The end of Cancers?

[Hermit]

At best quite some years away, and yes, I know, many great breakthroughs have come to nothing after their announcements. Nevertheless, what do you think of this?

Virus kills breast cancer cells in laboratory
Thursday, September 22, 2011

HERSHEY, Pa. -- A nondisease-causing virus kills human breast cancer cells in the laboratory, creating opportunities for potential new cancer therapies, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers who tested the virus on three different breast cancer types that represent the multiple stages of breast cancer development.

Adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) is a virus that regularly infects humans but causes no disease. Past studies by the same researchers show that it promotes tumor cell death in cervical cancer cells infected with human papillomavirus. Researchers used an unaltered, naturally occurring version of AAV2 on human breast cancer cells.

"Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the world and is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women," said Samina Alam, research associate in microbiology and immunology. "It is also complex to treat."

Craig Meyers, professor of microbiology and immunology, said breast cancer is problematic to treat because of its multiple stages. "Because it has multiple stages, you can't treat all the women the same. Currently, treatment of breast cancer is dependent on multiple factors such as hormone-dependency, invasiveness and metastases, drug resistance and potential toxicities. Our study shows that AAV2, as a single entity, targets all different grades of breast cancer."

Cells have multiple ways of dying. If damage occurs in a healthy cell, the cell turns on production and activation of specific proteins that allow the cell to commit suicide. However, in cancer cells these death pathways often are turned off, while the proteins that allow the cell to divide and multiply are stuck in the "on" position.

One way to fight cancer is to find ways to turn on these death pathways, which is what researchers believe is happening with the AAV2 virus.

In tissue culture dishes in the laboratory, 100 percent of the cancer cells are destroyed by the virus within seven days, with the majority of the cell death proteins activated on the fifth day. In another study, a fourth breast cancer derived cell line, which is the most aggressive, required three weeks to undergo cell death.

"We can see the virus is killing the cancer cells, but how is it doing it?" Alam said. "If we can determine which viral genes are being used, we may be able to introduce those genes into a therapeutic. If we can determine which pathways the virus is triggering, we can then screen new drugs that target those pathways. Or we may simply be able to use the virus itself."

Research needs to be completed to learn how AAV2 is killing cancer cells and which of its proteins are activating the death pathways. According to Meyers, the cellular myc gene seems to be involved. While usually associated with cell proliferation, myc is a protein also known to promote cell death. The scientists have observed increased expression of myc close to the time of death of the breast cancer cells in the study. They report their results in a recent issue of Molecular Cancer.

AAV2 does not affect healthy cells. However, if AAV2 were used in humans, the potential exists that the body's immune system would fight to remove it from the body. Therefore, by learning how AAV2 targets the death pathways, researchers potentially can find ways to treat the cancer without using the actual virus.

In ongoing studies, the Penn State researchers also have shown AAV2 can kill cells derived from prostate cancer, methoselioma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. A fourth line of breast cancer cells -- representing the most aggressive form of the disease -- also was studied in a mouse breast tumor model, followed by treatment with AAV2. Preliminary results show the destruction of the tumors in the mice, and researchers will report the findings of those mouse studies soon.

Other researchers on this project are Brian S. Bowser and Mohd Israr, Department of Microbiology and Immunology; Michael J. Conway, Section of Infection Diseases, Yale School of Medicine; and Apurva Tandon, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health, Breast and Cervical Cancer Initiative supported this research. The researchers have filed for a U.S. patent on this work.

[Clinton Huxley]

There are multiple new therapies coming on stream for cancer, now that the underlying genetics and biochemistry are understood. We may not cure it but we are approaching being able to treat it as a chronic condition rather than a death sentence.

[Matty]

viral therapy certainly seems to be the horse to bet on for a long term control or even an eventual full cure.
With these sort of oncolytic virii above, plus the recent tumour specific virus targeting published by John Bell's lab of Ottawa, its quite an interesting time to be a cancer researcher.

its still however, early days in both and any intentional infection with a cytotoxic virus of any sort is going to take some serious trials before being accepted.

[Jason]

Virus kills breast cancer cells in laboratory

Adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) is a virus that regularly infects humans but causes no disease.

AAV is not considered to have any known role in disease. It has been suggested to have a role in male infertility,[10] as AAV DNA is more commonly found in semen samples from men with abnormal semen. However, no causal link has been found between AAV infection and male infertility.

[mistermack]

I've engineered cancer cells that kill viruses.
Can I have my Nobel Prize please?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Makes me glad I'm a Taurus.

[Matty]

i only just picked up on this. a pet peeve of mine. .

"Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the world and is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women," said Samina Alam, research associate in microbiology and immunology. "It is also complex to treat."

Actually lung cancer is, but of course there is a whole element of "fuck those nasty dirty smokers, they get what they deserve" within such circles. I've seen a good few presentations where they actually openly skip lung cancer data becasue "we all know how to not get THAT, hehheh, moving on.........." .

