Slashdot Mirror
Cheap, Safe, Patentless Cancer Drug Discovered
PyroMosh writes "The New Scientist is reporting that researchers working at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada have discovered that an existing drug called dichloroacetate (DCA) is effective in killing cancer cells, while leaving the host's healthy cells unharmed. DCA has already been used for years to treat metabolic disorders, and is known to be fairly safe. Sounds like great news, is it too good to be true? Why is the mainstream news media failing to report on this potential breakthrough? The University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board have set up a site with more info, where you can also donate to support future clinical trials."
Open Source Medicine?
How would you write the GPL of pharmacopeia?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Cancer Drug May Not Get A Chance Due to Lack of Patent
Thanks for playing.
And the reason it won't get any funding to study whether or not it's a real cure for cancer is because there's no money in it! If it's a cheap solution and it magically cures cancer... where's the profit in that?
So people will continue to die from cancer, who could have been cured by this cheap drug, because it would offset the bottom line. Nice world we life in, huh? Up next: Other things about this world you didn't know! Wal*Mart sells toys made by third-world children in order to sell them cheap in the United States!
DCA kills many sorts of cancer in mice. This is a good sign. It's based on something found naturally in food and is already used safely in humans. That's also good.
But many, many things kill cancer in mice but don't in humans-- mice have significantly different molecular machinery than we do re: cancer prevention (just look at the cancer rates of control lab rats!). This is promising, but it's no breakthrough until it proves itself in humans.
I feel there's a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes on this issue.
It's only hope is to be prescribed as an "off-label" treatment, or for a University to foot the bill for the betterment of mankind.
while the revelation of the compound is somewhat novel, research around diseases has supposed "breakthroughs" like this quite often. the quest for funding outright on the web seems awkward, since there's more than enough foundations that fund cancer research and medicine. but i'm not in academia, so maybe this is the norm?
i'm not a big believer in conspiracies, and if cancer folks will travel to the backwaters of the earth to get voodoo remedies, shark parts and holy men to pray over them, they will surely fund anything with even a glimmer of promise. if this works, i expect it to float to the top once the news catches on (and it works).
Not only is this story a dupe but having read the paper in Cancer Cell I'm nowhere near that optimistic. Yes, they show death of cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo but the proposed mechanism of action (re-activation of mitochondrial metabolism leading to increased free radical production and apoptosis) is debatable to say the least. Moreover, even though DCA is registered for treatment of congenital lactate acidosis, it has quite a few unpleasant side effects so it's definitely not a silver bullet. The paper is not clear on how they came to interpretations they present as some of the data could easily be interpreted in other ways. Although the concept of targeting mitochondria to treat cancer is very interesting, as usual, beware of breakthroughs in medical sciences - they often aren't. jan
Here is your scientific biweekly peer reviewed journal with an article on the topic. Those "I'll wait until the peer-reviewed journal" rehearsed responses are getting annoying.
[alk]
I'm a student at the University of Alberta. The student newspaper is called "The Gateway" and at the end of the winter term there is a joke issue called "The Getaway." In THIS YEAR'S December joke issue the cover story way "U of A Scientists Cure Cancer." Five issues later they broke the real story here: http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/index.php?iid=247. No one believed the real story...
Here went my moderation to this thread, but sod with it.
The original article apparently was published in Cell. I am not subscribed to it so I cannot verify that right away, but I am assuming this to be true. If the stuff passed peer review it would have been published in something at that level.
There is an ongoing joke in molecular biology (for the last 10 years). "If you publish once in Cell you can happily retire". Compared to Cell, Science or Nature are yellow corner newshop rags. Also, if it was published in Cell, they are going to be getting money regardless of the patents. All major foundations follow it. There is another joke amidst the molecular biology crowd: "If you publish once in Cell you will never have to ask for funding till you retire, it will come to you". So I would not worry about lack of sponsorship by major pharmaceuticals either.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
How we know is more important than what we know.
