Cancer: testing, curing and prevention

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Billy T, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is news of big step forward in testing, monitoring treatment effectiveness (need to switch to different treatment / drugs, etc.):

    "... Stray cancer cells in the blood mean that a tumour has spread or is likely to, many doctors believe. A test that can capture such cells has the potential to transform care for many types of cancer, especially breast, prostate, colon and lung. The test can find one cancer cell in a billion or more healthy cells. It uses a microchip that resembles a lab slide covered in 78,000 tiny posts, like bristles on a hairbrush. The posts are coated with antibodies that bind to tumour cells. When blood is forced across the chip, cells ping off the posts like balls in a pinball machine but the cancer cells stick, and stains make them glow so researchers can count and capture them for study. ..."

    More at: http://pharmalive.com/news/index.cfm?articleID=752611&categoryid=9&newsletter=1 Or:
    http://www.therapeuticsdaily.com/ne...979056&contentType=sentryarticle&channelID=26 which seems to be same text.

    Unfortunately, test is not yet available - only in the research stage by J. & J. but they are going "full steam" on it with hope to have product on the market ASAP.

    I had prostate removed a few years ago, and examination of it seemed to show cancer was well confined to it but that turned out not to be the case. I have low rising PSA level when I suspend drug suppressing testosterone production with the drug. When on that drug my PSA is undetectable (<0.003) but it is well known that cancerous prostate cells learn how to multiply without testosterone in a few years. I.e. you have a "chemotherapy failure" or often still called Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer, CRPC, from the era when castration was the only life extending treatment available.

    Because I did not like this failure prospect, and the drugs are expensive, and some MDs think that periodically ceasing to take the drug may extend the length of their effectiveness (not much good evidence for this yet) I did a lot of research at PubMed etc. and found there is good (Pier reviewed journal articles) evidence for the possible benefit from some diet items. I take seven of these different food items each day, in a "shot gun" approach. To evaluate their effects, if any, I need to go off drug anyway and see how my PSA responds.

    I think my diet cocktail is not very effective but may be of some use - too early to tell. I am nearing the end of my second "off drug" test period with PSA at recent measure of 0.06. When I terminate drug, my Testosterone,T, of course rises back towards normal. When PSA is a little higher, but still less than 0.1, I hope, I will go back on the drugs.

    I reason that during this drug-free, "T recovering" period there should be a relatively fixed functional relationship between PSA and T if the number of prostate cells in my body has remained constant. I.e. I look very much at the the ratio (PSA / T) to see how I am doing with my therapeutic diet. It has shown a slight, but not statistically significant, decrease (my low PSA provides data with only one significant figure). At least that ratio has not increased at any T level. (The function is not exactly linear. I am still with too little data to know the functional form, if it exists.)

    Anyway I hope this thread may permit those with cancer (or those at higher than average risk) to tell what they are doing to live longer and new developments, like that at start of this post, they learn of.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is link to cancer research papers published by American Assoc. for Cancer Research: http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/
    They publish some selected articles on line a few weeks before they appear in the journals. Some times you can read the full article, but usually only the abstract is free.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    They said it will be at least 20 years before they can test whether the cancer cells that they find are dormant ones or aggressive ones that will harm you in the future if they aren't treated. We all have cancer cells but to distinguish which of them are really the bad ones is the biggest problem. For now they can use this to see what their treatments are doing to kill off the bad cancer today and adjust their treatments according to what they find.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Cosmic, what are you talking about? It is not true that everybody has cancer cells. People may develop cancer cells at any point in their lifetime, but they are usually destroyed immediately by your immune system.

    As well, cancer is defined as malignant cell growth. Left unabated, this is always harmful. Just because some cancers (like prostate cancer) are very slow growing doesn't mean they aren't harmful.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    After stopping controlling drugs, when one measures both PSA & T (testosterone) on same day one gets (less than a week later) results PSA1 & T1. On some later date one gets PSA2 & T2 and both these second results are higher. One can compute R1 and R2 where R1 = (PSA1 / T1 ) etc. and directly compare, but as the functional relationship between PSA & T probably is not linear, a difference in these ratios is not easy to understand when that function is unknown.

    If not interested in how I estimated the probable relationship between PSA and Testosterone you should stop reading here.

    In an effort to learn what this function looks like, I also make another calculation for comparing results from different dates as follows: (Assume T2 > T1 as it always is when going off drugs and during the "T recovering period" - see OP - until T saturates at your max T value.):

    PSA1' = PSA1( T2/T1). This is scaling up the PSA1 data to the same T2 level as PSA2 had with the assumption that at least in the limited range between T1 & T2 the function, F(T), relating PSA to T is linear. I.e. PSA = sT where s is the Local Slope of the PSA vs. T curve. Here I am also assuming that PSA = 0 when T = 0. Thus the gross slope to the (x,y) point (PSA, T) where measurements were made is PSA / T, and is the ratio data readily available to me. E.g. S1 = PSA1 / T1, where S is the “Gross Slope” to point (PSA, T).

