Seems promising, though false positives for “looks like a tumor” might be problematic. I’m hopeful for something less barbaric than chemo and radiation. We’re truly in the Stone Ages around cancer treatments.
I agree, though sitting and talking with breast cancer patients waiting on the radiation machine or infusion room...it's so clearly physically barbaric. Especially those at the "months in" mark that are emaciated, bald, and mostly without fingernails and toenails.
There's nothing else I can think of that compares. Being a "technical person", I struggle with some embarrassment talking to them. The "seriously...this is best science can do???" overtones are there.
> The "seriously...this is best science can do???" overtones are there.
Drug companies have billions of dollars for research, they have a legal framework where any advancement can be patented for decades and exploited in an almost limitless market for a cancer drug.
So the incentives seem to be there, the answer is one of two things: either this is the best science can do at this time, or something is fundamentally fucked up in the way we approach science and apply it to real life problems.
It's progress. The techniques may seem barbaric, but the reality is that many people are cured by them. The future will be better, but the present could be a lot worse.
Yeah...nucleolin is pretty ubiquitously expressed in most cells. How specific is their aptamer (antibody?) ?
Additionally, this is a similar idea to chemo embolization procedures (something I know is done in the US for some liver metastasis, but is being investigated for other solid tumors), where a catheter delivers a massive dose of chemotherapy at an artery supplying the tumor, and then closes that artery off.
Maybe something like glucose consumption? PET scans are pretty good, though still subject to false positives, for tumors. Especially around cells like you find in the mouth.