Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Matter's Potential in Treating Cancer

eldavojohn writes "The BBC is taking a look at how atomic physicists are developing cancer treatments. A step past radiotherapy, the CERN institute is publishing interesting results: 'Cancer cells were successfully targeted with anti-matter subatomic particles, causing intense biological damage leading to cell death.' The press release from last year is finally sparking interest in the medical community."

17 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Ah yes.. by ravenshrike · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because setting off miniature broad-spectrum emp blasts inside your body it a GOOD thing.

    1. Re:Ah yes.. by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      WEll, they originally thought it would be a huge money-maker by using antimatter to clean teeth - eveyone wants a big white smile. However, trials proved that "tooth is stronger than fiction."

    2. Re:Ah yes.. by captnitro · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean, tooth is stronger than fission.

    3. Re:Ah yes.. by speleo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because setting off miniature broad-spectrum emp blasts inside your body it a GOOD thing.
      It is. Already being done: Positron emission tomography.
    4. Re:Ah yes.. by jesdynf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because setting off miniature broad-spectrum emp blasts inside your body it a GOOD thing.

      Yeah, having to reboot all your nanobots is so much worse than dying of cancer. The terrible spectre of EMP is a little less scary when you're already gonna die.

      While I'm on the subject, though, cut them some slack. They're using antimatter. Antimatter! As medicine. Antimatter as medicine! This is the most awesome thing I've read this year. I thought nitroglycerin was cool, but this -- what's next? Using Great Old Ones to soothe colicky babies?

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    5. Re:Ah yes.. by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least good old brushing works, since tooth is stronger than friction.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  2. brilliant by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a lot of things that kill cancer cells. It's finding the things that kill exclusively cancer cells that's the hard part.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:brilliant by zebadee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats kind of the purpose of the article, if you read it. They compare using charged particle beams to traditional radiotherapy treatment and comment that using particle beams allows the raditation to be better focused on the tumour (in this case a spinal tumour), leading to less death of surrounding tissue.

    2. Re:brilliant by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What's wrong with a gamma knife? (Uses eight sources, none of which are exceptionally dangerous in themselves, such that the area of overlap is totally lethal.)

      For that matter, since cancer cells tend to generate heat, the cancerous region should be nearer the point of cell death than non-cancerous tissue. Use microwaves to raise the water temperature such that healthy cells will still be below the threshold but cancer cells are cooked.

      Alternatively, cancer cells must pull in far more amino acids than healthy cells simply to duplicate so rapidly. Synthesize some amino acids that use an isotope you know the frequency for a-la x-ray fluorescence. Beam in some x-rays at the required frequency. The isotope will absorb them and emit electrons. Because the cancerous cells have more of the isotope, they will have more electrons blasting around. I would have thought you could do some really nasty things to the cancer before the healthy cells even noticed the extra charge on their bill.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  3. Re:Okay n00b question by HBI · · Score: 4, Informative

    A complete set of mirror image subatomic particles. The antimatter analogue to the electron is the positron, etc.

    No you can't hold it. It annihilates matter when it comes into contact with it, releasing a burst of energy.

    Theoretically the Big Bang created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but we're wondering where the antimatter is...maybe whole galaxies are composed of it? There's no way to tell from the light - photons are the same whether generated by matter or antimatter.

    Short of that, small amounts are created in particle accelerators and in the upper atmosphere, I believe.

    As usual, Wikipedia is helpful.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  4. Somewhere in a parallel universe... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...antimatter beings have just discovered that cancer may be treatable with particles of ordinary matter.

  5. Re:Okay n00b question by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can someone please explain what Anti-matter actually is?

    It is kind of like negative Mod points. They anialate your Karma.

  6. Re:Okay n00b question by radtea · · Score: 4, Informative

    Antimatter is... just as it sounds. The opposite of matter.

    "Matter" in ordinary parlance has various important properties: solidity, resistance to motion (otherwise known as mass) and so on.

    Anti-matter has every single one of these properties, so it is not particularly helpful to say it is "the opposite of matter" because it is not.

    Anti-matter is simply matter that consists of anti-particles, as correctly indicated by the article you link. Anti-particles are just like ordinary particles except that they have the opposite charge, parity or magnetic moment (in the case of neutrons). This minor change results in a fairly large cross-section for mutual annihilation when an anti-particle scatters off of its corresponding particle.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  7. Re:Okay n00b question by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong.

