Scientists Just Made Cancer Radiation Therapy Smarter, Safer, and More Precise

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

“Scientists Just Made Cancer Radiation Therapy Smarter, Safer, and More Precise | Levi Gadye, University of California San Francisco

Scientists at UC San Francisco have developed a revolutionary cancer treatment that precisely targets tumors with radiation while sparing healthy tissues.

By using a KRAS-targeting drug to mark cancer cells and attaching a radioactive antibody to eliminate them, this approach has successfully wiped out tumors in mice without the usual side effects of radiation.”

(Continues)

 

[HawkNester]

View embedded media

Isn’t it ironic that you post about breakthroughs in science while supporting people defunding science research.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Isn’t it ironic that you post about breakthroughs in science while supporting people defunding cancer research.

First reply went political, that is ironic.

 

[HawkNester]

First reply went political, that is ironic.

Facts are facts. Oh, and leave it up to California to save the rest of you inbreds. We’re much better positioned to ride the dumbfvckery out here.

 

[JWolf74]

First reply went political, that is ironic.

Sucks when you're shown the mirror, huh?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Facts are facts. Oh, and leave it up to California to save the rest of you inbreds. We’re much better positioned to ride the dumbfvckery out here.

Sure after stepping over human excrement, needles, and looking the other way while your State and Local governments grift your tax base blind.

 

[HawkNester]

Sure after stepping over human excrement, needles, and looking the other way while your State and local governments grift your tax base blind.

I can tell you’ve never been to San Francisco.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

I can tell you’ve never been to San Francisco.

I know it doesn’t cost $1.7M to install a toilet. Do you?

 

[HawkNester]

I know it doesn’t cost $1.7M to install a toilet. Do you?

I know that SF > than where you live.

 

[Hans81]

I know that SF > than where you live.

😳

 

[zappaa]

I can tell you’ve never been to San Francisco.

I’ve been there dozens of times.
I went from one of our incredible shining cities…To a feces smelling, used drug needles, mentally ill unchecked on the streets toilet….

 

[Joes Place]

View embedded media

“Scientists Just Made Cancer Radiation Therapy Smarter, Safer, and More Precise | Levi Gadye, University of California San Francisco

Scientists at UC San Francisco have developed a revolutionary cancer treatment that precisely targets tumors with radiation while sparing healthy tissues.

By using a KRAS-targeting drug to mark cancer cells and attaching a radioactive antibody to eliminate them, this approach has successfully wiped out tumors in mice without the usual side effects of radiation.”

(Continues)

It's the "targeting drug markers" here that's the problem.

They've done this for many years w/ other ones; the challenge is that is doesn't work for most forms of cancer - it works for one or two.

Same issues with targeted chemo - they've done the same with that for years, as well.

 

[Aardvark86]

If only i had a dollar for every therapeutic approach that worked in mice...

Seriously though, great science but a long way to go fellas. Nuclear medicine is really cool stuff, and the operational side of it has the most amazing logistics I've ever seen.

 

[Joes Place]

If only i had a dollar for every therapeutic approached that worked in mice...

Seriously though, great science but a long way to go fellas. Nuclear medicine is really cool stuff, and the operational side of it has the most amazing logistics I've ever seen.

The "genetic targeting" using some form of marker that attaches only to cancer cells has been performed on various cancers for several decades (for chemo, etc).

Problem is that human cancers are far more complex and varied than the simple types the evaluate in mice. So, the therapy might be very effective for a few people, modestly effective for some and completely ineffective for others.

 

[Aardvark86]

The "genetic targeting" using some form of marker that attaches only to cancer cells has been performed on various cancers for several decades (for chemo, etc).

Problem is that human cancers are far more complex and varied than the simple types the evaluate in mice. So, the therapy might be very effective for a few people, modestly effective for some and completely ineffective for others.

yep. and that's before you have to deal with all of the other bench to bedside problems that arise.