I hate that kind of smug bullshit, it has no place in medical research, and the prior behaviour of the patient should have little to do with it, you either want to develop a cure for the disease or you dont, dont start assigning moral values to such a thing and making out like peopl fuckinf deserve it. Of course it'll never happen as long as there is money or publicity to be made.

and ftr prostate cancer is comparably prevalent to breast cancer as well but is massively disproportionately underfunded in comparison. Ostensibly because tits, especially those of models and media starlets look great on the campaign posters. Goatse in comparison doesnt make for such a good sales pitch.,

[Hermit]

i only just picked up on this. a pet peeve of mine. .

"Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the world and is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women," said Samina Alam, research associate in microbiology and immunology. "It is also complex to treat."

Actually lung cancer is...

Do you have anything to back that up with?

In Australia the projected number of new cases of cancer by clinical group and cancer site/type in 2011 are:
Colorectal: 16922
Prostate: 15202
Breast: 14818
Melanoma: 11653
Lung: 10302

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-deta ... 6442467752

[Matty]

lemme look, i'm pretty sure it is either higher or at least comparable in N America and Europe as well as being skewed by higher smoking and industrial exposure rates in the developing world.
Of course i could be quoting old data, if so my bad.

That said, even your stats there seem to indicate that breast cancer is not

"the most prevalent cancer in the world"

eta still looking for global stats but the american 2011 projected incidences from NIH are as follows
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers

Cancer Type
Bladder 69,250
Breast (Female – Male) 230,480 - 2,140
Colon and Rectal (Combined) 141,210
Endometrial 46,470
Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer 56,046
Leukemia (All Types) 44,600
Lung (Including Bronchus) 221,130
Melanoma 70,230
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 66,360
Pancreatic 44,030
Prostate 240,890
Thyroid 48,020

so very much comparable. in incidence rates.
However if you compare the fatality rates.

Bladder 14,990
Breast (Female – Male) 39,520 – 450
Colon and Rectal (Combined) 49,380
Endometrial 8,120
Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer 12,070
Leukemia (All Types) 21,780
Lung (Including Bronchus) 156,940
Melanoma 8,790
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 19,320
Pancreatic 37,660
Prostate 33,720
Thyroid 1,740

then lung cancer is the highest by far. Taking equal gender cases in lung cancer, so circa 75k each, that is about twice the fatality rate of breast cancer. Even if there is a skew in the number of male to female smokers (and i dont believe there is, at least not a massive one), it isnt going to affect the stats by such a huge factor.

and is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women

is simply not the case.

i will get back to you with global stats as and when i dig them up.

[Hermit]

lemme look, i'm pretty sure it is either higher or at least comparable in N America and Europe as well as being skewed by higher smoking and industrial rates inthe deloping world.
Of course i could be quoting old data, if so my bad.

That said, even your stats there seem to indicate that breast cancer is not "the most prevalent cancer in the world"


eta still looking for global stats but the american 2011 projected incidences are as follows
Cancer Type
Bladder 69,250
Breast (Female – Male) 230,480
Colon and Rectal (Combined) 141,210
Endometrial 46,470
Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer 56,046
Leukemia (All Types) 44,600
Lung (Including Bronchus) 221,130
Melanoma 70,230
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 66,360
Pancreatic 44,030
Prostate 240,890
Thyroid 48,020


so very much comparable. still looking for the

I was merely challenging your claim that lung cancer is the most prevalent cancer, and it turns out that your own figures prove you wrong.

[Matty]

i guess i should have said "comparably prevalent". My bad
or that i was remembering/referring the difference in fatalities as opposed to raw prevalence, which at the end of the day seems rather more a critical statistic to compare, no?
Epsecially in the context i was referring to it.


and like i say, lemme look up the global stuff,.

nevertheless do you have an actual point or were you just being pedantic for the sake of it?


eta

According to GLOBOCAN 2008, the most common cancers worldwide are lung (1.61 million, 12.7% of the total), breast (1.38 million, 10.9%), and colorectal (1.23 million, 9.7%).
The most common causes of cancer death are lung (1.38 million, 18.2% of the total), stomach (0.74 million, 9.7%), and liver (0.69 million, 9.2%) cancers.
However, there is not uniformity in the worldwide data in terms of types of cancers and their incidence and mortality.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723892

so, yeah, either way really.

hth.

[Hermit]

do you have an actual point or were you just being pedantic for the sake of it?

The actual point was to correct you on a matter of fact. If you find that pedantic, so be it.

[Matty]

but you didnt correct anything. "As a matter of fact" I was right.

The "pedantic bit is the difference between "comparably prevalent" and "most prevalent" or with incidence vs fatalities, but as it turns out i was remembering correctly regardless of what line you chose to take.
Admittedly the most significant difference is in fatalities rather than diagnoses, but on the global stage (as per the original quote)

"the most prevalent cancer in the world"

it still holds true that lung cancer is the "most prevalent". Dramatically so in terms of prognosis. Less so but still significantly in terms of disgnosis. FWIW i do think it was the fatality data i was remebering as i remeber it being quoted as dramatically higher for lung vs any other. but regardless, i was still right in questioning the statement in the OP.


if you could be arsed crunching the numbers i'd still bet money that the bit regarding it being the most prevalent casue of cancer death in women specifically is also inaccurate.
I was more questioning her sensationalist and inaccurate perspective in the quoted line than anything and wondering if you were workiing to an actual point regarding it, is all?

