[Austizzle]

The real question is always "but how good is it at killing non-cancer cells?" A bullet fired from a gun would be great at killing cancer cells too.

Although in this case it seems like it's just an alternative to surgery, rather than a cancer cure? Just a way of vibrating cells in a certain location to death?

Does anybody who actually understands medicine know if this is a great breakthrough or not?

[_nalply]

These chemicals were used to detect cancer cells by coloring them. Now it seems that they don't only color specifically, but with the help of infrared light they can even destroy.

As far as I know these coloring chemicals are very specific for cancer types. This means perhaps they are a cure but not for all cancer types. Or the chemicals are poisonous and typically only used on biopsies. Or they are not specific enough. I don't know. We will see whether it is THE miraculous cure. I am afraid not, but let's hope.

EDIT: let's cite:

> Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer, they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching themselves to the outside of cells.

[benjijay]

I am not a biologist but I've known a few in my time;

It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, however this is a seemingly reasonably good breakthrough in treatment - being able to destroy cancerous cells without exposing the patient to further harm via targeted radiation or harsh chemo drugs (basically targeted poisoning) feels like a win.

If we can break the cells down and let the body's immune system take care of the remnants instead of having to slice someone open, huge win!

[dghughes]

Or better yet find out how to prevent cancers since it's better to not be sick than to treat you once you are sick.

Things like the HPV vaccine which in my province saw a 90% drop in just a few years. I think everyone should get it no questions asked which maybe they don't anymore?

The Hepatitis B vaccine too since having the disease is a cause of liver cancer.

But if all else fails it's also good to have a tools to try to get rid of cancers.

[kulahan]

Preventing cancer seems like a fool's based on my understanding of the disease. You have cancerous cells in your body every single day. Your immune system kills them all off. It's like saying you want to prevent all bacteria from entering your body. It's just not realistic (at least, not right now).

[tyingq]

He gave a couple of examples. Another one is aggressively treating GERD so that it doesn't devolve into various conditions that lead to stomach or esophageal cancer. It's possible something like this could treat pre-cancerous things too, like Barrett’s esophagus.

[foobiekr]

Replying to a post noting a 90% reduction in cancer thanks to the HPV vaccine with "preventing cancer seems like a fool's errand" is pretty amazing. Would you care to expand on that?

[kulahan]

HPV is a carrier disease for one strain of cancer. Cancer is a type of disease - as said elsewhere, it's like saying "I found a cure for virus".

[inglor_cz]

Maybe the OP meant "prevention" in the sense of "improving your immune system so much that cancer never manifests as a disease".

[foobiekr]

HPV causes cancer. The prevention here is literal - by preventing infection from the oncogenic HPV variants there is no cancer.

[inglor_cz]

Whales are fairly resistant to cancers (and so are other mammals, such as bats or naked mole rats), at least compared to humans.

Possibly, we may one day run DNA modifications on ourselves to copy whale/bat/naked mole rat genes into our cells in order to acquire similar protection.

Sounds wild, but it once sounded wild to infect yourself with a cowpox pus in order to prevent human smallpox.

[thehappypm]

HPV is a unique one because it's essentially a contagious cancer, and you're not vaccinating against cancer, you're vaccinating against the carrier (HPV). A really interesting cancer treatment that's very promising is customized vaccines that specifically target cancer cells for each individual's cancer!

[once_inc]

> It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases,

"It doesn't make sense to say 'cure for cancer.' Cancer is a wide variety of disorders with different manifestations and etiology. It makes as much sense as saying 'a cure for virus'."

> https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-21

[unsupp0rted]

An enhanced immune system would functionally be a “cure for virus”.

It’s conceivable we could find a technique that targets and ruptures any cancer cell, functionally becoming a “cure for cancer”.

[stvltvs]

Which could increase the risk for autoimmune disease. Current immunotherapy treatments for cancer that I'm aware of have to be carefully monitored so they don't kill the patient.

[onetimeuse92304]

I am of more positive thinking here. I think our problems with cancer are due to misunderstanding what cancer is in the first place.

Here, Thomas Seyfried can explain this much better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusaU2taxow

I think once we know where cancer comes from we can be much more effective at preventing it in the first place (proper diet) and treating it after the fact. With the current progress I think at some point we should be able to prevent pretty much close to all deaths from cancer.

Obviously, people will always be dying of something so preventing a cancer will only mean we will have other challenges to face.

