Re: Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

[Guest guest]

Chuck Maack wrote:

> This just may become the key to cancer cell eradication.

>

> Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

>

> http://tinyurl.com/4fvvy8z

The web page doesn't say how the drugs are delivered to the

tumors. I'm wondering if this technology is only useful in cases

where there is a known, well defined tumor into which the drugs

can be injected. If you've got cancer all over the body, it

doesn't sound helpful.

It might be useful in cases where surgery or radiation are

too dangerous or too difficult, but I'd think that if you have a

well defined tumor, surgery or radiation would normally be ideal

treatments.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Hello Alan, I recommend you and others interested visit the internet to learn more regarding nanomedicine/technology and the manner in which medication will be delivered to cancer tumors wherever they are located. Chuck Always as close as the other end of your computer to help address any prostate cancer concerns. " What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. " (Chuck) Maack/Prostate Cancer Advocate/Mentor Wichita, Kansas Chapter, Us TOOBiography: http://www.ustoowichita.org/leaders.cfm?content=bio & id=1 Email: maack1@... Chapter Website " Observations " : http://www.ustoowichita.org/observations.cfm From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Alan MeyerSent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:54 PMTo: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery Chuck Maack wrote:> This just may become the key to cancer cell eradication.> > Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery> > http://tinyurl.com/4fvvy8zThe web page doesn't say how the drugs are delivered to thetumors. I'm wondering if this technology is only useful in caseswhere there is a known, well defined tumor into which the drugscan be injected. If you've got cancer all over the body, itdoesn't sound helpful.It might be useful in cases where surgery or radiation aretoo dangerous or too difficult, but I'd think that if you have awell defined tumor, surgery or radiation would normally be idealtreatments.Alan

[Guest guest]

When a similar treatment was dicussed using Gld nanoparticles it was reported that they were introduced into the blood stream and would travel until they reached the tumor.There they woudl get stuck in the tumor and heated thereby breaking apart the tumor.

It theory at this point but sounds promising.As Chuck suggested, just Google it and you find a lot of references both pro and con

 

 

Hello Alan,

 

I recommend you and others interested visit the internet to learn more regarding nanomedicine/technology and the manner in which medication will be delivered to cancer tumors wherever they are located.

 

Chuck

 

 

Always as close as the other end of your computer to help address any prostate cancer concerns.

 

" What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. "

 

(Chuck) Maack/Prostate Cancer Advocate/Mentor

Wichita, Kansas Chapter, Us TOO

Biography: http://www.ustoowichita.org/leaders.cfm?content=bio & id=1 

Email: maack1@...  

Chapter Website " Observations " : http://www.ustoowichita.org/observations.cfm

 

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Alan Meyer

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:54 PMTo: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

 

 

Chuck Maack wrote:> This just may become the key to cancer cell eradication.> > Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

> > http://tinyurl.com/4fvvy8zThe web page doesn't say how the drugs are delivered to thetumors. I'm wondering if this technology is only useful in cases

where there is a known, well defined tumor into which the drugscan be injected. If you've got cancer all over the body, itdoesn't sound helpful.It might be useful in cases where surgery or radiation are

too dangerous or too difficult, but I'd think that if you have awell defined tumor, surgery or radiation would normally be idealtreatments.Alan

 

-- Emersonwww.flhw.org

Every 2.25 minutes a man is diagnosed with prostate cancer.Every 16.5 minutes a man dies from the disease.

[Guest guest]

Alan, I would suggest that there might be another way to view this. Monoclonal

antibodies are currently used to take advantage of their ability to target

attachment to specific cells. Presumably, alternate targeted delivery systems

would like these would be better.

My daughter of 37 has been dealing with acute myeloid leukemia for almost ten

years now thanks to a targeted therapy. It is unlikely she would have survived

systemic chemo.

Just a thought.

Rich L

>

> > This just may become the key to cancer cell eradication.

> >

> > Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/4fvvy8z

>

> The web page doesn't say how the drugs are delivered to the

> tumors. I'm wondering if this technology is only useful in cases

> where there is a known, well defined tumor into which the drugs

> can be injected. If you've got cancer all over the body, it

> doesn't sound helpful.

