3-D Model of Breast Cancer in the Lab

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to BBC News, U.K. researchers have built a 3-D version of breast cancer in a test tube. Their model contains cells from normal and cancerous breast tissue. The researchers used a collagen gel to form 3-D structures to create structures similar to the ones found in a woman's breast. So far, they focused on a common pre-cancerous condition known as 'ductal carcinoma in situ' (DCIS). With this model, they hope to reduce experiments done on animals such as mice. In fact, these experiments are not always useful because similarities can be poor between mice and humans. Now it remains to be seen if this model will be endorsed by the scientific community."

Comments

Re:Next step

[jez9999]

Already done.

interesting, but

[froggero1]

what does having a (basically) fake boob to play with change how you look at breast cancer when what you're targeting are microscopic cells.

kinda seems like building a media player so you can learn how to code in C, sure it may work... but wouldn't you be better off getting a book to go through specific functions?

Re:interesting, but

[Watson Ladd]

Cells behave differently depending on configuration, and interactions between different cell types are hard to make realistically in a petri dish.

Re:interesting, but

[qengho]

what does having a (basically) fake boob to play with change how you look at breast cancer

From TFA:

Professor Louise Jones, professor of breast pathology at the Institute of Cancer at Queen Mary, University of London, explained that they needed to develop a test tube model that was more complex than a layer of cells in a Petri dish.

Cells in the body grow in three dimensions. Hence the title of this submission.

Re:interesting, but

[Anonymous Coward]

what does having a (basically) fake boob to play with change how you look at breast cancer

I say that's a good topic for a future askslasdot feature with the people over at realdoll

Re:interesting, but

[Metasquares]

It means we can analyze the interplay between the structure of the breast (on all levels, including the cellular one) and cancer without having to slice someone's breast off or perform complicated imaging modalities (such as galactography, in which a contrast agent is injected into the nipple prior to imaging).

My group was working on a computer simulation for the same reason, but this shows more potential.

Of particular interest would be the processes that take place for DCIS to become invasive. Recent research indicates that computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems in mammograms are having adverse effects on prognosis due to DCIS - it doesn't always become a major health hazard, but it has the potential to become invasive carcinoma. As such, if it is found, it will be removed... and CAD is very good at finding these.

Re:interesting, but

[pionzypher]

what does having a (basically) fake boob to play with change how you look at breast cancer when what you're targeting are microscopic cells.

In soviet russia, fake boobs play with you?

Seriously though, boob simulation + slashdot? Imagine, thousands of geeks playing with virtual boobs in the name of research. BoobIe@home.

Re:interesting, but

[Walt Dismal]

I'd honored, nay, ecstatic, to be a Professor of Breasts at any university. Bob Jones University, Larry Flynt University, any. Oh, and I'd welcome a Slashdot Foundation grant to further my work, which involves Linux and breasts. Not necessarily in that order.

Re:interesting, but

[nelsonal]

I've just booked a ticket to Soviet Russia, can someone point me in the direction of the nearest time machine station?

Re:interesting, but

[iamacat]

This guy will have one ready in a couple of years.

Finally!

[HalifaxRage]

Finally! Science we can get excited about!

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we just get the 3-D breast model without the cancer, please? Cancers are nasty. We don't like cancers, thank you. BTW, one that works with a physic engine for the bouncyness and deformation under a touch is extra, extra welcome.

JARS (Just Another Roland Story)

[Anonymous Coward]

I was excited by the word "Breast" in the story title, but then I saw who submitted it and decided, aahhhh nevermind

Re:JARS (Just Another Roland Story)

[virgil_disgr4ce]

ATTN: Editors: You can't start a story headline with "3D Model of Breast" and have it be about cancer, instead. It's just not fair!

Re:JARS (Just Another Roland Story)

[iknowcss]

I didn't even read the story. I came to this page just to read THIS COMMENT. God I love Slashdot ...

Oh I see

[suv4x4]

Tests on other mammals weren't close enough. So they decided to test on a bunch of 3D meshes.
That should be close enough to humans.

Sarcasm aside, 3D simulations can help in areas where animal testing can't, but scientist have assumed too many things in the creation of those models. Nature usually surprises in a ways a model can't predict.

The tests done on humans during the World War II in the nazi camps were cruel and inhumane. But no one can reject how useful they were in advancing medicine and providing valuable facts about human anatomy and biology, information used widely even today.