Do you have anything to back that up with?

If you dont, are you at least happy that i have indeed backed up my assertion?


I admittedly couldnt find any more recent global data than 2008 but i am not aware of any huge surge in global breast cancer numbers over the last 3 years.

[Hermit]

FWIW i do think it was the fatality data i was remebering

Oh, how cool. You have moved the goal posts from "most prevalent cancer" to "most fatal cancer" now. Let's take it from there then, shall we? I note you have not provided any links for your assertions once again. Now, if you please have a look at Wikipedia's List of causes of death by rate, you may notice that 11.4 women per 100,000 die from lung cancer each year while the death rate from breast cancer is only 15.3 per 100,000 annually. Overall, more people die of lung cancer than breast cancer, but that was not a criterion for your pet peeve to begin with, especially when you mentioned the comparative underfunding of the more prevalent prostate cancer in comparison to breast cancer. I have news for you, buddy. Breast cancer is a multiple times more fatal than prostate cancer. That is the reason why the former gets more funding rather than "because tits, especially those of models and media starlets look great on the campaign posters".

[Matty]

chill the fuck out, AND preferably get your facts straight.
Lets revist exactly where you are going wrong in your indignation shall we? I encourage you to start over in this exchange and see who has their logic fucked. hint:Its you.

"Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the world,

Actually lung cancer is, but of course there is a whole element of "fuck those nasty dirty smokers, they get what they deserve" within such circles. I've seen a good few presentations where they actually openly skip lung cancer data because "we all know how to not get THAT, hehheh, moving on.........." .

and then i showed American stats showing a comparable prevalence as well as massively higher fatality rate, shortly followed by WHO globocan stats (which most closely related to the "in the world" statement made in the OP post) indicating that lung cancer is higher in both prevalence AND massively higher in fatality.
look.

According to GLOBOCAN 2008, the most common cancers worldwide are lung (1.61 million, 12.7% of the total), breast (1.38 million, 10.9%), and colorectal (1.23 million, 9.7%).

i also posited that, given the huge difference in fatality rates quoted here

The most common causes of cancer death are lung (1.38 million, 18.2% of the total), stomach (0.74 million, 9.7%), and liver (0.69 million, 9.2%) cancers.

that roughly half of the total number (or roughly 9.1%) of lung cancer deaths will be of women. Given that there are seemingly equal or less than half of that attributable to breast cancer (if there were more it would pip liver cancer for the 3 spot presumably) , that the second claim is also open to question. I did however openly state that maybe there are gender related diference in smoker rates.

However that is STILL moot to the point i questioned, which is that breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the world - (i have show you how that is wrong) , and that prostate cancer is comparably prevalent (which it is)


therefore i think its safe to day that I backed up that. If you are still unsure, please point out where you dont get it.
I think personally think you mixed up my quotes, i never said prostate cancer KILLs more people than breast cancer, i said it had a comparable prevalence, which it does.

look.

and ftr prostate cancer is comparably prevalent to breast cancer as well but is massively disproportionately underfunded in comparison.

and it is. about or slightly less than half of the funding of breast cancer research in terms of governmental support, less so in terms of charity awareness and funding.

Did you get so fired up over a hyperbolic "tits on a poster" comment that you negated to read its context properly?

Oh, how cool. You have moved the goal posts from "most prevalent cancer" to "most fatal cancer" now.

i moved nothing, i was simply acknowledging that the dramatic difference i remembered was probably fatality data as opposed to prevalence data . The WHO data seems to indicate, based on an in depth study of cancer rates world wide, that lung cancer is BOTH the most prevalent form of cancer and certainly the most fatal. The woman you quoted was wrong.
you may also note that your data quote (you assume is wiki'd accurately, but we'll assume it is) is from 2005 whereas the data i posted is from 2008. Ostensibly from the same source (the WHO) however mine is direct and in the context of a global cancer datatbase comparison.

I note you have not provided any links for your assertions once again.

i linked to the WHOs globocan data for 2008. if you couldnt be bothered to have a look thats hardly my fault.

I encourage you to start over in this thread and reread it before responding. Or are you just feeling all defensive because i noted a hole in an OP article you posted? Isnt that what discussion boards are for, to discuss shit?


also now i get to do the "got something to back that up" bit.

Breast cancer is a multiple times more fatal than prostate cancer.

So lets see your cited numbers for "multiple times" more fatal. I will grant you that 1.5 - 1.7x is "a multiple" but i suspect you are claiming it is much higher than that?
Breast cancer is more aggressive, and the time of diagnosis to death his often much shorter, but thats not the same thing.