Slashdot Mirror
Mayo Clinic Reports Dramatic Outcomes In Prostate Cancer Treatment
Zorglub writes "Two prostate cancer patients who had been told their condition was inoperable are now cancer-free as the result of an experimental therapy, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester announced Friday. 'Cancer has a propensity for turning off T cells. Dr. Allison hypothesized that if you block the off-switch, T cells will stay turned on and create a prolonged immune response. Dr. Kwon, then at NIH, demonstrated that CTLA-4 blockage could be used to treat aggressive forms of prostate cancer in mice. There was one limitation to that concept — the worry that by simply leaving all the T cells on there may not be enough response aimed at the tumor. Dr. Kwon called Dr. Allison and designed the trial together. The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach — a pilot light — and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.' After the treatment, the patients' tumors shrunk to such a degree that they could be successfully removed."
So the immune system will actually fight cancer, but the cancer negates this by turning off the T-cells. This is fascinating. The problem, from what I understand, is that cancer cells reproduce indefinitely as their DNA does not slowly break down. It seems like this could be a real breakthrough for lots of cancer patients.
zosxavius photography
Know what else causes impotence?
Being dead from cancer.
True, it would be ideal to have a treatment that doesn't require any surgery, but if your choice is between impotence or death, I think most people will have the operation.
even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer
Every source I've ever seen on this subject says that although ex-smokers have a higher chance of developing lung cancer than do lifelong nonsmokers, they're still less likely to develop lung cancer than are current smokers (of the same age and smoking history, of course.) If you have a citation to the contrary, please give it.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
How many men would choose between impotence and a, say, 1/1000 (no idea if that is the actual chance) of dying earlier?
You'd need to have the whole picture before you could make an educated choice.
I lost my father to prostate cancer a couple of years ago. When it got bad he wanted to die at home. We arranged that for him. I was with him during his last day. I watched him die.
I can tell you this. It's a life changing event watching someone die from cancer. Most people happily have no idea what it's like. I know though. Tumors up and down your spine, eyedroppers full of synthetic morphine to deal with the pain...it's absolutely unreal. Honestly.
Believe me, if it came down to it and someone told me today that they'd have to remove everything from my balls to my bellybutton to avoid that fate, I'd go to the table with a smile. I'd happily sit to pee if it meant I could dodge that bullet. Anyone would if they knew what I know.
Oh yeah, on an unrelated note - people who smoke are bat shit insane. They have absolutely no idea what's at the end of a losing roll of the dice.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Regardless of what I like or dislike about the health care plan, exceptions or provisions in any plan need to be in place so normal people can get treatments like this when they become available- even if they are still experimental and turn out to be a hail marry pass with the hopes of doing something other then the alternative of death.
What prompts you to say that? This has been done on exactly two patients. If done on say, one hundred, maybe it helps five and kills the rest. The medical literature is quite full of therapies that held great promise but never lived up to their expectations for one reason or another. We waste an enormous amount of time and money on expensive, dangerous therapies that in the end, don't help patients much, and can hurt more patients then they help. Until and unless we do the real, long term, difficult and boring research (and the comparative research between different therapies) we're going to go off half cocked and fully broke.
Your attitude, common as it is, is about 1/2 of what is drastically wrong with American healthcare. There is no substitute for good science.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Well that's because Baconnaise, choc chip pancakes and sausage have anti-cancer properties. Really!
;).
;).
;).
Eat enough of that and the odds of you getting cancer go way down.
You'd just die of heart disease or something else first
Some people choose certain diets because they want to live longer. Others choose their diets based on how they want to die
You're eventually going to die of something. Imagine a pie chart where the slices represent the odds of you dying of a particular problem. Whatever you do, the pie is there and it doesn't go away. You can change the sizes of the slices, but it's unlikely you'll ever get to a slice that says "ran out of resources due to Heat Death of the Universe".
So don't pick a diet or lifestyle that you can't grow to like. It's no point suffering your entire life just to die of cancer in the end. But it's probably not a good idea to die too early either, so find a decent balance and try to figure it out early enough so you can get on with more important stuff
The nation can't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we'd go broke. It's a noble goal but just not possible.
Instead, I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive. I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer. But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance. With no preexisting conditions and, say, $20 a month, you could be covered up to $500,000 for experimental surgeries, out-of-country treatment, or other options for things not covered by your government plan. It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something.
And the government can continue to fund research studies, like they probably did this one, so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate. It's a win-win situation.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.