I wonder, could we somehow put the interests of the many before the interests of the one? We're currently eating every day food additives many claim cause cancer. But there's no way to prove it, since causing cancer in test human subjects is illegal.

Just consider: since testing those substances is illegal, thousands upon thousands probably die from cancer eating basically poisonous food we distribute in our food chains.

Re:Oh I see

[mattpointblank]

I wonder, could we somehow put the interests of the many before the interests of the one?

Sure! I assume this means you're willing to be infected with cancer for research purposes - after all, interests of the many...

Re:Oh I see

[ral8158]

You state yourself that the tests were cruel and inhumane.
You admit that you are promoting a very, very cruel idea.
So why do you abstract yourself from these tests, making yourself a third party? After all, you're a thinker, you're not the testee, you're the tester. Right?

Maybe you should ask yourself if YOU want to be the one the tests are done on. And if you say, "Well, it would benefit everyone else," then you are in serious need of mental help. You should be excited about these models; they can be used to save lives without sacrificing anyone's.

Re:Oh I see

[JohnSearle]

Sure! I assume this means you're willing to be infected with cancer for research purposes - after all, interests of the many..

Unnecessary. We've already reached that stage of scientific development where it is now possible to grow mice with breasts on their backs.

They are fun, furry, and useful.

- John

Re:Oh I see

[Ralconte]

But no one can reject how useful they were in advancing medicine and providing valuable facts about human anatomy and biology, information used widely even today. The way I heard it, much of the work of Megele on twins was junk science -- looking for psychic connections, etc. Furthermore, the research on toxins was already known and published -- no real need to do it on humans. Then there's the vacuum experiments, Britain and the US were able to develop fighter aircraft without killing humans by exposing them to low atmospheres -- once the test individual was unconscious, there was no need to keep pumping 'til the subject died.

Re:Oh I see

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be "infected" with cancer, jackass.

Re:Oh I see

[kripkenstein]

We're currently eating every day food additives many claim cause cancer. But there's no way to prove it, since causing cancer in test human subjects is illegal.

Just consider: since testing those substances is illegal, thousands upon thousands probably die from cancer eating basically poisonous food we distribute in our food chains.

Why is testing these substances illegal? Of course it's legal, and of course it is possible to prove whether these substances are carcinogenic or not.

For example, you can conduct a double-blind study on people, where you give them a few meals a week, some of which contain the substance and some of which don't. Then you can compare cancer rates for the two populations. Simple. All it requires is time and money.

Deliberately causing cancer in humans is unethical, yes. But if a substance is not known to cause cancer, then testing it can't be unethical, can it? And that is in fact how medical research works.

Re:Oh I see

[suv4x4]

Sure! I assume this means you're willing to be infected with cancer for research purposes - after all, interests of the many...

Many of the medicines you use (or people you know use) were tested on humans. If they weren't, those people you know wouldn't be able to take advantage of them.

The problem with testing for cancer is the dogma that a test that is likely to cause cancer is like intentionally killing a human. Thing is, even with drugs that were tested on humans and not supposed to have serious side effects have caused join inflamation, impotence, insults, kidney failures, blood poisoning, liver cirrhosis and so on.

Another poster said:

You state yourself that the tests were cruel and inhumane.
You admit that you are promoting a very, very cruel idea.

I'm not promoting to replicate what Mengele did. You can test on human subjects, and do WAY, *WAY* better than Mengele did.

Maybe you should ask yourself if YOU want to be the one the tests are done on. And if you say, "Well, it would benefit everyone else," then you are in serious need of mental help. You should be excited about these models; they can be used to save lives without sacrificing anyone's.

There are doctors who willingly inflicted dangerous illnesses upon themselves to advance science. There are people who lost loved ones and lost meaning of life, but are willing to help others.

There are people with terminal illnesses who would gladly agree to be test subjects for advance science and decrease the pain humanity as a whole suffers.

I'm not afraid to apply cold logic and say that human testing can make the world a better place. It of course should be completely voluntary, and any risk you cause upon your test subjects should be well argumented, and not for the sake of playing God.

But cold logic is what differentiates good decisions from bad decisions. Imagine yourself in this situation:

Two ships in open sea. Both ships are broken. On ship A, the damage is not so serious, 500 people are aboard may survive, but if the ship sinks in the ice water, many will die. The chances it'll sink are 50:50. On ship B, 2 people are aboard, the the ship will definitely sink and have 100% mortality. You have one rescue boat to send. It's large enough to save all the people from either ship, but only one of the ships. Which ship you send it to?