From where i sit, we're doing some of the most elegant and exciting science imaginable in drug discovery and development. But the problem is, we're doing it for increasingly smaller and smaller target populations, which is simply not sustainable as an economic pricing model. If we don't actually figure out the way to make this stuff a "platform" that can be adapted to multiple cancers/targets, so as to realize some economies of scale, at some point industry is just going to give up.

 

[Joes Place]

yep. and that's before you have to deal with all of the other bench to bedside problems that arise.

From where i sit, we're doing some of the most elegant and exciting science imaginable in drug discovery and development. But the problem is, we're doing it for increasingly smaller and smaller target populations, which is simply not sustainable as an economic pricing model. If we don't actually figure out the way to make this stuff a "platform" that can be adapted to multiple cancers/targets, so as to realize some economies of scale, at some point industry is just going to give up.

Defunding the research grants that go after these smaller markets is the absolute opposite of what we need right now.

And eliminating the FDA reviewers who approve new devices and pharmaceuticals (and even approve modest changes to, or sterilization processes for existing stuff) is going to shut the entire industry down. Once those effects are seen, you'll see many pharma and med device stocks tanking, because they cannot get anything new approved (per the existing statutes).

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I actually want to hear from the M.D.'s and RN's on here about their opinion on this more than some jackass with no knowledge

 

[BelemNole]

shame all the funding for this sort of stuff was just killed

 

[Aardvark86]

Defunding the research grants that go after these smaller markets is the absolute opposite of what we need right now.

And eliminating the FDA reviewers who approve new devices and pharmaceuticals (and even approve modest changes to, or sterilization processes for existing stuff) is going to shut the entire industry down. Once those effects are seen, you'll see many pharma and med device stocks tanking, because they cannot get anything new approved (per the existing statutes).

maybe as to the grants, but the grants won't solve the development/commercialization/pricing problem. And as to fda reviewers i agree there's a certain silliness to that given that user fees make it significantly self funding.

 

[Joes Place]

maybe as to the grants, but the grants won't solve the development/commercialization/pricing problem. And as to fda reviewers i agree there's a certain silliness to that given that user fees make it significantly self funding.

From what I'm aware, the fees make it entirely self-funding.

$0 saved by gutting FDA on this.
Billions will be lost in delayed revenues, and in eliminated revenues for companies trying to get drugs and devices approved.
As well as vaccines.

 

[Bonerfarts]

First reply went political, that is ironic.

It might be time to just create a new profile. You've poisoned the well and embarrassed yourself too much on here for anyone to take you serious. Your original post could be valid, I can't take anything you post serious from now on.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

If only i had a dollar for every therapeutic approach that worked in mice...

Seriously though, great science but a long way to go fellas. Nuclear medicine is really cool stuff, and the operational side of it has the most amazing logistics I've ever seen.

What are your thoughts on AI impact for research?

Will it make it faster or even more (like suggestions of treatment or research in ways decades ahead of human capabilities)

 

[Doodads and Hoohah]

Guaranteed that research had NIH or similar funding. Now private companies will profit off of it.

 

[Aardvark86]

What are your thoughts on AI impact for research?

Will it make it faster or even more (like suggestions of treatment or research in ways decades ahead of human capabilities)

Already helpful

 

[WSC72]

The "genetic targeting" using some form of marker that attaches only to cancer cells has been performed on various cancers for several decades (for chemo, etc).

Problem is that human cancers are far more complex and varied than the simple types the evaluate in mice. So, the therapy might be very effective for a few people, modestly effective for some and completely ineffective for others.

I have not read the entire thread, so maybe this is posted somewhere going forward. But radiation is pretty easily tolerated, chemo not so much. Hopefully they can progress to make this radiation therapy highly effective.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

It might be time to just create a new profile. You've poisoned the well and embarrassed yourself too much on here for anyone to take you serious. Your original post could be valid, I can't take anything you post serious from now on.

Sounds like a you problem bud.