    The data I have thus far seem to say that in the first weeks after going completely off drugs, that PSA is climbing slowly, but more rapidly than T is, and PSA will climb more rapidly than T much later. This implies that the recovery of T production is slow but accelerating after drug suppression of it is stopped. This especially true as one does not simply stop taking the drug from the full does level, but phases it out over about one month, in my case. I.e. by the time one is fully off the drug, T has already risen to only about 100 + or - 20 during my phasing out period.

    Thus when going off drugs and in the initial month or so of drug free period the "Gross Slope" GS, of the function, PSA = F(T), is greater than it will be later, but eventually as T approaches its max value the "Local Slope", LS, will approach infinity and the gross slope will steadily increase. This assumes that the cancerous cells are active and increasing in number approximately exponentially when T is near Tmax.

    To summarize expected shape of F(T):
    LS > GS near end of the reducing drug dose period (curving upwards. i.e. projection passes thru x-axis.)
    LS ~ = GS during initial (month?) of drug free phase. (linear part. i.e. projection passes thru /near origin)
    LS < GS during middle (month 2 ?) of drug free phase. (becoming flatter. i.e. projection passes thru y-axis.)
    LS > GS during late part (month 3 ?) of drug free phase (curving upwards again. i.e. projection passes thru x-axis.)
    LS > > GS during late part (>4 months?) of drug free phase (curving steeply upwards.) Note I always resume taking full drug dose to avoid this region.

    Having some idea of the normal shape of F(T) when your non-drug control (e.g. my therapeutic diet) is totally useless is necessary to assert that it is having some positive effect. I.e. one should not expect the PSA / T ratio (the GS) to remain constant; but if your non-drug treatment is beneficial that ratio should stay below the F(T) described above.

    Another way to look at this F(T) curve is that during the drug phase out period, the control of cancer cell division is lost and many cells were "just waiting" for a little T to help them divide. So during the phase out of drugs period, as you go off full dose drug control, PSA has a more rapid increase than T production does. Then, when the "just waiting" cells have divided, the increase of PSA slows and T production accelerates as the testacies recover their T production capacity while it is still far from the saturation level.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2011
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I don't like the definition you gave for cancer. Is it some official one or yours? Mine, not official AFAIK, is that cancer cells are immortal. I.e. can divide and then the new ones can divide, etc. without limit to the number of divisions in this chain that normal cells have.

    Some, if not most, old males will not die of their prostate cancer; however some forms of it are aggressive* / fast multiplying of cells and do kill many. Also the new microchip test has found ~2/3 of people with prostate cancer do have cancer cells in their circulating blood without knowing it:

    "... Already, scientists have been surprised to find that more cancer patients harbour these stray cells than has been believed. In one study, the test was used on men thought to have cancer confined to the prostate, "but we found these cells in two-thirds of patients,'' Toner said.

    This might mean that cancer cells enter the blood soon after a tumour starts, or that more cancers have already spread but are unseen by doctors. ..."

    There is also, imho, the possibility that a biopsy of the prostate may put cancerous cells into the blood. - I.e. they take small tissues samples (normally 12 or more) with hollow needle thru the intestinal wall and there is bleeding. Possibly a few cells enter a cut vein?

    ------------
    * I had PSA < 2 for more than two decades, but then a measurement showed it was above 3 and a month later above 4. I thought that indicated it was the aggressive form so I had my prostate removed ASAP. I am only 99% sure the prostate cells still in my body are cancerous as I try to keep PSA very low but 6 months post op (without any drugs) it was 0.2 and then three months later was 0.8 so drug suppression of T began immediately and in a few weeks PSA was less than detection limit. Why I periodically go off drug and let PSA rise is discussed in the OP.

    -----------------
    As both Cosmos and the OP linked article note, the new approach's extreme sensitivity allows evaluation of drug etc. effectiveness in the very early stages of the cancer. - If that drug or other treatement is not working there are others. If that microchip test were available, I would not need to use the much cruder approach described in post 5 to try to evaluate the effectiveness of the (hopefully therapeutic) diet cocktail I designed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2011
  10. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    The definition comes from a medical-surgical nursing book that I have. That most cancer cells do not respond to apoptotic signals and therefore have unlimited life span is remarkable, to be sure. However, cancer is more defined by the fact that cancer cells serve no useful purpose, they migrate (metastasize), do not respond to contact inhibition, and they are anaplastic. The fact that they don't die isn't as important as the fact that they divide, divide, and divide continuously.

    It's true that many with prostate cancer do not die due to the cancer itself. But the fact that 25% of all cancers in men are prostate cancer alone makes prostate cancer's death toll rather huge. Of cancer deaths in men, prostate cancer is ranks #2 (10%) behind lung cancer (31%). When prostate cancer spreads to your liver, lungs, or kidneys, your problems really begin.

    As you may know, PSA is not specific to prostate cancer. There is another test called "early prostate cancer antigen" (EPCA-2) that is being studied as a serum marker for prostate cancer. It is even more sensitive than PSA.
     