For any sane emergency crue the choice is clear: you send it to the ship with 500 people who risk 50% chance of death. It's basic math.

But apparently when you put things in a different context, namely medical tests, people find it hard to make the right choice, and there are lots of people to call voices of reason "people who need mental help". Well the math is the same, and the outcome will be the same. I'd accept 2 certain deaths to save 500 people versus risk 50% chance 500 people will die to save 2 people.

Re:Oh I see

[Andrew Kismet]

I think the simplest way to address the problem of choosing that "one" would be to make it a volunteer/pay system. Obviously, the pay would have to be capped to prevent it leading to exploitation of the poor, but the key idea is that those interested in advancing medicine without the knowledge to advance it themselves can put themselves into a position to help.

I think the most ideal compensation would be flexible - guaranteed insurance cover against negative side-effects! If you come out of it fine with little/no recovery time, a minor compensation. If you become infected or are otherwise temporarily disabled by the procedure, a major compensation (ideally enough to undo the damage).

This way, since no insurer or medical firm is willing to take the cost of something highly likely to be dangerous, no experiments of a notably dangerous variety can be performed. However, those with minor side-effects that are moderately undoable, but still require human testing, will go ahead.

There are flaws in this plan still, obviously benefit fraud from people claiming to be negatively affected when perfectly healthy, and unforeseen risks, and corruption in both the medical profession and insurance companies - but human testing is something that's practically required with such difficult cases. I suspect that these computer models will continue improvement to the point that they can account for at least 9/10 if not 99/100 cases, but like the GP post said, nature tends to surprise...

Re:Oh I see

[Bodrius]

I'm not sure, how does the cap on payment prevent exploitation of the poor?

It seems that historically that only results in them being paid less (according to the cap), and misled through misinformation about both the risks and the compensation.

Re:Oh I see

[Everleet]

For example, you can conduct a double-blind study on people,

After all, it's important to keep your test results clear of psychosomatic cancer.

Re:Oh I see

[jez9999]

I think the simplest way to address the problem of choosing that "one" would be to make it a volunteer/pay system. Obviously, the pay would have to be capped to prevent it leading to exploitation of the poor, but the key idea is that those interested in advancing medicine without the knowledge to advance it themselves can put themselves into a position to help.

This does already happen, but the trouble is that when the odd experiment goes horribly, horribly wrong, it gets out into the mass media and people get freaked. You pretty much need to make testers sign NDAs before starting the trial, or something, or you'll never be able to do it without a public backlash.

Re:Oh I see

[Anonymous Coward]

But cold logic is what differentiates good decisions from bad decisions.

People's moral parsimony varies substantially, and people with less parsimonious morality tend to ignore the raw numbers in a variety of situations -- they are ruled by more than statistics.

Here is a short game whose purpose is to test whether one has few rules or many rules with respect to moral choices. You might enjoy the results.

Hey Peter man!

[MT628496]

Check out channel nine! It's a breast exam!

Re:Hey Peter man!

[rahuja]

Mod parent up! +5 Funny (What? You're on Slashdot, and you haven't seen Office Space?)

At last...

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you will about Roland; at least he's subject to the same male fascinations as the rest of us.

Re:At last...

[Anonymous Coward]

... this story was brought to you by the "Horn of Roland".

What about the men?

[keraneuology]

In 2005 the US government spent about $700 million on a disease that affects one women out of eight. That same year the government spent only $390 million on a disease that affects one man out of six.

Re:What about the men?

[XorNand]

Because men are scared-to-death, repulsed, deeply saddened (or some combination of the three) to contimplate the thought of their wives walking around sans breast. I'm not a psychologist, but I would think that the reason that breasts are so objectified sexually is that they are linked to a basic, nurturing comfort deep within our psyche very early in our lives. A woman unable to offer fullfill that role has somehow lost a significant porition of her humanity. Of course, when rationally considered that's utter BS. But not all husbands can fully let go of that fear.

Re:What about the men?

[Mendy]

No. If men were funding breast cancer resarch because they were worried about their women becoming mono-breasted then they'd be even more keen to ensure that they didn't become mono-testicled (assuming the parent means testicular and not prostate cancer). If that was the problem we'd just invent better fake breasts anyway.

I think Dylan Moran summed up the problem well...

