backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by Suomynona.. on Apr 17 at 12:18 PM

New treatment is nearing trials, may be in practice within a few years

When it comes to cancer treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, harsh side effects ranging from mild, such as nausea, to severe, such as infertility or death often come with the territory.

Now a new therapy method is being tested which may replace these more caustic cures.  The new treatment is known as Kanzius RF Therapy, named after Pennsylvania inventor John Kanzius, a retired radio and TV engineer.  The method on a most basic level involves attaching nanoparticles to cancer cells and then blasting them with RF, effectively cooking the cancer cells.

In tests the new treatment has an amazing perfect record -- it killed 100 percent of cancerous cells, while leaving healthy cells untouched.  It is being tested at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.  Dr. Steve Curley, the professor leading the testing in Houston states, "I don’t want to give people false hope, but this has the potential to treat a wide variety of cancers."

Chemotherapy and radiation's many harmful side effects are due to the fact that these methods kill healthy cells in addition to cancerous ones.  The Kanzius RF Therapy not only does not kill healthy cells, but it is noninvasive.  It uses either gold or carbon nanoparticles, which have a long history of medical use.

Gold nanoparticles have been a subject of much research since their invention in 1980.  The particles can pass through cell membranes and move through the blood stream, allowing researchers to use them to target certain cellular structures.  This behavior can also be useful for drug delivery.  There are still some unresolved questions on the safety of nanoparticles, due to the relative lack of information on health effects of long-term exposure.

Curley's team at M.D. Anderson coats the gold nanoparticles with proteins that bind to receptors on cancerous cells only.  This allows researchers to inject the nanoparticles into cancer cells, leaving normal cells untouched.  Dr. Christopher Gannon, assistant professor at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, who collaborated with M.D. Anderson explains, "We’re looking into gold because it is FDA-approved and has a track record of being tolerated in humans."

Once the cancer cells have been loaded with nanoparticles, a radio frequency generator is activated to cook the cancer cells.  Initial trials on animal and human cells showed that the cancer cells injected with the nanoparticles had a 100 percent kill rate, while no healthy cells were harmed.  A study in the November 2007 issue of the journal Cancer showed that the cancerous cells died within approximately 48 hours.

A separate study in the Journal of Nanobiotechnology in January 2008 similarly confirmed the test results.  Gannon states, "We know it has the potential to work well.  It’s just a matter of making the details work."

The biggest challenge is in finding proteins that will bond to cancerous cells and not bond to healthy cells.  Curley's team has found a molecule c225, which is FDA approved, and targets cancer cells.  Unfortunately c225 can also bond to some healthy cells.  Said Curley, "It will depend on the type of cancer and the targeting molecules attached to the nanoparticles."

The radio frequency generator used in the trials was invented by Kanzius after he went through chemotherapy for leukemia in 2003 and 2004.  Kanzius declined to comment on his work, and has an exclusive media deal with CBS News, and will be appearing on a special edition of 60 Minutes this Sunday.  Gannon lauds Kanzius as a pioneer, stating, "His device helped inspire us to create the targeted nanoparticles to make it a fully functional clinical device."

Kanzius is working to enlarge his prototype RF generator to a full-scale model the size of a CT-scanner, big enough to fit a human inside.  This should eventually allow for clinical trials.

All those working on the project are very optimistic about its revolutionary nature.  Curley, who describes himself as the "ultimate skeptic" states, "The best-case scenario is that we would be able to clinical trials within three years."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Side Effects
By 16nm on 4/14/2008 12:23:01 PM , Rating: 5
LOL, Jason, yes, death would be a harsh side effect, wouldn't it?
quote:
harsh side effects ranging from mild, such as nausea, to severe, such as infertility or death often come with the territory


I saw the piece about this on 60 Minutes last night after the game. It looks promising. I have a friend that is literally days of dying from what started out as colon cancer. Let us just hope this is strike #3 for cancer.




RE: Side Effects
By Durrr on 4/14/2008 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 6
We should use genetically re-engineered measles virus to fight cancer. it was effective in 10009 of 10009 patients in a clinical trial!