Rubbish. Firstly, it's an existing drug, so the burden of clinical trials is reduced. Secondly, governments, charities, and drug companies that make their living producing generics could fund this easily.
Yes. You are right on the money, there are no profits to be made
on DCA, in fact it even harms industry profits. Think of all the
chemotherapy, surgery and radiation therapy that doesn't get done
because of it.
A cancer patient usually brings in more or less a cool $100,000 in
profit, a breast cancer patient slightly less, a prostate cancer
slightly more.
How about all those folks that "Run for the Cure" every year? They've been quite good at raising money for cancer treatments.
There is a lot of people out their with cancer. A lot of them have money. I am sure that given sufficient evidence and a means to provide that money to the proper source, (as the original article linked to) the money will be fourth coming.
Big-Pharma is a dinosaur that deserves whats coming to them.
The future is of this kind of funding is in better organization of charitable donations and social lending.
DCA is one of several haloacetic acids (HAA) that are disinfection byproducts (DBPs) water. When chlorine (or chloramine) are added to natural water to kill microorgamisms, the chlorine reacts with natural organic matter in the water to produce several byproducts, most notably trihalomethanes (THMs) and HAAs. The other HAAs have different levels of bromine and chlorine substitution. Disinfection byproducts are regulated because they may increase your cancer risk (surprise!). It's a problem because drinking water represents a chronic exposure.
The regulated concentration of DBPs is several orders of magnitude below the doses of DCA that are listed in the linked articles, so don't count on getting (or killing) cancer from your drinking water.
List of common Drinking Water Contaminants
I was skeptical so I checked, and indeed, there it is:
t ?uid=PIIS1535610806003722&highlight=A%20Mitochondr ia-K+%20Channel%20Axis%20Is%20Suppressed%20%20in%2 0Cancer%20and%20Its%20Normalization%20%20Promotes% 20Apoptosis%20and%20Inhibits%20Cancer%20Growth
http://www.cancercell.org/content/article/abstrac
Slashcode will most likely screw that link, so just go to cancercell.org , and search for the title
A Mitochondria-K+ Channel Axis Is Suppressed
in Cancer and Its Normalization
Promotes Apoptosis and Inhibits Cancer Growth
by
Se bastien Bonnet,1 Stephen L. Archer,1,2 Joan Allalunis-Turner,3 Alois Haromy,1 Christian Beaulieu,4
Richard Thompson,4 Christopher T. Lee,5 Gary D. Lopaschuk,5,6 Lakshmi Puttagunta,7 Sandra Bonnet,1
Gwyneth Harry,1 Kyoko Hashimoto,1 Christopher J. Porter,8 Miguel A. Andrade,8 Bernard Thebaud,1,6
and Evangelos D. Michelakis
Crap, I forgot to include the summary:
The unique metabolic profile of cancer (aerobic glycolysis) might confer apoptosis resistance and be
therapeutically targeted. Compared to normal cells, several human cancers have high mitochondrial
membrane potential (DJm) and low expression of the K+ channel Kv1.5, both contributing to apoptosis
resistance. Dichloroacetate (DCA) inhibits mitochondrial pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK),
shifts metabolism from glycolysis to glucose oxidation, decreases DJm, increases mitochondrial
H2O2, and activates Kv channels in all cancer, but not normal, cells; DCA upregulates Kv1.5 by an
NFAT1-dependent mechanism. DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor
growth, without apparent toxicity.Molecular inhibition of PDK2 by siRNA mimics DCA. The mitochondria-
NFAT-Kv axis and PDK are important therapeutic targets in cancer; the orally available DCA is
a promising selective anticancer agent.
I won't claim to understand what it means, but there it is.
There's a direct link to download it, in case you understand that sort of thing, here:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/cancer_cell.pdf
I bet the public Canadian Health Care System would foot the bill to produce this drug. If you had a universal health care system in your country eradicating cancer cheaply would definately reduce the money the government would pay for overall health care costs.
Keeping all the people who would have died of cancer in your economy would also keep it nice and healthy.