"A big erm health scare on for men for testicular cancer, now that's a pretty scary thing there... women don't get that so much. And it's a very difficult thing coz you have to look for a lump...in a bag of lumps, and that can take a long time. And you have to do it yourself, because nobody actually wants to touch male genitalia anyway coz it looks like some kind of deep sea fish, you know that became extinct after about an half an hour, it just didn't do very well. And it's a very difficult thing, you have to do it yourself, you have to touch yourself. And as a man you are designed to be aroused by most naturally occurring phenomena on the plant. You know if you see a big bag of wheat or a bit of falling masonry, that can get you going. So...actually to touch yourself can be very dangerous, you can have 38 erections in a half an hour and get a very bad nose bleed. And its extremely important not to tell anybody if you do find one coz you know what will happen, they lift you shoulder high through the streets going "lump, lump, lump!" and throw you in prison. And then little men will come in and beat you with spoons. That's what happens, they cover it up but that's what happens."

Scary stuff.

Re:What about the men?

[ikkonoishi]

What about women's heart disease? It gets far less attention than breast cancer, but kills far more women.

Re:What about the men?

[virgil_disgr4ce]

Not only that, but many (if not most) women have been culturally conditioned the same way, and they may be equally terrified of not "being a woman." It's female emasculation.

Re:What about the men?

[Lunar_Lamp]

Actually, the usual reason given for the lower funding for prostate cancers is that men, as a generalisation, are less willing to discuss the issues than women. Men tend to shy away from it, and thus it doesn't receive the same level of publicity, ergo not the same level of funding.

Re:What about the men?

[Snarkhunter]

You're thinking about it the wrong way.
It's $700 million on a disease that affects at least 1 boob out of 16.
Became much more urgent and worthwhile now, didn't it?

Re:What about the men?

[Anonymous Coward]

15 boobs ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:What about the men?

[keraneuology]

Heart disease is heart disease is heart disease - when you research heart disease you are researching equally for both men and women. When you research breast cancer you are focusing on something that almost exclusively strikes women (there is the occasional man who develops breast cancer but few people talk or care about that).

Re:What about the men?

[line-bundle]

Because men are scared-to-death, repulsed, deeply saddened (or some combination of the three) to contimplate the thought of their wives walking around sans breast. I'm not a psychologist, but I would think that the reason that breasts are so objectified sexually is that they are linked to a basic, nurturing comfort deep within our psyche very early in our lives. A woman unable to offer fullfill that role has somehow lost a significant porition of her humanity. Of course, when rationally considered that's utter BS. But not all husbands can fully let go of that fear.

Bollocks!

I think it's because in the current atmosphere it's politically incorrect to show concern for men.

Re:What about the men?

[boingo82]

Men are generally, also unwilling to discuss testicular cancer. Bring it up at the next dinner party you attend. All the males present will flinch and then slowly move away. Same with prostate cancer.

Because everyone is more comfortable discussing breast cancer, it gets more attention and more funding.

Re:What about the men?

[moosesocks]

The parent poster actually brings up an extremely valid point. When it was first being marketed, nobody imagined that Viagra would be even remotely as big of a success as it has been.

The fact is that nobody had any data suggesting that erectile dysfunction was nearly as prevalent as it is because nobody wanted to talk about it. Once it comes out, it's one of the most successful commercial pharmeceuticals in history, and has been linked to a decrease in depression amongst elderly couples.

If a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, she's labeled as a fighter, and a survivor. If a man has prostate or testicular cancer, people cringe and back away if it's even mentioned at all (and often it's not). I really wish that Lance Armstrong could have used more of his time in the limelight to highlight this fact.

That said, I also think that Americans as a whole need to be far more open when it comes to talking about things related to sex. Repression is never healthy.

Re:What about the men?

[boingo82]

I was thinking of Lance Armstrong specifically in my post too - remember all the media attention about how brave he was, not in his fight against cancer, but how brave he was to be public about the specific type of cancer he had?

Re:What about the men?

[ikkonoishi]

Nope women have different symptoms and causes. You were not aware of that. Hence my point.

http://www.google.com/search?q=heart+disease+gende r+differences

Re:Next step

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/28/bouncing_brea st_simu.html

here as well.... despite being a science article- it's probably NSFW.

typos

[Loconut1389]

The submitter was too busy to write english correctly.. 'ones find in a woman breast'.. submitter must have reverted to his primate self upon encountering an article about breasts.

Nice to see some progress....

