Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Cancer Agent Stops Metastasis In Its Tracks

Posted by kdawson on from the of-mice-and-men dept.

Anomalyst writes "Mice were implanted with cancer. The control group died as tumors metastasized. The experimental group was treated with macroketone and survived a normal lifespan. While the cancer was not cured, metastasis was significantly (over 80%) inhibited. Even after metastasis had begun and additional cancers developed, macroketone inhibited subsequent metastasis. The original article is in Nature behind a paywall."

26 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks for the information, Hemingway by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    This post is a thank you for your contribution. It is heartfelt.

    Cancer is bad. Implanting cancer into mice is bad for the mice. But it is good for humans.

    Because we hate mice.

  2. Side effects by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the side effects don't appear to significantly increase mortality this should obviously be given an immediate fastrack for human trials and should get to Phase III ASAP.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Side effects by Bartab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're dying. Six weeks to live.

      What do you care of side effects?

      This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    2. Re:Side effects by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Proudly brought to you by the fine people who also say that you can't end your life under the same circumstances.

      Since when is your life not yours, but the government's?

      You should be able to take a risk on experimental treatment. You should be able to end your own life if it becomes too much.

      I had the unpleasant experience of witnessing my grandmother battling for 4 days to finally let her heart stop despite her pacemaker. Before she lost the ability to communicate, she begged the doctors, and I mean begged for them to be able to turn her pacemaker off. Do you know what they said? We're sorry, but turning off your pacemaker would be murder.

      So thank you do gooders, thank you so much. Nothing gets me brimming with red bubbling vitriol quite like the fine people who work for the Nanny State that disarm the honest and reasonable with their crap and ineptitude.


      end rant.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Side effects by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.

      Heh, if only people were not bitching about losing their teeth in a life-saving treatment and asking damages to the company that did not go through the whole FDA process...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:Side effects by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I created this miracle cure guaranteed to extend a terminal patients life by a significant amount of time. If you are ever terminally ill, you can look me up and pay me $10,000 for each use of the device. It may take several uses before you see the results. It's still experiments and doesn't always work but it's your only chance to live longer then the couple weeks the doctors told you. The device is revolutionary, it's basically a hair dryer with a bunch of magnets arranged in a specific pattern around the air chamber that blows on your while you ingest aspirin and sugar pills.

      If you don't have the money, sell your house, all your worldly possessions, beg your loved ones, but get this experimental life extending treatment.

      Can you see why the FDA has some reservations about opening the flood gates on medicines and procedures like that? People will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive or to keep loved ones alive when someone claims there is a chance. What the FDA generally does is determine if that chance is there and if they would be better off with it. Sure, some experimental treatments and medications should have a fast track, but there should still be some safe checks that stop people like me from making a fortune because you lived two weeks longer over a process that is no more effective then not stepping on a crack to avoid breaking you mothers back.

    5. Re:Side effects by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or at least, that's how it's been for decades in Europe.

      I hope I never get to visit the Europe you heard of. It's not anything like that in the one I live in.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Side effects by pookemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well - when the first side effect is that you (because you are not a mouse) have a 100% chance that you will die in 1 week, you'd probably care.

      Sure - it might be the greatest ever discovery in the treatment of cancer - but without proper testing it could be the next Thalidomide, Asbestos, Triple Cheeseburger...

      It could also be completely ineffectual in humans and a complete waste of time - which won't be shown without the proper testing.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    7. Re:Side effects by dentin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One possible thing to consider here is that while some cancers are inoperable due to location/size, a good percentage are inoperable because they've fragmented/metastasized and there's no way to get them all. Take for example testicular cancer where the removal procedure is complicated and weird, not because they're trying to save the reproductive organs, but because the goal is to minimize leaving behind or knocking loose any cancer cells.

      If you can stop cancer spread, and assuming the growth rate is slow enough, some of these inoperables become operable. You administer the drugs to stop spread, then you go in and hit the biggest localized tumors that are causing the most pain/dysfunction. Wait for the smaller ones to get well-defined edges and grow big enough to find them, then remove them. Yeah, you're going to be pulling out tumors for years as they surface, but as long as they can't spread and stay contained in blobs, you stand a chance of being able to eventually get them all.