DCA is not in any medical formulary that I have seen. The prospects of it being accepted as safe and efficacious for anything look rather thin, in view of the neurotoxicity seen in a recently reported clinical trial for a different possible medical indication ----
3 /324 ]
see "Dichloroacetate causes toxic neuropathy in MELAS, A randomized, controlled clinical trial "
P. Kaufmann, MD, MSc, et al, NEUROLOGY 2006;66:324-330
[see http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/
[excerpts:-]
"Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of dichloroacetate (DCA) in the treatment of mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS)."
[...snip...]
"Conclusion: DCA at 25 mg/kg/day is associated with peripheral nerve toxicity resulting in a high rate of medication discontinuation and early study termination. Under these experimental conditions, the authors were unable to detect any beneficial effect. The findings show that DCA-associated neuropathy overshadows the assessment of any potential benefit in MELAS."
It seems that the researchers at Alberta have not put DCA into any patients yet, and so we can't know how the effective human dose (if there even is one) for discouraging the growth of cancer cells relates to the toxic doses (which unfortunately do exist) seen in the reported clinical trial for another potential medical indication.
This begins to smell to me of hype.
-wb-
If this drug were patentable then it would be worth the cost of bringing it to market, setting up factories, distributing it, and undertaking the risks if it caused harm. But it's not so the drug founders. It might not even be any good after. But we'll never know because the research to really test it in clinical trials won't get done.
One could bring this to market through a socialized medicine scheme of course. Or one could let third world countries implicitly test it for us for safety and efficacy.
It's a really good example of why patents and intellectual property are good things. They encourage private investment in the public interest by creating a profit incentive.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As an Aussie I concur, few people here have private health cover, and the cover normally boils down to a gaurentee of a private hospital for elective sugery. All private hospitals are fairly small and some have nice nice garden's, they are generally less well equiped and use the same doctors/surgeons as public hospitals, if something goes seriously wrong with a patient they are immediately transfered to a better equiped public hospital.
...what's that thing called...oh yes, "the market".
If you are just interested in your health then use the "free" (1.5% of taxable income) universal health cover, even millionaires are not forced to pay more than $1200yr for prescriptions. The doctors are well paid, nurses are well trained and the PUBLIC hospitals measure up to anything offered overseas. What's more I recently visited the UK and got a chest infection, went to casualty twice and got antibiotics "free". The doctor laughed when I ask "should I pay at reception", seems our governments have a recipricol arrangement to look after each other tourists.
A company must make a profit, that is it's sole reason for existance, if the government can't do it to a higher standard with less money then they are doing something wrong. No Australian politician would dare dismantle the public scheme and go back to the early 70's privatised "pay or die" scheme, the voting public would tie them to an ambulance and drag them through the streets. This situation is also boosted by a "balance of power/share the blame" component, the fed's collect the money and the various states spend it. If you are seriously ill in this country there is absolutely no fucking around, especially with admin, accountants and lawyers, because guess what - prevention and early treatment is much cheaper than "the machine that goes ping". Oh and guess what - a healthier population is less profitable for private hostpitals and more productive in
Having said that I will also point out Godel has proven no system is complete, some doctors are butchers and that is when the lawyers, accountants and admin come out of the woodwork. However all I ever hear from American's when asked "why not have UHC like just about every other wealthy country", is a ranting reply about their pathological fear of "socialisim" and vacuous examples of "higher costs". Some will listen and are surprised by the reality they find, others are like the people who talk about global warming on Mars to deny it on Earth, there is no possible reply to that level of brainwashed dogma other than sarcasam and abuse.
And before some free market zealot starts waving the WSJ to point out the painfully obvious: yes UHC is a form of "socialisim", some things just work better that way, New York's central park for example or does Disney sell tickets to walk your dog now?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Those are interesting links and it's always good to keep the downsides in mind. But, on the scientific merit I did want to add:
The first link refers to a summary about trichloroethylene environmental cleanup, and the effects of DCA as a metabolic breakdown product of TCE. This is rather different from controlled dosage in a medical application. Every cancer drug known is a violent poison whose effects at uncontrolled dosage are not pretty.
