains with a solution of radioactive iodine and TM-601, the synthetic protein. The solution bound almost exclusively to leftover tumor cells, suggesting that it could be combined with chemotherapy to fight cancer. Furthermore, two study patients were still alive nearly three years after the treatment.' Their paper is slated for publication in the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology."

30 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. with great power. .. by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Researchers from TransMolecular, Inc. have used chlorotoxin -- a component of giant yellow scorpion venom -- to target radioactive treatments for the deadly brain cancer glioma.

    Just so long as they remember, "With great power comes great responsibility."

  2. Cool by Eightyford · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well that sounds like a pretty cool movie. Is Bryan Singer directing?

  3. Two out of 18... by A+Nun+Must+Cow+Herd · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Furthermore, two study patients were still alive nearly three years after the treatment"... but what would the expected number of survivors be for a group that wasn't treated with this solution?

    They almost make it sound like the patients survived the treatment.

    1. Re:Two out of 18... by DoubleRing · · Score: 5, Informative
      but what would the expected number of survivors be for a group that wasn't treated with this solution?

      RTFA:

      Because life expectancy for the 14,000 annual glioma patients in the United States is typically a matter of months, the results shore up animal research indicating that the venom protein may inhibit tumor growth even without a radioactive component, Mamelak said.
      --
      Before you die, you see DoubleRing...
    2. Re:Two out of 18... by bruins01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      2 out of 18 is actually very good for this kind of cancer. The survival rate after three years is about 3%. 11% would be a step in the right direction, but 2/18 is way too small a sample size to really draw conclusions. It is one of the most aggressive cancers of all.

    3. Re:Two out of 18... by Alfred,+Lord+Tennyso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure that answers the question. Many die within months, but we're talking about only 2 out of 18 to make it three years. Curves have tails, and knowing that the mean is only a few months doesn't tell us how many would be expected to live for 3 years.

      The Journal of Neuroscience (google cache, the site appears to be down) says that "more than half die within 18 months". Presumably that's with standard treatment. If half were to die every 18 months, that would still leave 1/4 of the patients, around 4, after two years.

      I'm sure that's not the right curve to draw; Wikipedia says "few patients survive beyond three years". Is "few" more or less than 2 out of 18? Probably less, but I'm still not at all clear on whether this treatment is actually better than the standard treatment.

    4. Re:Two out of 18... by A+Nun+Must+Cow+Herd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're probably aware that your quote doesn't answer the question. Not only is "a matter of months" vague enough to be unenlightening, but it also gives no indication of the distribution. Let me rephrase the question to see if that helps:
      How unusual would it be for there to be two survivors at three years without using this new treatment?

    5. Re:Two out of 18... by bruins01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Statistically, just a bit. The 10 year rate of survival for patients diagnosed with glioblastoma is 1.7%.

    6. Re:Two out of 18... by darkonc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Granted, with a sample size of 18, it's not absolutely sure that the treatment was responsible, but even with a good sized tail, 2/18 patients lasting 3 years is enough to make it worthwhile funding another study.... At absolute worst this treatment did the patients little, if any harm (statistically speaking).
      "So let me get this straight: My choice is to die within months from this aggressive cancer, or let you inject me with scorpion venom?"
      "yep".
      "this reminds me of a George Carlin joke: '"Well Jim, there's no reason why you shouldn't live another twenty to thirty years. However, you will be bleeding constantly from both eyes'".
      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    7. Re:Two out of 18... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but I'm still not at all clear on whether this treatment is actually better than the standard treatment.

      The problem with the "standard treatment" is it usually involves surgery. The Glial cells are the support and structure cells for the actual brain cells. To the naked eye, the cancerous cells (Glioma) are undistinguishable from normal cells (like sugar and salt mixed in a bowl - for multiforme), though an MRI can differentiate.

      Any surgery also removes healthy Glial and brain cells (which do not regenerate) and the patient's functionality degrades. All it takes is one remaining Glioma cell and the process starts again.

      Some people cannot, or choose not to, have surgery. As I posted earlier, my wife died in January of a GBM, just 7 weeks after diagnosis. She declined as it was next to her brain stem and would have left her completely paralyzed on her left side and blind in the left side of each eye. Surgery may have prolonged her life a bit, but it wouldn't have been the life she loved.

      Hopefully, treatments like this will reduce the need for surgery at some point.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:Two out of 18... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also note that what they were performing isn't actually designed to destroy the cancer. They mixed this venom-derivative with a dye, and it targetted the cells correctly. When they actually use it properly, they're going to be mixing the targetting agent with something a lot more effective than an iodine dye. The 2 out of 18 thing is not an evaluation of the therapy, its noting an anomoly which a researcher presents a possible explanation for (the targetting agent itself inhibits cancerous growth). That possible explanation has neither been proved, nor is the point of this research.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    9. Re:Two out of 18... by darkonc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK: let's be blunt.
      with an average survival time in months, one person lasting 3 years would be good. 2 people lasting 3 years means either
      1) this study group got really lucky or,
      2) This method is really, really promising.
      with bets on #2.