RE: Side Effects
By 16nm on 4/14/2008 12:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Side Effects
By mattclary on 4/14/2008 12:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
Damn! Wish I could rate you up!


RE: Side Effects
By jlips6 on 4/15/2008 4:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
time for a 6.


FPS
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/14/2008 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 5
They should develop an FPS approach. IE, you command a nanobot inside the body and the objective of the game is to kill the cancerous cell with various weapons.

If you kill friendly cells you loose points, if the patient dies, the game ends.




RE: FPS
By shaw on 4/14/2008 1:19:58 PM , Rating: 3
They should just shrink us down along with a sub and inject us into the person with cancer. Our lasers on the sub can blast away the cancel cells.


RE: FPS
By geddarkstorm on 4/14/2008 2:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like a cool pretense for a movie!

Oh... wait...


RE: FPS
By bunnyfubbles on 4/14/2008 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
and for a ride at Disney World!!!

;)


RE: FPS
By TimberJon on 4/16/2008 4:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
It could be a VR simulator w/the helmet and everything!


Re: Receptors
By sld on 4/14/2008 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
This will rock as long as the cell receptors are specific enough. It will be a nightmare if a few days after the cancer has been cured the person dies because a few vital cells were annihilated too.




RE: Re: Receptors
By Amiga500 on 4/14/2008 12:35:31 PM , Rating: 3
I reckon most people with terminal cancer would say "take the chance doc".

Even if it go belly up with them, the researchers might learn something that would help the next one in the line.


RE: Re: Receptors
By TimberJon on 4/16/2008 4:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
I LOVE this line...

"Even if it go belly up with them, the researchers might learn something that would help the next one in the line."

FOR ALLLAHHHHH!!!


RE: Re: Receptors
By Suomynona on 4/17/2008 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that kind of goes with the territory for experimental treatments. Some times they work, some times they don't, some times they have unexpected and nasty side-effects.

Which is why you tend to limit initial tests on humans to those who are terminal.


Gold Balls
By Fnoob on 4/14/2008 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
I have been accused before of having brass balls, but it looks like I might be getting an upgrade!




RE: Gold Balls
By DarkElfa on 4/14/2008 2:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't they do this with AIDS and just attach nano particles to HIV strands and burn them out?


RE: Gold Balls
By Carter642 on 4/14/2008 3:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Viruses tend to be more resiliant and have fewer receptor sites making it harder to cook them. Still, it might work, here's hoping!


RE: Gold Balls
By jlips6 on 4/15/2008 5:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
they would have to find a protein that binds to HIV.

waitaminute
...
...
...
artificial t-cells? The HIV would bond to them!
dude. kick-ass.
Lol, I know that's crazy difficult to make cells like that. Unless they just stuck nano-particles in t-cells from a blood transfusion. Bada-bing, bada-boom. Goodbye HIV/AIDS.


Tumors?
By Mitch101 on 4/14/2008 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this method would work on Tumors where surgery would in most cases kill or cripple the patient. Not all tumors are cancerous but I'm thinking this might work.




RE: Tumors?
By Suomynona on 4/17/2008 11:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
It really depends on whether you can target the cells that you want to kill. You need to attach the nano particles to a protein or some other molecule that will (hopefully) only attach to the bad cells.

I suppose one could use the analogy of the nanoparticles being tiny packets of explosives and the RF field being a remote trigger. You attach a homing device to each packet of explosives, you inject them into the body, wait until they have homed in on the bad cells and then hit the trigger. So the missing piece seems to be coming up with good homing devices for different types of cancers/tumours/etc.


So Jason...
By tobrien on 4/14/2008 2:20:04 PM , Rating: 4
What role did Vista or Microsoft play in this? Is 'cancer' a synonym for Microsoft? Because I'd imagine that MS is VERY hard to kill.




60 Minutes - Was 13 April 2008
By lukasbradley on 4/14/2008 1:38:39 PM , Rating: 3
For those of you looking forward to the 60 Minutes story "this Sunday," it actually aired yesterday, Sunday, 13 April 2008 in the United States. I'm sure this article was written before, but posted