The second link is a scientific article talking, again, about the medical effects of TCE in the environment.
The third link discusses the use of DCA in a similar context to the cancer study, ie to lower metabolic rate of mitochondria. However, they were trying to lower the rate of all the patient's mitochondria, not cancerous ones, because they were trying to treat a metabolic disease. The dosage rate was 25 mg/kg/day. For a 70kg person (154 lbs), that's 1750 mg per day, which is on the order of two teaspoons-worth of pure drug. That is an enormous dose. The whole point with the cancer cells is their metabolism is so revved up that they're susceptible to much lower doses than normal cells. I don't know what the dosage in the Alberta study was, but I'd expect it to be a lot lower.
The fourth link discusses research that showed DCA-induced cell death (=apoptosis) in the smooth muscle cells of pulmonary arteries. Again, these are not cancerous cells, but they are over-active, I gather from the article, in pulmonary hypertension.
Any time there's a difference in mitochondrial activity between normal cells and targeted cells, there's the possibility that DCA could be used to selectively target the abnormal cells without harming the others. That said, anything that targets mitochondria is a vicious drug that does need to be treated with lots of caution.
Governments? Charities? Drug companies? Why make it that farfetched when you can just ask the medical insurance companies to do it? They're the ones who're forking out $100k+ per cancer patient. This should be more than enough incentives to make them want to invest in it.
I sincerely believe what I posted above. If you want to have a reasoned debate about it, I'm game. But modding me down just makes you out to be the ignorant child you are.
Now, let me address something ShadowsHawk said in response to my comment.
That's right. People join the military to get job training, or to get money for college, or because they've been brainwashed into a military tradition by their family, or lastly and leastly, so they can serve their country. But what all of these people have in common is that, wittingly or not, they are doing just that.
Now, I would argue that any responsible adult should be able to consider the repercussions of their actions, and one of the things that results from joining the military is that it grows. I know this sounds like a very sophomoric point to actually address, but since some people (including your esteemed self) don't seem to be getting this point, I'm going to belabor it until the dead horse has been well-whipped. I can think of no other way to get the point across. When the military is larger, it is easier to apply it to various situations in which it is not warranted. For instance, http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/t imeline.swf is one of my favorite little presentations on American military history. If you just glance through it you will see that the majority of American military actions were questionable to say the least. We forced Japan to trade with us by force, and of course we all know that we invaded Mexico repeatedly, and stole large portions of what is now the Estados Unidos Norteamericanos away from them, forcing them at gunpoint to sell the rest for a song. We were involved in the Opium wars. We annexed Hawaii in 1898. Especially check out Honduras in 1905; this is one of many American military conquests specifically supporting the United Fruit Company. Look carefully at Nicaragua in 1910, Cuba in 1917, Guatemala in 1954, Haiti in 1959...
The list goes on and on but what all of these things have in common is that they were financially motivated. They weren't about helping people. They were about money and power. Yes, in the same list there are conflicts that are about protecting people from bad people. There's attacks on pirates (the real kind) and their institutions. There's WWI and WWII.
Today, we are seeing much the same thing. We have bombed the shit out of a middle eastern company yet again. And yet again, the bulk of the rebuilding will be carried out by American contractors. In fact, the sole contractor overseeing and profiting from the entire thing is, guess who, Halliburton. The government claimed that they were the only contractor that could be ready "in time" and so they got the contract. Gee, I wonder why they were the only ones to meet the lengthy, detailed, and frankly unnecessary requirements so suddenly. Could they have had, you know, advance warning? Given the connection between certain high-ranking officials in our government and Halliburton, not only is that highly likely, but it is a virtual certainty.
Are you getting the message yet? There are times when the American military has done good things. Most of these were minor conflicts. A couple of them were major. In the case of the minor conflicts, a large standing military was not necessary. In the case of the major ones, the draft was utilized to bring up the numbers of people sent off to combat the menace. In neither case is a large standing military requir
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"