>

> It might be useful in cases where surgery or radiation are

> too dangerous or too difficult, but I'd think that if you have a

> well defined tumor, surgery or radiation would normally be ideal

> treatments.

>

> Alan

>

[Guest guest]

When I see that kind of thing I say “Yes,

but…..” because not all cells, whether healthy or tumors, are created equal and

the assumption that nanoparticles will ONLY be absorbed by cells that need to

be destroyed seems a bit like wishful thinking – and will ALL unhealthy cells

absorb these particles or would some prove to be impenetrable by nonoparticles?

Right now it seems to me that theory and

practice may be a long way apart.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Emerson

Sent: Friday, 18 March 2011 7:18

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

When a similar treatment was dicussed using Gld nanoparticles it was

reported that they were introduced into the blood stream and would travel

until they reached the tumor.There they woudl get stuck in the tumor and heated

thereby breaking apart the tumor.

It theory at this point but sounds promising.

As Chuck suggested, just Google it and you find a lot of references both pro

and con

Hello Alan,

I recommend you and others interested visit the internet to learn more

regarding nanomedicine/technology and the manner in which medication will be

delivered to cancer tumors wherever they are located.

Chuck

Always as close as the other end of your computer

to help address any prostate cancer concerns.

" What you leave behind is not what is

engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. "

(Chuck) Maack/Prostate Cancer

Advocate/Mentor

Wichita, Kansas Chapter, Us TOO

Biography: http://www.ustoowichita.org/leaders.cfm?content=bio & id=1

Email: maack1@...

Chapter Website " Observations " : http://www.ustoowichita.org/observations.cfm

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ]

On Behalf Of Alan Meyer

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011

10:54 PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

Chuck Maack wrote:

> This just may become the key to cancer cell eradication.

>

> Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

>

> http://tinyurl.com/4fvvy8z

The web page doesn't say how the drugs are delivered to the

tumors. I'm wondering if this technology is only useful in cases

where there is a known, well defined tumor into which the drugs

can be injected. If you've got cancer all over the body, it

doesn't sound helpful.

It might be useful in cases where surgery or radiation are

too dangerous or too difficult, but I'd think that if you have a

well defined tumor, surgery or radiation would normally be ideal

treatments.

Alan

--

Emerson

www.flhw.org

Every 2.25 minutes a man is

diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Every 16.5 minutes a man dies from the disease.

[Guest guest]

Alan,

When you say <snip>. The science

really is moving forward. It's not as fast as we wish but it is progressing and

it's gradually building up momentum. <snip> my sense of history tells

me you may be whistling in the dark. When was The War On Cancer declared? That

was back in President Nixon’s time, I believe. And how many billions of

dollars have been spent since then? And how many innovative, good, reliable

treatments have evolved from that process. I don’t think there are any.

Surely, some have been improved greatly and we probably see less side effects

now, but then again the median age of diagnosis has dropped ten or more

years and younger men heal better than older men. Same thing goes for success –

the earlier you treat, the longer it may take for a ‘failure’ to

manifest itself. The one thing that hasn’t change is the median age

for death from prostate cancer: it is still a fact that the majority of

men are over the age of 80 when they die from the disease.

You say, in the context of advances <snip>

I'm thinking for example of Provenge, which is not a cure for cancer but is a

truly revolutionary treatment, unlike any cancer treatment that came before. <snip>

I must say I’m not entirely convinced about Provenge, but that is by the

by. When work was started on this treatment, and others like it, all the

experts denigrated it because it was an accepted fact that the immune system

could never control tumours once they had developed. That was a scientific

belief and an article of faith. What the Provenge and other studies have done

is to demonstrate that. Suitably assisted the immune system can in fact attack

and destroy tumour cells.

It seems to me that there are so man other

scientific beliefs that it will take a good deal longer than the foreseeable future

to get past them.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Alan Meyer

Sent: Friday, 18 March 2011 7:59

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Nanodiamonds may prove priceless in drug delivery

I guess we're all saying essentially the same thing

about this.

Presumably, whether made of gold, diamond, or something else, the

nanoparticle containers do not themselves target prostate cancer.

They need to be bound up with some chemical agent that does that

- for example monoclonal antibodies for prostate cancer, as Rich

suggested.

