When 60 Minutes called Kanzius RF therapy, which uses gold nanoparticles and radio waves, one of the most promising breakthroughs in cancer research, I raised my eyebrows and started compiling a list of other treatments that seem even more viable:
5. Gene Knockdown
Simply put, cancer is what happens when some cells start multiplying uncontrollably. Tiny molecules, called siRNA, can halt the production of proteins that help tumors grow and survive. Several companies, including Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, are pursuing that strategy. Their experimental drug, ALN-VSP01, is a cocktail that stops the production of two molecules. In doing so, it can simultaneously cut off the supply of blood to a tumor and halt cell division.
Unfortunately, siRNA molecules are quite fragile. The trickiest part of this treatment is slipping them into the cancer cells before they are destroyed by enzymes called nucleases. One classic approach is to package them in a tiny bubble of fat molecules called a liposome.
4. Viruses
Years of evolution have given viruses an unprecedented ability to enter cells and hijack or destroy them. Several rather harmless varieties can kill tumors while leaving normal cells unscathed. Often, they are genetically modified to increase their effectiveness.
Jennerex biotherapeutics is one of several companies that is testing vaccinia as a cure for some types of the deadly disease. A similar virus has been used on hundreds of millions of people as a smallpox vaccine.
3. Small Molecules
Chemotherapy is a blunt instrument. Many drugs work by killing cancer cells just a little bit faster than they destroy the normal ones. However, medicinal chemists are hard at work making molecules that will take a smarter approach to fighting the disease.
For instance, Johnson and Johnson is testing drug called Tipifarnib, which gums up farnesyl transferase, an enzyme that aggravates cancer. Unlike earlier cancer treatments, it is not meant to kill cancer cells, but rather to calm them down.
2. Vaccines
In many instances, researchers have been able to train the human body to attack cancer cells. In some instances, the scientists take whole cells from a tumor, kill them, and then douse them with molecules that are known to anger the immune system before injecting them back into a patient. On other occasions, they pick a single molecule that adorns the surface of cancer cells and try to get the immune system to recognize it as a signal to attack.
One such treatment, which uses whole cancer cells, has been approved by the Russian Food and Drug Administration. In the United States, many of the treatments are in Phase III clinical trials, which means they are almost ready for prime time.
On another front, vaccines like Gardasil can protect people from some of the viruses which cause genetic damage. In that case, it wards of human papillomavirus, which is known to cause cervical cancer.
1. Epigenetic Drugs
Mutations, scrambled genes, can cause cells to malfunction and divide uncontrollably, but that is only one cause of cancer. In many cancer cells, tumor suppressor genes, which should always be on, get switched off accidentally. Sophisticated drugs might be able to turn our natural defenses back on -- causing cancer cells to fix or kill themselves, or at least making them more responsive to chemotherapy.
Two epigenetic drugs, Valproic acid and suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid, are already on the market. They make cancer cells more willing to kill themselves by inactivating histone deacetylase -- an enzyme that silences genes -- including those that act as safeguards. Meanwhile, Curagen is testing a compound called PXD101, which acts on the same protein.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
World-first discovery could help treat life-threatening tumors
WA researchers investigating how blood vessel growth keeps cancers alive have made a world-first discovery that could boost the chances of successfully treating life-threatening tumours.
Western Australian Institute for Medical Research (WAIMR) Associate Professor Ruth Ganss and her team have found that a gene called RGS5 can reverse angiogenesis – the growth of blood vessels inside the tumour.
The discovery is published in the most recent edition of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals.
“It’s the uncontrolled growth of blood vessels and the formation of abnormal blood vessels inside tumours that ‘feed’ them, allowing them to grow and stopping the immune system from wiping out the tumour,” said Associate Professor Ganss.
“What we’ve shown is that RGS5 is a master gene in angiogenesis and that when it is removed, angiogenesis reverses and the blood vessels in tumours appear more normal.
“Importantly, this normalisation changes the tumour environment in a way that improves immune cell entry, meaning tumours can be destroyed and improving survival rates in laboratory tests.”
Reversing abnormal vessel growth represents a fresh approach to tackling angiogenesis, with most current research focusing on how to block or kill tumour-feeding blood vessels.
“We’ve long-suspected this research would deliver advances in knowledge about what impacts tumour growth and this publication recognises the innovation and importance of our work,” said Associate Professor Ganss.
“By understanding what is actually going on in the tumour itself, the ultimate hope is that we’ll be able to work on making current therapeutic approaches even more successful and reducing side effects of them.”
Associate Professor Ganss’ breakthrough comes after joining WAIMR from Heidelberg where she worked at the German Cancer Research Center. Last month, The Cancer Council Western Australia granted Associate Professor Ganss a Cancer Council Research Fellowship for continued work into tumour angiogenesis.
The majority of the discovery was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and part of the work was achieved using facilities at The University of WA based Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis.
Earlier this month, a second paper by Associate Professor Ganss’ and her team was published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation which describes how tumours can be attacked by the immune system with fewer side-effects.
“This discovery involves targeting tumours with inflammatory substances that change the environment, so immune cells can attack the tumour through blood vessels more effectively and lessen the amount of toxins going elsewhere in the body,” Associate Professor Ganss said.
WAIMR Director Professor Peter Klinken praised Associate Professor Ganss’ team saying their work was serving to further put WA on the scientific world map.
“This breakthrough is one of the most significant discoveries to come out of WAIMR. The potential for this new knowledge to positively impact the lives of cancer patients in the future is very exciting,” he said.
“The fact that this breakthrough has come during our 10-year anniversary celebrations is just fantastic.”
this page is extracted from: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ra-wdc041508.php
visit site for more info
Western Australian Institute for Medical Research (WAIMR) Associate Professor Ruth Ganss and her team have found that a gene called RGS5 can reverse angiogenesis – the growth of blood vessels inside the tumour.
The discovery is published in the most recent edition of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals.
“It’s the uncontrolled growth of blood vessels and the formation of abnormal blood vessels inside tumours that ‘feed’ them, allowing them to grow and stopping the immune system from wiping out the tumour,” said Associate Professor Ganss.
“What we’ve shown is that RGS5 is a master gene in angiogenesis and that when it is removed, angiogenesis reverses and the blood vessels in tumours appear more normal.
“Importantly, this normalisation changes the tumour environment in a way that improves immune cell entry, meaning tumours can be destroyed and improving survival rates in laboratory tests.”
Reversing abnormal vessel growth represents a fresh approach to tackling angiogenesis, with most current research focusing on how to block or kill tumour-feeding blood vessels.
“We’ve long-suspected this research would deliver advances in knowledge about what impacts tumour growth and this publication recognises the innovation and importance of our work,” said Associate Professor Ganss.
“By understanding what is actually going on in the tumour itself, the ultimate hope is that we’ll be able to work on making current therapeutic approaches even more successful and reducing side effects of them.”
Associate Professor Ganss’ breakthrough comes after joining WAIMR from Heidelberg where she worked at the German Cancer Research Center. Last month, The Cancer Council Western Australia granted Associate Professor Ganss a Cancer Council Research Fellowship for continued work into tumour angiogenesis.
The majority of the discovery was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and part of the work was achieved using facilities at The University of WA based Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis.
Earlier this month, a second paper by Associate Professor Ganss’ and her team was published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation which describes how tumours can be attacked by the immune system with fewer side-effects.
“This discovery involves targeting tumours with inflammatory substances that change the environment, so immune cells can attack the tumour through blood vessels more effectively and lessen the amount of toxins going elsewhere in the body,” Associate Professor Ganss said.
WAIMR Director Professor Peter Klinken praised Associate Professor Ganss’ team saying their work was serving to further put WA on the scientific world map.
“This breakthrough is one of the most significant discoveries to come out of WAIMR. The potential for this new knowledge to positively impact the lives of cancer patients in the future is very exciting,” he said.
“The fact that this breakthrough has come during our 10-year anniversary celebrations is just fantastic.”
this page is extracted from: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ra-wdc041508.php
visit site for more info
John Kanzius: cure for cancer
John Kanzius, a man with no background in science or medicine, has come up with what may be one of the most promising breakthroughs in cancer research in years. What’s more, he did it with his wife's pie pans.
Kanzius is a former businessman and radio technician who built a radio wave machine that has cancer researchers so enthusiastic about its potential that they're pouring money and effort into testing it out.
If clinical trials pan out -- and admittedly, there's still a long way to go -- the Kanzius machine will destroy cancer cells all through your body without the need for drugs or surgery ... and without any side effects.
Six years ago, Kanzius was diagnosed with terminal leukemia, and since then has undergone 36 rounds of toxic chemotherapy. He decided there had to be a better way. One night, Kanzius got out of bed, went to the kitchen, and started to build a radio wave machine out of modified pie pans. He eventually spent $200,000 building a more advanced version.
The machine sends radio waves from one box to another, creating enough energy to activate gas in a fluorescent light. Since metal heats up when it's exposed to high-powered radio waves, if a tumor was injected with some kind of metal, it can be destroyed with a focused radio wave beam.
Doctors can inject nanoparticles made of metal directly into a tumor, and then cook the tumor to death using Kanzius’ device without harming surrounding tissue. It is hoped that, by using special molecules that are programmed to target cancer cells and attach nanoparticles to them, the machine will eventually be able to target even microscopic cells throughout the body
Kanzius is a former businessman and radio technician who built a radio wave machine that has cancer researchers so enthusiastic about its potential that they're pouring money and effort into testing it out.
If clinical trials pan out -- and admittedly, there's still a long way to go -- the Kanzius machine will destroy cancer cells all through your body without the need for drugs or surgery ... and without any side effects.
Six years ago, Kanzius was diagnosed with terminal leukemia, and since then has undergone 36 rounds of toxic chemotherapy. He decided there had to be a better way. One night, Kanzius got out of bed, went to the kitchen, and started to build a radio wave machine out of modified pie pans. He eventually spent $200,000 building a more advanced version.
The machine sends radio waves from one box to another, creating enough energy to activate gas in a fluorescent light. Since metal heats up when it's exposed to high-powered radio waves, if a tumor was injected with some kind of metal, it can be destroyed with a focused radio wave beam.
Doctors can inject nanoparticles made of metal directly into a tumor, and then cook the tumor to death using Kanzius’ device without harming surrounding tissue. It is hoped that, by using special molecules that are programmed to target cancer cells and attach nanoparticles to them, the machine will eventually be able to target even microscopic cells throughout the body
The Greatest Story Never Told
The story summarized by that headline ran in O'Shaughnessy's (Autumn 2005), CounterPunch, and the Anderson Valley Advertiser. Did we win Pulitzers, dude? No, the story was ignored or buried by the corporate media. It didn't even make the "Project Censored" list of under-reported stories for 2005. "We were even censored by Project Censored," said Tod Mikuriya, who liked his shot of wry.
It's not that the subject is trivial. One in three Americans will be afflicted with cancer, we are told by the government (as if it's our immutable fate and somehow acceptable). Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. and lung cancer the leading killer among cancers. You'd think it would have been very big news when UCLA medical school professor Donald Tashkin revealed that components of marijuana smoke -although they damage cells in respiratory tissue- somehow prevent them from becoming malignant. In other words, something in marijuana exerts an anti-cancer effect.
Tashkin has special credibility. He was the lead investigator on studies dating back to the 1970s that identified the components in marijuana smoke that are toxic. It was Tashkin et al who published photomicrographs showing that marijuana smoke damages cells lining the upper airways. It was the Tashkin lab reporting that benzpyrene -a component of tobacco smoke that plays a role in most lung cancers- is especially prevalent in marijuana smoke. It was Tashkin's data documenting that marijuana smokers are more likely than non-smokers to cough, wheeze, and produce sputum.
Tashkin reviewed his findings April 4 at a conference organized by "Patients Out of Time," a reform group devoted to educating doctors and the public (as opposed to lobbying politicians). Some 30 MDs and nurses got continuing medical education credits for attending.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse supported Tashkin's marijuana-related research over the decades and readily gave him a grant to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers. What Tashkin and his colleagues found, however, disproved their hypothesis. (Tashkin is to marijuana as a cause of lung cancer what Hans Blick is to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -an honest investigator who set out to find something, concluded that it wasn't there, and reported his results.)
Tashkin's team interviewed 1,212 cancer patients from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program, matched for age, gender, and neighborhood with 1,040 cancer-free controls. Marijuana use was measured in "joint years" (number of years smoked times number of joints per day). It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer (whereas tobacco smokers were at greater risk the more they smoked). Tobacco smokers who also smoked marijuana were at slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than tobacco-only smokers.
These findings were not deemed worthy of publication in "NIDA Notes." Tashkin reported them at the 2005 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and they were published in the October 2006 issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. Without a press release from NIDA calling attention to its significance, the assignment editors of America had no idea that "Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study" by Mia Hashibe1, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack and Sander Greenland was a blockbuster story.
I suggested to Eric Bailey of the L.A. Times that he write up Tashkin's findings -UCLA provided the local angle if the anti-cancer effect wasn't enough. Bailey said his editors wouldn't be interested for some time because he had just filed a marijuana-related piece (about the special rapport Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access enjoyed with some old corporado back in Washington, D.C.) The Tashkin scoop is still there for the taking!
Investigators from New Zealand recently got widespread media attention for a study contradicting Tashkin's results. "Heavy cannabis users may be at greater risk of chronic lung disease -including cancer- compared to tobacco smokers," is how BBC News summed up the New Zealanders' findings. The very small size of the study -79 smokers took part, 21 of whom smoked cannabis only- was not held against the authors. As conveyed in the corporate media, the New Zealand study represented the latest word on this important subject (as if science were some kind of tennis match and the truth just gets truthier with every volley).
Tashkin criticized the New Zealanders' methodology in his talk at Asilomar: "There's some cognitive dissonance associated with the interpretation of their findings. I think this has to do with the belief model among the investigators and -I wish they were here to defend themselves- the integrity of the investigators... They actually published another paper in which they mimicked the design that we used for looking at lung function."
Tashkin spoke from the stage of an airy redwood chapel designed by Julia Morgan. He is pink-cheeked, 70ish, wears wire-rimmed spectacles. "For tobacco they found what you'd expect: a higher risk for lung cancer and a clear dose-response relationship. A 24-fold increase in the people who smoked the most... What about marijuana? If they smoked a small or moderate amount there was no increased risk, in fact slightly less than one. But if they were in the upper third of the group, then their risk was six-fold... A rather surprising finding, and one has to be cautious about interpreting the results because of the very small number of cases (14) and controls (4)."
Tashkin said the New Zealanders employed "statistical sleight of hand." He deemed it "completely implausible that smokers of only 365 joints of marijuana have a risk for developing lung cancer similar to that of smokers of 7,000 tobacco cigarettes... Their small sample size led to vastly inflated estimates... They had said 'it's ideal to do the study in New Zealand because we have a much higher prevalence of marijuana smoking.' But 88 percent of their controls had never smoked marijuana, whereas 36% of our controls (in Los Angeles) had never smoked marijuana. Why did so few of the controls smoke marijuana? Something fishy about that!"
Strong words for a UCLA School of Medicine professor!
As to the highly promising implication of his own study -that something in marijuana stops damaged cells from becoming malignant- Tashkin noted that an anti-proliferative effect of THC has been observed in cell-culture systems and animal models of brain, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. THC has been shown to promote known apoptosis (damaged cells die instead of reproducing) and to counter angiogenesis (the process by which blood vessels are formed -a requirement of tumor growth). Other antioxidants in cannabis may also be involved in countering malignancy, said Tashkin.
Much of Tashkin's talk was devoted to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, another condition prevalent among tobacco smokers. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema are two forms of COPD, which is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. Air pollution and tobacco smoke are known culprits. Inhaled pathogens cause an inflammatory response, resulting in diminished lung function. COPD patients have increasing difficulty clearing the airways as they get older.
Tashkin and colleagues at UCLA conducted a major study in which they measured lung function of various cohorts over eight years and found that tobacco-only smokers had an accelerated rate of decline, but marijuana smokers -even if they smoked tobacco as well- experienced the same rate of decline as non-smokers. "The more tobacco smoked, the greater the rate of decline," said Tashkin. "In contrast, no matter how much marijuana was smoked, the rate of decline was similar to normal." Tashkin concluded that his and other studies "do not support the concept that regular smoking of marijuana leads to COPD."
Hope that makes you breathe easier.
Page extracted from : http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner05032008.html
visit site for more info
It's not that the subject is trivial. One in three Americans will be afflicted with cancer, we are told by the government (as if it's our immutable fate and somehow acceptable). Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. and lung cancer the leading killer among cancers. You'd think it would have been very big news when UCLA medical school professor Donald Tashkin revealed that components of marijuana smoke -although they damage cells in respiratory tissue- somehow prevent them from becoming malignant. In other words, something in marijuana exerts an anti-cancer effect.
Tashkin has special credibility. He was the lead investigator on studies dating back to the 1970s that identified the components in marijuana smoke that are toxic. It was Tashkin et al who published photomicrographs showing that marijuana smoke damages cells lining the upper airways. It was the Tashkin lab reporting that benzpyrene -a component of tobacco smoke that plays a role in most lung cancers- is especially prevalent in marijuana smoke. It was Tashkin's data documenting that marijuana smokers are more likely than non-smokers to cough, wheeze, and produce sputum.
Tashkin reviewed his findings April 4 at a conference organized by "Patients Out of Time," a reform group devoted to educating doctors and the public (as opposed to lobbying politicians). Some 30 MDs and nurses got continuing medical education credits for attending.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse supported Tashkin's marijuana-related research over the decades and readily gave him a grant to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers. What Tashkin and his colleagues found, however, disproved their hypothesis. (Tashkin is to marijuana as a cause of lung cancer what Hans Blick is to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -an honest investigator who set out to find something, concluded that it wasn't there, and reported his results.)
Tashkin's team interviewed 1,212 cancer patients from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program, matched for age, gender, and neighborhood with 1,040 cancer-free controls. Marijuana use was measured in "joint years" (number of years smoked times number of joints per day). It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer (whereas tobacco smokers were at greater risk the more they smoked). Tobacco smokers who also smoked marijuana were at slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than tobacco-only smokers.
These findings were not deemed worthy of publication in "NIDA Notes." Tashkin reported them at the 2005 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and they were published in the October 2006 issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. Without a press release from NIDA calling attention to its significance, the assignment editors of America had no idea that "Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study" by Mia Hashibe1, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack and Sander Greenland was a blockbuster story.
I suggested to Eric Bailey of the L.A. Times that he write up Tashkin's findings -UCLA provided the local angle if the anti-cancer effect wasn't enough. Bailey said his editors wouldn't be interested for some time because he had just filed a marijuana-related piece (about the special rapport Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access enjoyed with some old corporado back in Washington, D.C.) The Tashkin scoop is still there for the taking!
Investigators from New Zealand recently got widespread media attention for a study contradicting Tashkin's results. "Heavy cannabis users may be at greater risk of chronic lung disease -including cancer- compared to tobacco smokers," is how BBC News summed up the New Zealanders' findings. The very small size of the study -79 smokers took part, 21 of whom smoked cannabis only- was not held against the authors. As conveyed in the corporate media, the New Zealand study represented the latest word on this important subject (as if science were some kind of tennis match and the truth just gets truthier with every volley).
Tashkin criticized the New Zealanders' methodology in his talk at Asilomar: "There's some cognitive dissonance associated with the interpretation of their findings. I think this has to do with the belief model among the investigators and -I wish they were here to defend themselves- the integrity of the investigators... They actually published another paper in which they mimicked the design that we used for looking at lung function."
Tashkin spoke from the stage of an airy redwood chapel designed by Julia Morgan. He is pink-cheeked, 70ish, wears wire-rimmed spectacles. "For tobacco they found what you'd expect: a higher risk for lung cancer and a clear dose-response relationship. A 24-fold increase in the people who smoked the most... What about marijuana? If they smoked a small or moderate amount there was no increased risk, in fact slightly less than one. But if they were in the upper third of the group, then their risk was six-fold... A rather surprising finding, and one has to be cautious about interpreting the results because of the very small number of cases (14) and controls (4)."
Tashkin said the New Zealanders employed "statistical sleight of hand." He deemed it "completely implausible that smokers of only 365 joints of marijuana have a risk for developing lung cancer similar to that of smokers of 7,000 tobacco cigarettes... Their small sample size led to vastly inflated estimates... They had said 'it's ideal to do the study in New Zealand because we have a much higher prevalence of marijuana smoking.' But 88 percent of their controls had never smoked marijuana, whereas 36% of our controls (in Los Angeles) had never smoked marijuana. Why did so few of the controls smoke marijuana? Something fishy about that!"
Strong words for a UCLA School of Medicine professor!
As to the highly promising implication of his own study -that something in marijuana stops damaged cells from becoming malignant- Tashkin noted that an anti-proliferative effect of THC has been observed in cell-culture systems and animal models of brain, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. THC has been shown to promote known apoptosis (damaged cells die instead of reproducing) and to counter angiogenesis (the process by which blood vessels are formed -a requirement of tumor growth). Other antioxidants in cannabis may also be involved in countering malignancy, said Tashkin.
Much of Tashkin's talk was devoted to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, another condition prevalent among tobacco smokers. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema are two forms of COPD, which is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. Air pollution and tobacco smoke are known culprits. Inhaled pathogens cause an inflammatory response, resulting in diminished lung function. COPD patients have increasing difficulty clearing the airways as they get older.
Tashkin and colleagues at UCLA conducted a major study in which they measured lung function of various cohorts over eight years and found that tobacco-only smokers had an accelerated rate of decline, but marijuana smokers -even if they smoked tobacco as well- experienced the same rate of decline as non-smokers. "The more tobacco smoked, the greater the rate of decline," said Tashkin. "In contrast, no matter how much marijuana was smoked, the rate of decline was similar to normal." Tashkin concluded that his and other studies "do not support the concept that regular smoking of marijuana leads to COPD."
Hope that makes you breathe easier.
Page extracted from : http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner05032008.html
visit site for more info
Cancer Therapy Without Side Effects
A promising new cancer treatment that may one day replace radiation and chemotherapy is edging closer to human trials.
Kanzius RF therapy attaches microscopic nanoparticles to cancer cells and then "cooks" tumors inside the body with harmless radio waves.
Based on technology developed by Pennsylvania inventor John Kanzius, a retired radio and TV engineer, the treatment has proven 100 percent effective at killing cancer cells while leaving neighboring healthy cells unharmed. It is currently being tested at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“I don’t want to give people false hope,” said Dr. Steve Curley, the professor leading the tests, “but this has the potential to treat a wide variety of cancers.”
Modern cancer treatments like radiation and chemotherapy have proven remarkably effective at treating many cancers, especially in combination, but are plagued with toxic side effects. These treatments kill healthy cells as well as cancerous ones.
Kanzius RF therapy is noninvasive, and uses nontoxic radio waves combined with gold or carbon nanoparticles, which have a long history of medical use.
Since the mid-1980s, scientists have been trying to create new medical therapies to take advantage of their tiny size. Nanoparticles made of gold, carbon and other materials can move through the bloodstream and through cell walls, allowing for efficient drug delivery, or to act like a homing devices for research purposes.
However, questions about the safety of nanoparticles are largely unanswered. Nonetheless, the potential of nanoparticles to create novel treatments has become a central thrust of many fields of medicine, including oncology.
At M.D. Anderson, Curley's research team is working on coating microscopic gold nanoparticles with cancer-seeking molecules. The proteins act as a filter that ensures nanoparticles attach only to cancerous cells in the body.
“We’re looking into gold because it is FDA-approved and has a track record of being tolerated in humans,” said Dr. Christopher Gannon, assistant professor at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, who collaborated with M.D. Anderson.
When the gold nanoparticles are inside the malignancy, a blast from a radio-frequency generator causes them to heat and cook the cancer cells.
In trials with animal and human cells, the RF treatment destroyed 100 percent of malignant cells injected with nanoparticles, without harming surrounding healthy tissue.
A study in the November 2007 issue of the journal Cancer showed that tumor cells infused with nanoparticles and exposed to the electromagnetic field of the RF generator died within 48 hours of treatment, with no noted side effects.
A study in the Journal of Nanobiotechnology in January 2008 showed that destruction of human pancreatic cancer cells was 100 percent effective — again producing no noticeable side effects.
“We know it has the potential to work well,” said Gannon. "It’s just a matter of making the details work."
The problem is finding cancer-seeking molecules that are attracted to cancer cells but leave healthy cells alone.
Curley's team has identified a targeting molecule, c225 , which is FDA-approved. While c225 is present in many cancer cells, it also occurs in healthy cells.
“It will depend on the type of cancer and the targeting molecules attached to the nanoparticles,” Curley said.
The radio-frequency generator was invented by Kanzius, who underwent chemotherapy in 2003 and 2004 for leukemia. Kanzius declined to be interviewed for this story, citing an exclusive agreement with CBS News. 60 Minutes has scheduled a segment about Kanzius RF therapy for Sunday.
“His device helped inspire us to create the targeted nanoparticles to make it a fully functional clinical device,” said Gannon.
Kanzius is now working on a larger CT-scanner-sized device that will help scientists test larger subjects by this summer — and pave the way for human trials.
Curley, who described himself as the "ultimate skeptic," thinks the treatment is only a few years away.
"The best-case scenario is that we would be able to [start] clinical trials within three years,” he said.
Page extracted from: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2008/04/kanzius_therapy
visit site for more info
Kanzius RF therapy attaches microscopic nanoparticles to cancer cells and then "cooks" tumors inside the body with harmless radio waves.
Based on technology developed by Pennsylvania inventor John Kanzius, a retired radio and TV engineer, the treatment has proven 100 percent effective at killing cancer cells while leaving neighboring healthy cells unharmed. It is currently being tested at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“I don’t want to give people false hope,” said Dr. Steve Curley, the professor leading the tests, “but this has the potential to treat a wide variety of cancers.”
Modern cancer treatments like radiation and chemotherapy have proven remarkably effective at treating many cancers, especially in combination, but are plagued with toxic side effects. These treatments kill healthy cells as well as cancerous ones.
Kanzius RF therapy is noninvasive, and uses nontoxic radio waves combined with gold or carbon nanoparticles, which have a long history of medical use.
Since the mid-1980s, scientists have been trying to create new medical therapies to take advantage of their tiny size. Nanoparticles made of gold, carbon and other materials can move through the bloodstream and through cell walls, allowing for efficient drug delivery, or to act like a homing devices for research purposes.
However, questions about the safety of nanoparticles are largely unanswered. Nonetheless, the potential of nanoparticles to create novel treatments has become a central thrust of many fields of medicine, including oncology.
At M.D. Anderson, Curley's research team is working on coating microscopic gold nanoparticles with cancer-seeking molecules. The proteins act as a filter that ensures nanoparticles attach only to cancerous cells in the body.
“We’re looking into gold because it is FDA-approved and has a track record of being tolerated in humans,” said Dr. Christopher Gannon, assistant professor at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, who collaborated with M.D. Anderson.
When the gold nanoparticles are inside the malignancy, a blast from a radio-frequency generator causes them to heat and cook the cancer cells.
In trials with animal and human cells, the RF treatment destroyed 100 percent of malignant cells injected with nanoparticles, without harming surrounding healthy tissue.
A study in the November 2007 issue of the journal Cancer showed that tumor cells infused with nanoparticles and exposed to the electromagnetic field of the RF generator died within 48 hours of treatment, with no noted side effects.
A study in the Journal of Nanobiotechnology in January 2008 showed that destruction of human pancreatic cancer cells was 100 percent effective — again producing no noticeable side effects.
“We know it has the potential to work well,” said Gannon. "It’s just a matter of making the details work."
The problem is finding cancer-seeking molecules that are attracted to cancer cells but leave healthy cells alone.
Curley's team has identified a targeting molecule, c225 , which is FDA-approved. While c225 is present in many cancer cells, it also occurs in healthy cells.
“It will depend on the type of cancer and the targeting molecules attached to the nanoparticles,” Curley said.
The radio-frequency generator was invented by Kanzius, who underwent chemotherapy in 2003 and 2004 for leukemia. Kanzius declined to be interviewed for this story, citing an exclusive agreement with CBS News. 60 Minutes has scheduled a segment about Kanzius RF therapy for Sunday.
“His device helped inspire us to create the targeted nanoparticles to make it a fully functional clinical device,” said Gannon.
Kanzius is now working on a larger CT-scanner-sized device that will help scientists test larger subjects by this summer — and pave the way for human trials.
Curley, who described himself as the "ultimate skeptic," thinks the treatment is only a few years away.
"The best-case scenario is that we would be able to [start] clinical trials within three years,” he said.
Page extracted from: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2008/04/kanzius_therapy
visit site for more info
Cancer-Marijuana no connection says reasearch
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.
This page is extracted from:http://www.washingtonpost.com
visit the site for more info
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.
This page is extracted from:http://www.washingtonpost.com
visit the site for more info
Masturbation may reduce cancer risk
Researchers were assessing prostate cancer risk
Men could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer through regular masturbation, researchers suggest.
They say cancer-causing chemicals could build up in the prostate if men do not ejaculate regularly.
And they say sexual intercourse may not have the same protective effect because of the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, which could increase men's cancer risk.
Australian researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits.
This is a plausible theory
Dr Chris Hiley, Prostate Cancer Charity
They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer.
The protective effect was greatest while the men were in their 20s.
Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.
Fluid
Previous research has suggested that a high number of sexual partners or a high level of sexual activity increased a man's risk of developing prostate cancer by up to 40%.
But the Australian researchers who carried out this study suggest the early work missed the protective effect of ejaculation because it focussed on sexual intercourse, with its associated risk of STIs.
Graham Giles, of the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, who led the research team, told New Scientist: "Had we been able to remove ejaculations associated with sexual intercourse, there should have been an even stronger protective effect of ejaculations."
The researchers suggest that ejaculating may prevent carcinogens accumulating in the prostate gland.
The prostate provides a fluid into semen during ejaculation that activates sperm and prevents them sticking together.
The fluid has high concentrations of substances including potassium, zinc, fructose and citric acid, which are drawn from the bloodstream.
But animal studies have shown carcinogens such as 3-methylchloranthrene, found in cigarette smoke, are also concentrated in the prostate.
'Flushing out'
Dr Giles said fewer ejaculations may mean the carcinogens build up.
"It's a prostatic stagnation hypothesis. The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them."
A similar connection has been found between breast cancer and breastfeeding, where lactating appeared to "flush out" carcinogens, reduce a woman's risk of the disease, New Scientist reports.
Another theory put forward by the researchers is that ejaculation may induce prostate glands to mature fully, making them less susceptible to carcinogens.
Dr Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity, told BBC News Online: "This is a plausible theory."
She added: "In the same way the human papillomavirus has been linked to cervical cancer, there is a suggestion that bits of prostate cancer may be related to a sexually transmitted infection earlier in life."
Anthony Smith, deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne, said the research could affect the kind of lifestyle advice doctors give to patients.
"Masturbation is part of people's sexual repertoire.
"If these findings hold up, then it's perfectly reasonable that men should be encouraged to masturbate," he said.
This page is extracted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
visit site for more update
Men could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer through regular masturbation, researchers suggest.
They say cancer-causing chemicals could build up in the prostate if men do not ejaculate regularly.
And they say sexual intercourse may not have the same protective effect because of the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, which could increase men's cancer risk.
Australian researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits.
This is a plausible theory
Dr Chris Hiley, Prostate Cancer Charity
They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer.
The protective effect was greatest while the men were in their 20s.
Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.
Fluid
Previous research has suggested that a high number of sexual partners or a high level of sexual activity increased a man's risk of developing prostate cancer by up to 40%.
But the Australian researchers who carried out this study suggest the early work missed the protective effect of ejaculation because it focussed on sexual intercourse, with its associated risk of STIs.
Graham Giles, of the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, who led the research team, told New Scientist: "Had we been able to remove ejaculations associated with sexual intercourse, there should have been an even stronger protective effect of ejaculations."
The researchers suggest that ejaculating may prevent carcinogens accumulating in the prostate gland.
The prostate provides a fluid into semen during ejaculation that activates sperm and prevents them sticking together.
The fluid has high concentrations of substances including potassium, zinc, fructose and citric acid, which are drawn from the bloodstream.
But animal studies have shown carcinogens such as 3-methylchloranthrene, found in cigarette smoke, are also concentrated in the prostate.
'Flushing out'
Dr Giles said fewer ejaculations may mean the carcinogens build up.
"It's a prostatic stagnation hypothesis. The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them."
A similar connection has been found between breast cancer and breastfeeding, where lactating appeared to "flush out" carcinogens, reduce a woman's risk of the disease, New Scientist reports.
Another theory put forward by the researchers is that ejaculation may induce prostate glands to mature fully, making them less susceptible to carcinogens.
Dr Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity, told BBC News Online: "This is a plausible theory."
She added: "In the same way the human papillomavirus has been linked to cervical cancer, there is a suggestion that bits of prostate cancer may be related to a sexually transmitted infection earlier in life."
Anthony Smith, deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne, said the research could affect the kind of lifestyle advice doctors give to patients.
"Masturbation is part of people's sexual repertoire.
"If these findings hold up, then it's perfectly reasonable that men should be encouraged to masturbate," he said.
This page is extracted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
visit site for more update
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
