Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3-D Model of Breast Cancer in the Lab

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the just-add-water dept.

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."

16 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by HalifaxRage · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally! Science we can get excited about!

    --
    bomb the us up set someone
  2. Re:interesting, but by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    --
    Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
  3. JARS (Just Another Roland Story) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:JARS (Just Another Roland Story) by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

      --
      Limina.Log
  4. Oh I see by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Oh I see by mattpointblank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...
    2. Re:Oh I see by JohnSearle · · Score: 2

      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

    3. Re:Oh I see by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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...

  5. Hey Peter man! by MT628496 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  6. Re:interesting, but by qengho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  7. What about the men? by keraneuology · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    1. Re:What about the men? by XorNand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    2. Re:What about the men? by Mendy · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:What about the men? by Lunar_Lamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  8. Re:interesting, but by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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