      I think that somebody posted that the 3 year survival rate is something like 3%, so this 10% survival rate is unusually high -- but possibly skewed by the sample size. This also depends on the patient group.... Young patients (rare) have a higher survival rate (up to 20% at 5 years according to this table), while retired people (who make up almost half the sufferers) have a less than 1% chance at surviving 5 years.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    10. Re:Two out of 18... by bracher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ummm....

      "In the study, 18 patients first had surgery to remove malignant gliomas".

      So, they had the standard surgical treatment, and _then_ the radioactive venom. Alfred's question remains unanswered... How does 2/18 at 3 years differ from the survival rate for just the surgical procedure?

  4. SHUDDER by Eightyford · · Score: 3, Funny
    Giant yellow Israeli scorpions live in the deserts of the Middle East and grow to about 4 inches long.
    So why are people fighting over land in that part of the world?
    1. Re:SHUDDER by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny
      So why are people fighting over land in that part of the world?


      Says the guy with "godgab" as his god damned signature.

      Un-fucking-believable.

      -Peter
    2. Re:SHUDDER by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 5, Funny

      So why are people fighting over land in that part of the world?

      They want the part that isn't infested with 4-inch long yellow scorpions.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  5. Yeah, but... by EnsilZah · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where do we find a vault-dweller to hunt some of those rad scorpions for us?

  6. Injected their brains?? by XanC · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sign me up for that!<servo>

  7. PA prediction? by Napalm+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Radioactive scorpions?

    It's been done.

    --
    Well, the door was open...
  8. People, wake up! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is just some insane publicity stunt by Stan Lee for the "Who Wants To Be A Superhero" TV show!

    Injecting yourself with radioactive venom doesn't give you superpowers.

    God KNOWS I've tried!

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:People, wake up! by steveo777 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Wish I could tell you which Family Guy episode it was, but I think they were taking fan mail and doing TV shows with them. The family got super powers and took over the town. Mayor Adam West announces that he's going to roll in radioactive goo and later shows up in the doctor's office. The conversations looks like this:

      Doc: I'm sorry, Mayor West, but you've got cancer.

      West: Oh..., no superpowers? Speed? Strength?

      Doc: No, just cancer.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  9. More treatments by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hey folks -- take an honest listen for a moment. I don't want to come off as a new-age hippie, but honestly, the amazon rain forest has millions of poisonous bugs that we currently know nothing about. If you take a trip into the jungle and are a bug-watcher like I am, chances are you will see dozens of insects that currently aren't recognized by science.

    The amazon jungle is full of life, and it's all practically poisonous plants and insects. Think about it -- the biggest predator in the jungle is man, and jaguars are a close second, coming in at about 70 pounds. All of the biomass in the jungle is bound up in plants and insects. There has been no downtime in the evolution of living things in the jungle for the past several million years. There is no winter, no dead non-metabolising topsoil -- animals and plants just eating and mating and reproducings generation after generation. The ethnobotanist Mark Plotkin says that the jungle is chemical warfare that has been going on for millions of years.

    When I was on an excursion in the jungle of Ecuador, I decided to take a small hike during some downtime in the program. Foolishly I wore only sandals on my feet. Not 15 minutes down the trail, I felt dozens of ants biting my foot. Panicked, I reached down to brush them all off, but there was only three or four ants on my foot! When they bit into my skin, I didn't feel anything, but moments later, I would feel several bites in different places on my foot.

    So my long-winded point is that there are millions of potential cancer cures out there, all kinds of medications and interesting chemicals. All of the chemical defenses plants and animals evolve work by interrupting or changing the normal cellular functioning of living organisms. The difference between medicine and poison is a question of dosage, as Plotkin paraphrased Paracelsus. We really need to work hard to make sure that this incredible resource stays around for future research. I don't know specifically what you and I can do, but awareness is the first step.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:More treatments by Unc-70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The trouble with this concept is that its a difficult process. The structures of chemicals from natural sources may be extremely complex, more so than is possible to produce on a large scale. The following links are from a blog by a professional medicinal chemist, who has a lot of experience in the area and offer a good deal of insight into the process of deriving a drug from natural sources.
      1 http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/04/26/ju ngle_rot.php
      2 http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/04/30/al l_natural.php
      3 http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/05/08/a_ natural_wonder_drug_now_what.php

      --
      Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm.
  10. This is why its important to read labels! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Side effects can include nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, and turning into a Marvel supervillian.

  11. How'd they come up with that? by JavaNPerl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Patient: Doc I'm still in terrible pain, is there anything else you can do for my cancer?
    Doctor (whispers): Nurse. What do we have to euthanize this patient and put him out of his misery?
    Nurse (whispers): We got some radioactive scorpion venom, that should be quick.
    Doctor: 100 CCs of radioactive scorpion venom, stat!
    -NURSE INJECTS VENOM-
    Patient: I feel better.
    Doctor & Nurse in unison: Holy Sh*t!