      Another interesting idea here is the combination of anti-metastasis and anti-angiogenesis therapies. With one preventing spread and one preventing large growth, you could conceivably live indefinitely with extensive inoperable cancer. Not an ideal solution, but better than nothing.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
    8. Re:Side effects by DrRossi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Needless to say, I refused to pay a dime to the guy, told him that if he didn't step out of the way he'd be lucky to walk away with a broken arm and a black eye. We went to another doctor who did prescribe antibiotics, after some pressure, and lo and behold, the fever went down a mere 15 minutes after administration.

      Well, lo and behold indeed, as it is generally recognised that it takes several days before antibiotics start working we have a real miracle here.

      Antibiotics do not have a (near) immediate effect as general painkillers have.
      So either:
      a) you are being dishonest and/or
      b) the fever subdued to some other cause.

      In any case, by your own admittance, you threatened the first doctor with severe physical violence, while he was right and simply doing his job, and nonetheless you are very self-righteous about it, and to top it of you refused to pay him as well!

      Not only that, but you "pressured" (meaning he didn't want to give antibiotics either) the second doctor too, but he finally caved in.

      You are talking about "medical practitioners" in your family, but none of them were evidently able to tell you that it takes days for antibiotics to start working, and also, as I found out by some light surfing on baby-sites, that baby fevers are not worrisome until about 40 C or 41 C. (!) Apparently they can come and go pretty quick. That also hasn't been told to you by the medical practitioners in your family.

      For example, see http://mens-en-gezondheid.infonu.nl/ziekten/23242-koorts-bij-kinderen.html (dutch)

      Originally I came here to reply to your first post which is full of all sorts non-truths (European doctors send you home with pain killing cream if you have a broken leg, yea, right!), but you second post was even more over the top so I ended up replying to that one.

      All in all you look to me like an unpleasant, lying, bullying and self-righteous kind of person, and I'm happy I don't have any more business with you.

      And, oh yeah, I'm Dutch.

  3. Nice. by danhm · · Score: 3, Funny

    So does this mean there is no harm in smoking a celebratory cigar?

  4. Mice of the world, rejoice! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thank God! Mice of the world can now sleep easy at night.

    1. Re:Mice of the world, rejoice! by Pastis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Welcome to Green Scientific Experiments Ltd.

      Thanks to our Mice and Other Animals Recycling -MOAR (TM), we enable laboratories to save thousands of mice around the world, helping them to reuse mice across experiments.

      Done with the Infect(*), Let die, Dissect cycle, you can now use the moar efficient cycle: Infect, Cure, Analyze, REpeat ! (I CARE) (**).

      Call us today for a discount and get 10 (recycled) mice as gift.

      (*) currently MOAR only works against some types of cancers. We're working on a second generation solution allowing to work against other types of laboratory deadly experiments such as virus, radiation exposure, etc.

      (**) even if MOAR enables you to reuse mice ad vitam æternam, we advice our clients to not reuse them moar than 10 times due to psychological side effects. To end the I CARE cycle in a green and respectful manner, we work in cooperation with reptilariums across the world to help you fully recycle your mice.

      --
      Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
  5. Dear Scientists and Researchers by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know you need funding, but could you please not sell your research to publishing companies that have paywalls like this? There are open-access peer-reviewed journals for many fields nowadays.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers by robertc99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't sell your research to Nature. You submit it for publication and are overjoyed if they accept it. Nature is the most prestigious publication in the field of biology bar none.
      But as far as I know, theres nothing stopping you from putting it up on your web site as well or submitting it in publication in other journals.

      So it being published in Nature doesnt stop it from being publically available. Its just that the other copies might be harder to find..

    2. Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Researches don't get paid for publishing, some journals even require them to pay "page charges" to get their work published.
      Paywalls aren't an issue because most people will not be able to understand scientific articles of this complexity. Those that would understand it already have access via their university or company. Science is reported to the public in news articles such as the one linked which has the benefit of glossing over the technical details and summarising the findings very well, something that can be extremely difficult to do by reading the paper itself.

      The issue for researchers is recognition. The more recognition, the more funding they will be able to get in the future. And the best place to get recognition is high impact factor journals like Nature and Science. Open access journals have nowhere near as much impact factor.

    3. Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers by yotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. If you are not doing scientific research why are you trying to read science articles, drone? Get back to work and stop thinking about things.

      --
      Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
    4. Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      'But as far as I know, theres nothing stopping you from putting it up on your web site as well or submitting it in publication in other journals.'

      Nature has exclusive publication rights for the first 6 months, after which you're free to submit the paper to a public repository or put it up on your own site:

      http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html

      This is rather more enlightened than some other major journals, which still require a copyright transfer to the publisher, but obviously falls short of full open access from day 1. But I think most people who get a paper in Nature will happily accept this compromise! (at least for now).

      Incidentally, some form of open access is pretty much being forced on traditional publishers by major funding bodies, which now commonly require that most or all funded publications are submitted to journals that provide this (time delays are generally allowed), e.g.:

      http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

      http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/gapp/terms/openaccess_ukpmc/

      So things are at least moving in the right direction.

  6. More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    See also http://www.physorg.com/news190482866.html

  7. Re:As usual by feepness · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stop talking like a seditious teabagger. The government only has our best interest at heart and we certainly aren't smart enough to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves.

  8. Re:As usual by leety · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because science is EBIL. Meanwhile lets make sure every parent can make an "informed choice" between Darwin and "intelligent design". Oh and cigarettes and alcohol, you guys can stay too. But no strange cancer curing drugs. (We've run out of surgeon general health warning stickers)

  9. Re:As usual by Jorgandar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, you're wrong. I work in FDA compliance so I happen to know a little more about this subject. There are PLENTY of provisions in the CFR (Code Federal Regulations) governing use of experimental or not fully tested drugs on terminally ill patients. Look up "Compassionate Use". A miracle drug that saves 1/3 of hospice patients from cancer would certainly be funded by a biotech/pharma company or the US government. But guess what, drugs cannot under any circumstances go to large-scale populations because if they are untested, you will end up killing more people than you save. In your example, sure the drug may have saved 1/3 of hospice patients, but it very well could have caused the other 2/3 of them to die faster, or suffer a stroke, or whatever. Unless these risks are known, its completely irresponsible for the government to allow it to go into widespread use without a proper clinical trial. There are very valid reasons to the FDAs laws governing drugs. There is no evil boogyman that is trying to prevent miracle drugs from coming to market.

  10. Re:As usual by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    If only there were some sort of program to fast track the process through...

    http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm

  11. Re:As usual by javilon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    drugs cannot under any circumstances go to large-scale populations because if they are untested, you will end up killing more people than you save

    This is where you are wrong. You have one fact. The fact that this drugs cures 1/3 of the people taking it in the tests.

    You do not have the fact that it kills any one. You just think it could. If we are talking about terminal cancer patients, they should be given it.

    Also, even if the drug do kill people, it can be a risk worth taking. Lets say that this drug is tested in a group of people with late stage cancer and an average six months to die. Even if the drug kills 2 out of 3, but it cures 1 out of 3, it is a risk I would take. I would happily accept the risk of an "early" dead if I would get a chance to get cured.

    In my mind it is morally wrong for the government to tell me that I can't make an informed decision with the information at hand and take the drug.

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  12. Re:Mod parent up by witch-doktor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Review is done by 'peers' i.e. other scientists, who do this as a service - no charge. The only cost incurred by the journal is typesetting and proofreading.

  13. Good for the drug companies too.... by mrops · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ideally, Drug companies would love it if they can make Cancer manageable instead of curing. Look at Diabetes.... its manageable.... meaning the patient spends thousands to stay alive but never gets cured.

    Where is the profit in a cure.

    A joke comes to mind,
    Back when trades were handed from Father to Son; A son proudly proclaims to his dad, "Dad I cured the wonman who had been coming to you for 20 years and yet you couldn't cure her". Dad replies, "You fool, she was our only faithful customer".