    No, that's what he said.

    Your failure to grasp his words does not invalidate them, it merely illuminates your own poor understanding of the topic.

    Let's put it another way: if there was an anti-sun with an anti-solar system, exactly like Earth but with every particle the inverse of our Earth, they would be exactly the same. (Even when they eventually met and obliterated each other -- matter blows up antimatter just as well as antimatter blows up matter.)

  8. Re:So how do we administer it? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe what you're thinking about black holes Antimatter annihilates anything it touches along with itself in a 1:1 ratio releasing E=MC^2 amount of energy. PS I guess that makes using antimatter to remove a 1 lb tumor the equivalent of setting off a nuke then?

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  9. Reo-virus may kill 2/3 of all cancers. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's finding the things that kill exclusively cancer cells that's the hard part.

    You mean like this...

    Reo-virus, or respiratory enteric orphan virus, is naturally occurring and believed to cause mild infections of the upper respiratory and gastro-intestinal tract in humans. However, in testing mice with implanted human cancer tumours, Lee and his team of researchers were able to show that reo-virus also has the ability to selectively kill a wide variety of cancer cells.

    ...Lee's findings have indicated that approximately two thirds of cancers cells bear an active Ras pathway and the remaining cells can be treated with a particular chemical to deactivate their anti-bodies against viruses.

    If only treatments like these were ready in 2005... My wife of 20 years was diagnosed with a brain tumor (GBM) Thanksgiving 2005 and died in January 13, 2006. Nothing is special any more...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  10. why it makes sense by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    First off, heavy ion beams make sense as a way of treating cancer. The reason is that when a heavy ion passes through matter, it decelerates along a straight-line path, and deposits a very large percentage of its energy near the very end of its path. If you compare with x-rays as a radiation treatment, x-rays deposit energy in an exponential-decay pattern, so if you're treating a brain tumor with a pencil beam of x-rays, the tissue that gets hit with the most radiation is the skin, followed by the skull, followed by the good parts of the brain, followed by the tumor. Now in reality you don't use a pencil beam, you use a focused beam, so it's not quite that bad, but focusing also works with heavy ion beams (I believe you actually rotate the patient, not the beam). So with heavy ion beams, you get energy concentrated near the tumor for two different reasons: (a) focusing, and (b) the pattern of energy loss, which is peaked at the end of the trajectory.

    OK, now about antimatter. An amazing number of posters apparently (a) haven't read the article, (b) haven't understood the article, or (c) don't know enough physics to make heads or tails of any of this.

    1. Antimatter is the same as matter except that it has the opposite charge.
    2. No, you don't have to handle samples of it. They make antiprotons in a particle accelerator, and in the experiment, they delivered it to a sample of hamster cells suspended in gelatin. You'd just put the patient in the beam of the accelerator. This has already been done with beams of protons on real patients. There's absolutely no difference, in principle, between delivering a beam of protons to the tumor and delivering a beam of antiprotons.
    3. Yes, antimatter is the most expensive stuff ever made. No, that isn't particularly relevant, because you're not feeding it to the patient in gram quantities.
    4. At present, there is no dedicated medical facility where patients could get exposed to a beam of antiprotons, and there may never be. What you'd have to do, for the foreseeable future, is bring your patient to a particle acclerator, get him some beam time, and place him on the receiving end of the beam. Although beam time is incredibly expensive, it's not necessarily true that you'd have to pay for 1 hour of beam time in order to give the patient 1 hour of treatment. There may be times when the accelerator is being tested, and the beam would otherwise just be wasted. There may be times when someone is doing an experiment with 1 femtoamp of antiprotons, but they can spare 0.01 femtoamps of their beam to be diverted to the patient. Or there may be times when it's just not possible to book 100% of the available beam time for physics experiments (e.g., something goes wrong with an experiment, and they can't use the rest of their beamtime).
    5. The reason a beam of antiprotons is four times more effective than a beam of protons is that after the antiproton delivers a bunch of energy through electrical interactions with electrons, it then annihilates itself with one of the protons in a nucleus in the tumor. This is such an energetic process that I imagine every single proton and neutron in that nucleus goes zipping off separately, with energies in the MeV range. These neutrons and protons then deposit their energy in the tumor as well.