[BobbyMikeinNY]

I lost my sense of humor about cancer a couple of years ago when my wife lost one of her breast due to cancer (and yes DCIS reared it's little head). My sense of humor came back, but I'd like to see more research like this directed at cancer. They should have dumped the animal testing years ago if it wasn't yielding usable data.

Does this remind anyone...

[FredThompson]

...of the opening sequence of Weird Science?

Here's your problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"similarities can be poor between mice and humans."

That's why they should use rats.

This got my attention

[CrackedButter]

From the article: In fact, these experiments are not always useful because similarities can be poor between mice and humans."

First, who was the idiot making comparisons between mice and men? Second, which mice DID have breasts with which those similarities weren't poor?

Re:This got my attention

[Wolfrider]

Tell me about the rabbits, George...

Re:This got my attention

[LilGuy]

I'll feed em and pet em and take real good care of em george, honest!

Re:Next step

[ColdWetDog]

Best - use - of - Flash --- ever...

I didn't realize that exercise was so dangerous

useless story

[roman_mir]

this story is useless without pics.

Re:useless story

[Anonymous Coward]

this story is useless without pics.

So you're basically saying, "tits or gtfo"?

no matter

[imkow]

the bigger the better.

Re:Next step

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just freaking MESMERIZING....

I, for one, welcome our old 3d-breast overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "breast" of which you speak?

Read faster

[Mathness]

3-D Model of Breast Wohooo, hooters.

... Cancer in the Lab Eeewwww. I really need to read faster.

Disease?

[weinrich]

spent only $390 million on a disease that affects one man out of six. Sorry, but virginity is NOT a disease.

Wheel of Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

3-D Mod_l of Br_ast Canc_r in th_ Lab

BEFORE & AFTER

"I'd like to buy a vowel. Give me an E please."

Hmm

[Loconut1389]

any coincidence this is being release on mother's day?

The will be very useful.

[Kaenneth]

If Lara Croft ever finds a lump.

This is anything but new

[sowalsky]

This research is far from novel. The technique of growing tumor-derived breast epithelial cells was championed by both John Brugge at Harvard and Mina Bissell at Berkeley. The authors of this BBC article should have done a little research before; this work has not only been published (it is several years old) but it is a truly accepted model for DCIS among cancer researchers.

Reference:
-Morphogenesis and oncogenesis of MCF-10A mammary epithelial acini grown in three-dimensional basement membrane cultures. Debnath J, Muthuswamy SK, Brugge JS. Methods, 2003
-Phenotypic reversion or death of cancer cells by altering signaling pathways in three-dimensional contexts. Wang F, Hansen RK, Radisky D, Yoneda T, Barcellos-Hoff MH, Petersen OW, Turley EA, Bissell MJ. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2002

Einstein foresaw this problem-

[Anonymous Coward]

and gave us a warning!

  "If the human breast disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left."
                        - Einstein

Medical ethics aside?

[gstoddart]

I think the simplest way to address the problem of choosing that "one" would be to make it a volunteer/pay system. Obviously, the pay would have to be capped to prevent it leading to exploitation of the poor, but the key idea is that those interested in advancing medicine without the knowledge to advance it themselves can put themselves into a position to help.

I question whether or not this would pass any medical ethics comittee in the Western world. That whole hypocratic oath of "doing no harm" might be awfully hard to maintain in the face of intentionally giving people life-threatening things for which the cure is still in the works.

Nobody could really make 'informed consent' on that one.

Such a system could only end up exploiting the poor and people living in countries with no such concept of protecting humans. I think the medical community tries very hard to not go about mangling people so that they can get some more research done.

I think the most ideal compensation would be flexible - guaranteed insurance cover against negative side-effects! If you come out of it fine with little/no recovery time, a minor compensation. If you become infected or are otherwise temporarily disabled by the procedure, a major compensation (ideally enough to undo the damage).

Think of unexpected side effects in a completely different area -- "why, no, we don't agree that your new-found brain cancer could be related to the treatment we gave you for a planters wart, we're not covering you".

I would be really nervous about opening up those floodgates.

Admittedly, human trials is little more than what you're describing with the exception you take people who already have the affliction, and would rather gamble on a cure than die/live with the downsides of whatever they have. But, to deliberately give someone cancer or the like is just going to scary places (which I'll only obliquely allude to for fear or triggering Godwin's law, but that is (IMO) a valid fear in this case).

Cheers