  12. Re:You're the resident expert... by Black-Six · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You make an excellent point about tuning microwaves to the frequency of the venom to cook cancer cells, but there are just to many variables here for it to even be considered, not now anyway. First of all, the way a microwave oven works is to induce heat by adding electrons to fatty cells, that's why meat gets warmer faster than bread. Doctors wouldn't go for this due to the fact they could scramble brains even with only a few seconds exposure. Second of all, microwaves experience the same problems as laser beams do in atmosphere's. Nitrogen is a great scatterer of IR and EM waves thus the Northern Lights due to solar wind, also one has to take into account the varying layers of material to be penetrated and not to be fried by microwaves to reach the venom tagged cells. A design team would have to use the very lattest in computer processing power, both hardware and software, to produce a system that could calculate, tune, and react within naon seconds of a very long series of commands, 100-200 million calcs/nanosec, to even begin to be capable of developing a safe and controllable enviroment in which to treat people. Lastly, life evolves. To quote Dr. Malcom from Jurassic Park "Life will find a way.". Every few years, or even every few months, the systen would requier massive updates and overhauls to adapt to the new biological structures being used in it. These last 2 items aren't cost effective and as has been shown with the ABL, are very frustrating and time consuming. Your idea isn't flawed, its briliant. However, our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics is such that laser's and microwaves are about as far as we can develope hardware successfully. To activate the venom and not scramble the patient, you would need something akin to a remote for a TV to activate the venom. A single burst of commands to the venom instead of seconds of agitant microwaves would be far safer and much easier to use than tuning a microwave to each individuals own "frequency" so as to not kill your patient. This could lead to the Star Trek breed of nanoprobes used by the Borg, but to save life instead of take it.

    The use of chemo still is that its the most effective way to treat cancer. However with treatments like this on the horizon, we could see a revoultion in the field of medicare within a few decades and definitly my lifetime. The world needs creative minds to continue to florish, so keep at it!

  13. Just great. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is just great, sigh. My wife died from Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) in January, just 7 weeks after diagnosis in November. The average life expectancy for GBM (grade IV Glioma) patients is 4 to 18 months. Only a handful of the 14,000 / year live past 24 months. I hope this proves effective and saves many, many lives.

    My world, however, will remain dark.
    Remember Sue...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  14. Re:Go Pip-Boy! by boron+boy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jokes aside, cost might be an issue. Scorpion venom is the most expensive liquid in the world by volume.

  15. Biology Related to Chlorotoxin by obiwanjabroni · · Score: 5, Informative

    Howdy,

    The effectiveness of chlorotoxin in treatment of glioblastomas was discovered by a scientist here at my institution (http://www.neurobiology.uab.edu/Faculty/Sontheime r/Sontheimer.htm). Glioblastoma is hypothesized to be so deadly because of the ability of cancer cells inside the brain to quickly migrate from the primary site to other sites within the brain, quickly invading normal brain tissue. This makes surgery or radiation not very effective, since migrating cells may be hidden within normal brain that is not irradiated or cut out. The migratory ability of glioblastoma cells is related to its unique ability to change size and morphology to move in between normal brain cells.

    The size-changing migratory ability is related to a specific chloride ion channel that expresses highly and uniquely on certain brain cancer cells, including gliomas (PubMed ID: 8804043, 8967454). Chlorotoxin, a chloride channel inhibitor discovered in 1993 (PubMed ID: 8383429) was more interestingly found to bind to this glioma-specific chloride ion channel in mice in 1998 (PubMed ID: 9809993) and humans in 2002 (PubMed ID: 12112367). Although it was shown that chlorotoxin failed to inhibit migratory ability due to size-change, chlorotoxin was shown to inhibit migration by inhibition of another protein involved in breaking down the extracellular matrix, allowing cells to more easily migrate.

    The strategy that TransMolecular uses to treat gliomas lies in the specificity of expression of the channel to which chlorotoxin binds. That channel is expressed on the vast majority of glioma tissue samples tested, and only rarely on normal tissue. If one attaches a weak or short-lasting radioactive moiety to chlorotoxin, a potential treatment can be to target glioma cells using chlorotoxin, and then kill them by short-lasting localized radiation. This strategy is already being used in Non Hodgkins Lymphoma and other diseases by attaching to tumor- targeting antibodies a radioactive iodine atom.

  16. Re:Hard to see how they would target cancer cells by Punko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The important thing is to find a protein that latches on the the cancer cells and not normal cells. There are many proteins out there for the different kinds of cancer. For this brain cancer, it appears that they have found such a protein. They will probably 'tag' the protein with radioactive (beta or beta/gamma emitters, not alphas like uranium) iodine (I-131 or I-128) or yittrium (Y-90) or phosphorous (P-32) (depending on the chemistry and the dose required). They will not use heavy metals like Uranium as the half-life is too long. The radioactive package will be released wherever the protein is. If the protein sticks to the cancer cell, then the cancer cell gets most of the dosage. The brain is fairly radiation-safe, as radiation kills cells that are actively reproducing (like cancer cells). Brain cells haven't been reproduced since entering adulthood. Radiation taggin therapy is not new. The fact that they have found a protein to bind to this kind of cancer cell is very new.

    --
    If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands