PDA

View Full Version : a cancer treatment breakthrough?


Donyo
09 Feb 2007, 01:53 AM
Not sure if anyone's seen this... I came across it mostly by accident.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971


Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.

DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.

Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).

Michelakis suggests that the switch to glycolysis as an energy source occurs when cells in the middle of an abnormal but benign lump don’t get enough oxygen for their mitochondria to work properly (see diagram). In order to survive, they switch off their mitochondria and start producing energy through glycolysis.

Crucially, though, mitochondria do another job in cells: they activate apoptosis, the process by which abnormal cells self-destruct. When cells switch mitochondria off, they become “immortal”, outliving other cells in the tumour and so becoming dominant. Once reawakened by DCA, mitochondria reactivate apoptosis and order the abnormal cells to die.

“The results are intriguing because they point to a critical role that mitochondria play:

they impart a unique trait to cancer cells that can be exploited for cancer therapy,” says Dario Altieri, director of the University of Massachusetts Cancer Center in Worcester.

The phenomenon might also explain how secondary cancers form. Glycolysis generates lactic acid, which can break down the collagen matrix holding cells together. This means abnormal cells can be released and float to other parts of the body, where they seed new tumours.

DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients, but this may be a price worth paying if it turns out to be effective against all cancers. The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can’t make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.

Paul Clarke, a cancer cell biologist at the University of Dundee in the UK, says the findings challenge the current assumption that mutations, not metabolism, spark off cancers. “The question is: which comes first?” he says.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the popular conspiracy theories that's been circulating for decades is that the medical community is not allowed to promote, prescribe or administer the real cancer treatments to those in need because of the influence of the shady pharmaceuticals. Fewer sick people equals less profit. Should this drug turn out to be a winner, said pharmaceuticals have no incentive to get involved. How will our government handle it? Will they invest the necessary amount to eliminate cancer, or will patients be flocking to backwater Mexican clinics in record numbers?

markalot
09 Feb 2007, 08:08 AM
Drug companies can't make money off dead people, and most cancer patients either get chemo and live, or die quickly. I don't see the conspiracy potential here. Keeping someone cured of cancer means more money in the long run.

classicgrrl
09 Feb 2007, 09:33 AM
Drug companies can't make money off dead people

perhaps they should talk to the RIAA, they seem to be doing a good job at it.
:rolleyes:

silentpaul
09 Feb 2007, 09:41 AM
Screw the pharmaceuticals, I've got some money I wouldn't mind contributing.

knubbin
09 Feb 2007, 10:00 AM
Putting aside the Big Pharma conspiracy angle, I'm intensely skeptical about a magic bullet that would cure "cancer" as if it's a singular well-defined disease.

The researchers need to apply for government funding for a Phase I/II clinical trial to see if experiments in Petrie dishes and rodents actually shows some promise in translating to humans. Small early clinical trials cost ~$5M and are commonly funded through government grants. Without in vivo human data, even talking about patenting DCA to treat cancer in humans seems extremely premature.

These kinds of "breakthroughs" happen at least once a decade in the cancer research field. Yet people are still dying horrible, painful deaths.

Buzzstein
09 Feb 2007, 10:10 AM
Hmmmmmmm...

clonE
09 Feb 2007, 10:47 AM
Putting aside the Big Pharma conspiracy angle, I'm intensely skeptical about a magic bullet that would cure "cancer" as if it's a singular well-defined disease.

The researchers need to apply for government funding for a Phase I/II clinical trial to see if experiments in Petrie dishes and rodents actually shows some promise in translating to humans. Small early clinical trials cost ~$5M and are commonly funded through government grants. Without in vivo human data, even talking about patenting DCA to treat cancer in humans seems extremely premature.

These kinds of "breakthroughs" happen at least once a decade in the cancer research field. Yet people are still dying horrible, painful deaths.

Check out the China Study, a well-written book describing numerous trials analyzing the relationship between diet and cancer(s). A vegan diet appears to go a very, very long way to stopping cancer. Campbell is the author, a PhD/MPH type of guy.

knubbin
09 Feb 2007, 12:53 PM
I have no doubt that diet and lifestyle contribute to a person's relative risk for developing cancer. I don't think that the government or its lobbyists or "irresponsible scientists," as Campbell claims, are covering this up.

Is DCA a dietary component?

patio
09 Feb 2007, 02:42 PM
Is DCA a dietary component?

No, mostly industial waste. Considered by the EPA to be a health hazard. It's also a fairly strong acid. I think its used to treat a genetic disorder where people create too much lactic acid. It's also being inveistigated for use in people with neuro problems such as Huntingtons disease. Which might be slightly paradoxical because it is possible toxic to the live and nervous system. The way in which it reduces the amount of lactic acid made is also what is supposed to cause the mitochondria to "re-awaken" and cause it to become mortal again.

Here (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1533324&pageindex=1) is more on the pharmacology

edit: (wrong link) This (http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/66/3/324) is a study that was done using DCA that was discontinued do to actue neural toxicity

But maybe acute neural toxicity is better than dying from cancer?

knubbin
09 Feb 2007, 03:27 PM
No, mostly industial waste. Considered by the EPA to be a health hazard. It's also a fairly strong acid. I think its used to treat a genetic disorder where people create too much lactic acid. It's also being inveistigated for use in people with neuro problems such as Huntingtons disease. Which might be slightly paradoxical because it is possible toxic to the live and nervous system. The way in which it reduces the amount of lactic acid made is also what is supposed to cause the mitochondria to "re-awaken" and cause it to become mortal again. Makes sense. Good explanation.

Here (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1533324&pageindex=1) is more on the pharmacology

This (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1533324&pageindex=1) is a study that was done using DCA that was discontinued do to actue neural toxicity Kinetics! Eek!!

To be fair, there have been some successes with using DCA, and other clinical trials have not seen the adverse effects that the particular one you linked to did. It depends on a bunch of factors like what disease(s) you have, the specific mutation that caused your disease, and whether you have a co-occurring disease like diabetes.

Looks like I get plenty o' DCA by drinking chlorinated tap water anyway....

(BTW, I think the link to the second paper is wrong.)

Donyo
09 Feb 2007, 04:43 PM
But maybe acute neural toxicity is better than dying from cancer?

Not only that, but perhaps it's better than dying from the currently accepted cancer treatments. Anyone who's been through them knows the amount of damage they do to the body.

patio
09 Feb 2007, 04:44 PM
(BTW, I think the link to the second paper is wrong.)

I am inept at copy and paste.

here it is

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/66/3/324

knubbin
09 Feb 2007, 04:55 PM
Not only that, but perhaps it's better than dying from the currently accepted cancer treatments. Anyone who's been through them knows the amount of damage they do to the body.

No doubt. It's a really wretched thing to watch someone become incapacitated by cancer and its treatment. The only thing worse, I imagine, is having to go through it yourself.

knubbin
09 Feb 2007, 04:56 PM
I am inept at copy and paste.

here it is

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/66/3/324

No worries. I had found it but was too lazy to relink....