I wrote a blog post about this new cancer-nanotechnology business yesterday. My conclusion is that it will be useless and, in fact, potentially harmful.

Let's try to read between the lines. This treatment has thus far been tested in human cancer cells and in animals with solid tumours, tumours that are large enough to receive injections of teeny tiny particles of gold. But our type of cancer is different, unless we have a big plasmacytoma.

With blood disorders, therefore, researchers will have to find a molecule that will attach to the gold nanoparticles, a molecule that will seek out ONLY cancer cells, leaving healthy ones alone. They are studying such a molecule right now. But come on, does that really sound possible? I really really doubt this treatment will be successful against any type of cancer, to be honest.

And besides, what about the cancerous stem cells? And what about the long term dangers of these nanoparticles getting into our lungs and brain etc.? I find this whole nano-thing very scary. And I am also concerned that some cancer patients are getting excited about it. All this hype could lead to investments into something potentially harmful. Millions are already being poured into nanotechnology. Millions that are taken away from other research (cancer stem cell research, e.g.) that I find infinitely more promising, and, hey, almost within my grasp by now: cyclopamine, DMAPT and, now, zerumbone...

Nanotechnology is science-fiction. No more, no less. Let's leave science fiction where it belongs. In books and movies.

Just my opinion.

Margaret. Florence, Italy. Blog URL: http://margaret.healthblo...

Margaret,

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Since David brought this to my attention many months ago, I researched nanoparticle technology. I even posted several links I found about it on the acor list, but they were completely ignored--I am not sure why. Now that it has been more publicized with the American TV newsprogram 60 Minutes, people seem more interested.

First, nanotechnology is not science fiction at all. Did you see the article that said it allowed a certain type of chemotherapy to be used at 1/1000 of the normal dose to be just as effective? This is not science fiction. They are not just working on it at M.D. Anderson but many other places such as Harvard.

I would have to disagree with you about the millions pouring into it being a misuse of funds. Certainly millions have been poured into genetic cures for cancer over the last 20 years with very little to show for the effort. Also, millions have been poured into cancer therapy that focuses on getting the immune system to fight off cancer , yet the practical applications are still 5 years away.

Admittedly I do not know that much about nanoparticle technology, but supposedly gold nanoparticles are the safest. I have no idea why. However, having been on so many different drugs for so long, I would certainly take the risk of nanoparticles if it meant my myeloma was to go away. . I cannot see that SCTs are very good for the human body, yet mm patients are still getting them.

I labeled my post to the acor list as "Cancer cure from out of left field".or something like that. It is just a completely different approach, and I believe we should remain open-minded to such an approach. I do not see it much differently than being open-minded to antineoplaston therapy.

As for a molecule that can find the cancer cells, I do not find this that far-fetched. When artemisinin, a supplement, was being used in preliminary studies, it sort of worked this way, as I recall. I think for one of the scans glucose is given because cancer cells metabolize sugar faster than non malignant cells. i am not a scientist, but I just do not find it all the far out.

Finally, my mm specialist, Dr. Berenson (I am no longer allowed to post his name on the acor list), is working on a new approach to get at the myeloma precursor stem cells, one that is starting with some type of bacterium. He just hired a PhD scientist to direct this research a couple of months ago. I find this equally exciting.

Finally, I am not exactly sure how pharmaceutical companies would benefit from a cure from cancer using nanotechnology. I guess they could patent the molecule to find the cancer cells--if that were possible. But I think, in the long run, it would turn oncology upside down because of the economics involved. If any type of cancer could be cured using nanotechnology, and the drug companies could not profit from said cure, it would actually be a wonderful redirection of society's resources. Here in the U.S. at least, Revlimid is something like 9,000 dollars a month--which goes to Celgene.

I have to conclude that a new non-pharmaceutical approach to fighting or curing cancer is worth pouring millions into it, for the money it would save society at large.

I really wish it were not so hard to fund research into supplements, such as artemisin, which was stopped because of lack of funding. Yet, much of the research on nanotechnology comes from engineering departments, and the funding mechanism is somewhat different.

I can name 3 combinations of drugs that would have been additional weapons for mm patients, but they all have not continued because of lack of funding. (Velcade/Quadramet, Velcade/Trisenox, Zio-101/cytoxan-like drugs--long story) Yet none of these stopped because funding was taken away by nanotechnology. It had to do with the specific drug companies involved.

Of course, nanotechnology may never pan out, or it many never work for mm patients, but certainly there have been tons of other things over the years that have never panned out. If you go to www.multiplemyeloma.org and look at the drugs in research list (the site does not get updated very often), most of them never went anywhere, for various reasons.

I love the idea of a molecule that can selectively search out and attach to the myeloma cancer cell.  At one point Mayo was working on a virus, trying to train it to do this.  I don't know if they still are.

But when or if that happens, the payload that the molecule or virus can carry might be a nanoparticle, but might as likely be something else such as an engineered immunoglobulin molecule or even a tiny radioactive particle.  A smart bomb.

It does seem to me that nanoparticles will find their first use, if any, in treatment of solid tumors, because the carrier molecule isn't here yet.  Meantime the treatments for the progenitor cells really do sound promising.

Take care,  Don

Margaret,

I still disagree with you for a lot of reasons. I actually wrote a longer post about it, but now it has disappeared, of course.

Now I will only say that it is very hard to fund research on natural compounds that work against cancer unless there is some way to make a profit on it.

Also, you are in a different position healthwise than I am. As I write this, I am sitting here getting yet another blood transfusion. I just had one 2 weeks ago.

I am now moving to 25 mg of Revlimid with every other day Medrol at 40 mg since 10 mg failed me, as did Velcade, cytoxan, and dex, thalidomide, dex, Velcade, Doxil, and dex, and numerous other treatments. I do not think the long term effects of these compound on my body is anything good. I am willing to accept certain risks with my level of disease that you are probably not. If someone told me tomorrow that he could bombard my body with radiowaves to get rid of my cancer, but the risk was not known, I would take the risk.

Curcumin at extremely large doses did nothing against my mm. Neither did resveratrol nor artemisin nor lot of other natural compounds I tried. As much as I want them to, they have not done anything for me. Of course, it is quite possible they worked against the drugs I took or even against each other. I wish there was some research so I could know if that is what happened.

Like I said before, probably billions have been poured into genetic cures for cancer, and there is little to show for the effort over the last 20 years. Compared to that, the money and time that have been put into nanotechnology research is very modest.

Once again, I also wish there were more research into non-patentable compounds, but that is generally just not the way it works in the U.S.

If someone finds a compound that can get at the myeloma precursor stem cell, he or she will probably profit from it. It may be a patentable derivative of one of the compounds you mentioned, or it may be something completely different. I seriously doubt that it would be just some natural compound.

What I liked about the nanotechnology idea was that if it could lead to a cure for certain cancers, it might completely change the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. But it may be years away, as you say.