[benjijay]

It's been a few years since I was as deep into this realm so I might be slightly off but;

Cancers and Tumors mostly happen as a result of some errant mutation - there are limitless causes for such things and the best diet in the world can't save you from random biological chance or solar radiation. Everything comes with a risk and 98 times out of 100 your own defences will see this mutation happen and shut it down before it gets too far

A 100% effective 'prevention' for cancer would basically be a souped-up immune system to the point that we basically never get meaningfully sick, and probably live another 30-50 years as a result (most cases of "died of old age" are more like "had 7 different minor cancers which overwhelmed the body's systems")

[chefandy]

Yeah— it's obviously worth interrogating how our environments affect our cancer risk, but considering that the disease was named by Hippocrates in the 300s BCE, it seems pretty unlikely that any single avoidable environmental factor could be "the cause," or any single factor could be "the mechanism."

[benjijay]

Certainly there are myriad 'causes', and likely at least a few mechanisms if you get into specifics, but as a general rule a cancerous tumour is a group of cells that multiply faster than they die (or don't die at all), and consume resources without 'giving back' to the organ in which they reside - effectively the "I have outlived my designated usefulness" switch gets commented out and replaced with "multiply even harder, forever"

[stvltvs]

A non-specific treatment that revs up the immune system increases the risk of autoimmune disease. It would have to be specific to the cancer AFAIK, so more of a treatment for an existing cancer than a preventative measure.

[Ralfp]

And here is counter-response from David Gorski:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-...

TL;DR we are researching metabolism of cancer but findings so far are not even close to validity the claims that Seyfried makes.

[b4ke]

Lies. Lies about the nature of shared-conception. The universe is a representation of the collective will, and lies obfuscate that in ways that are consequential.

[b4ke]

It’s unfortunate that the intellectual curiosity of religious leaders led to science, as they are probably also responsible for the problems it seeks to solve.

[sungam]

It is a long way off clinical application but could potentially be useful for treatment of "in transit" metastases - e.g. multiple metastases spreading from a distal site on a limb and growing on the skin. At the moment these are usually removed surgically or treated with electrochemotherapy. Unlikely to replace conventional treatments such as immunotherapy (checkpoint inhibitors), targeted inhibitors (BRAF/MEK) or emerging treatments such as personalised mRNA vaccines.

(Lead clinician for the melanoma multidisciplinary team at a major teaching hospital in London for what it's worth)

[onetimeuse92304]

We are currently using radiation therapy which focuses gamma rays on a piece of tissue with cancer cells to kill it.

If you can do the same but instead of gamma rays use infrared, even if it kills indiscriminately, that should still be a net positive, don't you think?

And the main benefit here is that you can get these molecules into specific cells which in theory should allow killing cells based on some chemical characteristic.

[mo_42]

I had the same question when reading this. They use the light only at places where cancerous cells were found plus some safety margin I guess.

In that sense it's an alternative to surgery.

[adamredwoods]

Essentially correct. They use near-infra red light, which can only penetrate about 3cm of skin, so this is not a complete replacement to surgery.

New modern chemotherapy (anti-body drug conjugates) are also similar to how it "adheres" to cancer cells, by binding to specific cell expression. It's not re-inventing this technology, just finding a new way to leverage it. The drug will also bind to normal cells, but by directing light to a specific area the goal is to minimize damage and side effects.

[mcint]

Even if this just becomes chemotherapy but locally activated by near-infrared light, that would be great.

It means, at worst, don't go outside or be in bright sun-lit spaces, but also, we can shine a flashlight on where the cancer is to kill it. Even if it weren't very selective (which could be adjusted with other targeting molecules), light-trigged theraputics are easy to understand the propagation of.

[pvaldes]

If I understood it correctly, the "hammers" seek (or are coupled with a system that attach mainly to) the cancer cells, so they destroy it later. Looks like a clever system.

[ta988]

https://xkcd.com/1217/

[H8crilA]

Every single cancer treatment is about destroying cancer cells. Given the clickbait level of the headline it's clear that it is not worth clicking.

[inkcapmushroom]

>Given the clickbait level of the headline

That is not a clickbait headline, it's very descriptive of the contents of the article. Clickbait would be like "Crazy new cancer cure will literally punch cancer cells to death! You won't believe it!"

[H8crilA]

Title was changed.