  11. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    By the way, one of the best ways to prevent or limit prostate cancer (besides not smoking) is to limit red meat intake. The consumption of animal fat is directly associated with prostate cancer development.

    source: one of my nursing reference books
     
  12. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Well, you’re sort of half correct. Cancer isn’t an all-or-nothing scenario. A cell isn’t ‘normal’ one minute and ‘cancerous’ the next. For a cell to become cancerous it needs to acquire a series of mutations. Not just any mutations, but very specific mutations: loss-of-function mutations in tumor suppressor genes and gain-of-function mutations in oncogenes. As a cell accumulates such mutations it slowly changes phenotype from normal to neoplastic to hyperplastic to dysplastic (cancerous) and finally invasive/metastatic (severely cancerous).

    Most people older than 3 or 4 decades will have at least some neoplastic cells in their body somewhere.


    Nonsense. Cancer can be benign.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Is a benign tumour called cancer?

    I always thought cancer was a term specific for those neoplastic cells which show both, uncontrolled growth and invasiveness as well as sometimes, metastasis. Otherwise known as a malignant tumour.

    I thought benign tumour means "not cancer".
     
  14. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Source:
    Cancer Medicine. 6th edition.
    Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al., editors.
    Hamilton (ON): BC Decker; 2003.​

    Metastatic cancer is a subset of cancer as a whole. Benign tumors can be lethal.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm okay, but I am pretty sure the clinical terminology of benign is generally assumed to be "not cancer" [this is based on cancer reports I have read of patients, which may or may not be as academically rigorous]

    From Medline:

     
  16. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Yeah, okay. I have no doubt that there will be terminology nuances between academic and clinical texts.
     
  17. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    You are gravely wrong. Benign tumors are not considered "cancer," although they can be lethal. It is wise to verify what you are saying before rudely calling other people's very accurate and very well-evidenced statements "nonsense." Try learning to be less rude, if at all possible.
    You are correct.. and I have the professional literature to back it up. I pulled my definition straight from a med-surg book. And here's what my medical PDA says, which basically trumps anything else here, as it represents what is said academically and in practice:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Screenshot taken directly from Taber's medical dictionary on my PDA.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2011
  18. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    In case you didn't notice, i quoted a textbook, you moron. A comprehensive textbook written by experts.

    And let's take a closer look at your reference. It says: "....often with invasion of healthy tissues..."

    The term "often" is a qualifying term. It means "sometimes but not always". In other words, cancer does not always display tissue invasion. This is the meaning of the words in your scanned page. Or is English your second language? Is that the problem?

    Stop embarrassing yourself. You don't even understand the textbook entries you're offering as evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2011
  19. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Some clinicians in the hospital setting may not refer to benign growths as "cancer", but in the research field cancer is defined by uncontrolled growth and tissue dysplasia. This does not necessarily involve metastasis. (I did my PhD at a cancer research institute - The Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research).
     
  20. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Does it occur to you that you are being unnecessarily rude, for no real reason? I quoted two texts which fly against yours. I'm not sure what country you were educated in, but currently, in the USA, cancer is defined as malignant.

    The "often" isn't referring to its malignancy. It says it is always malignant neoplasia. You may want to reread.
    For the record, here is the med-surg source I was quoting earlier:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I provided two sources of professional literature. One is a very well-respected medical dictionary that is used in practice, direct from my medical PDA. You may have a definition that differs, and that's one thing, but there is no reason for you to exhibit hostility.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2011
  21. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Country is irrelevant. What seems to be the problem here is that we seem to be comparing apples with oranges. You seem to be coming from the standpoint of clinical medicine whereas I am coming from the standpoint of medical research. We each have references to back our respective positions, and this indicates that there is no strict consensus of this issue. Or if there is, it exists only within the specific fields above.

    For instance, here is another textbook that defines “cancer” in a lot less specific fashion than you (and your references) do.

    Note that there is no reference to malignancy.


    I don't need to re-read. Here again we seem to be arguing from different standpoints. In my medical research experience, malignancy goes hand-in-hand with tissue invasiveness and metastasis. From the same textbook source:

    So, again, taking the definitions that I am familiar with, you can see that not all cancers are malignant.



    I am not conceding the issue. Here, and in your SF Open Government thread, you have taken the arrogant position that you are 100% correct. Clearly this cannot be the case if there are textbooks that contradict your understanding. This would seem to be a topic with subjective definitions that depend on context, so there is no ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

    However, upon review and regardless of the nature of the dispute, I realize I have let some real-world stress intrude into my posting. I do agree that I have been inappropriately rude. For that, I genuinely apologise.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    "...A study in the January 7, 2011 issue of the journal Cell finds that cancer cells, conventionally thought to develop exclusively over longer periods of time can also begin in a single event, "whereby tens to hundreds of genomic rearrangements occur in a one-off cellular crisis."
    During the event, the chromosome shatters into tens to hundreds of pieces, parts of which are patched back together, the regenerative functions of the cell creating a new genomic structure based on this incomplete DNA. ..."

    From: http://www.cancernetwork.com/cancer...FF7F-D170-4AA4-B792-533D454302E8&rememberme=1
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    The full text is available here:
    http://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(10)01377-2?switch=standard
     

Share This Page