In my posting I shouldn't have implied that the diamond

nanoparticles aren't of much use. They might be of great use.

But they are only one part in a multi-part solution. I was a

little surprised that the short article by the company that is

working with these didn't say anything about the targeting part.

Terry said:

> Right now it seems to me that theory and practice may be a long

> way apart.

I think that's right. I just read a book about Alzheimer's

Disease (my mother died of it and it scares me more than cancer.)

Apparently it was common for everybody working in the field to

answer the question " When will this new research appear as a

practical treatment? " with " In about five years. "

Well, 5, 10, 15, 20 years have gone by and there are still no

treatments. But if you ask the researchers, they still say, " Oh

in about five years. "

Cancer looks a lot like that. I think it was in 2005 that the

then director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute said that

cancer would cease to be the big killer that it is in 2015.

Needless to say, he's not saying that any more.

But I'm still optimistic. Some of the therapies that have been

researched for years are actually beginning to be used in

treatment. I'm thinking for example of Provenge, which is not a

cure for cancer but is a truly revolutionary treatment, unlike

any cancer treatment that came before. The science really is

moving forward. It's not as fast as we wish but it is

progressing and it's gradually building up momentum.

The structure of DNA, which is the foundation of our modern

understanding of cancer and many other diseases, wasn't even

discovered until after we were born. And yet less than 50 years

later we learned the entire genetic sequence of the human genome!

That would have been unimaginable 50, or even 30 years ago.

We naturally get wrapped up in the problems of the present, the

problems of yesterday, today and tomorrow. It's easy to lose

sight of the big picture. As I see it, that big picture is that

we are in the midst of a process of scientific discovery that is

probably the grandest intellectual adventure so far experienced

by the human race. It's very exciting.

Alan

[Guest guest]

> Terry Herbert wrote:

>

> Alan,

>

> When you say <snip>. The science really is moving forward. It's

> not as fast as we wish but it is progressing and it's gradually

> building up momentum. <snip> my sense of history tells me you

> may be whistling in the dark. When was The War On Cancer

> declared? That was back in President Nixon’s time, I believe.

> And how many billions of dollars have been spent since then?

> And how many innovative, good, reliable treatments have evolved

> from that process. I don’t think there are any. Surely, some

> have been improved greatly and we probably see less side

> effects now, but then again the median age of diagnosis has

> dropped ten or more years and younger men heal better than

> older men. Same thing goes for success - the earlier you treat,

> the longer it may take for a ‘failure’ to manifest itself. The

> one thing that hasn’t change is the median age for death from

> prostate cancer: it is still a fact that the majority of men

> are over the age of 80 when they die from the disease.

Forgive me, but this is a subject dear to my heart. I'm going to

speak in superlatives for a while and express my reckless

enthusiasm.

I know it's frustrating that we haven't gotten further than we

have, but I think there has been tremendous progress.

We have to look at the whole picture of how cancer diagnosis and

treatment has evolved since Nixon's " war on cancer " in the early

1970's.

Let's consider developments in prostate cancer to start with.

1. The PSA test has made it possible to diagnose cancer while it

is still treatable. I believe that the absolute rate of PCa

deaths is significantly lower now, not just the rate relative to

the much larger number of men who are diagnosed. This is not

just a change in procedures, it's a scientific development. PSA

was unknown in Nixon's time.

2. New surgeries have been developed. Nerve-sparing surgery was

developed after Nixon's time, as well as the still newer robotic

surgeries. Surgeons have a better understanding of what to cut

out, what not to cut out, and how to do it.

3. New radiation modalities have been developed that deliver

significantly more radiation to tumors and significantly less to

surrounding tissue. The cure rate for radiation has gone up

while the side effects have gone down.

4. The first successful chemotherapy (docetaxel) was developed.

It doesn't cure PCa but does extend life and looks like it may

extend life much more if used earlier and in combination with

other therapies.

5. The first ever immunotherapy for any cancer was developed.

I'll say more about it later in answer to your later point.

6. New hormone therapies have been developed that are safer than

estrogen, are more effective, and don't require irreversible

physical castration. More new hormone therapies like Abiraterone

are about to be approved.

The effect of all this is that more men are being cured, and more

who are not cured are living longer after diagnosis. That is

true even for men who are diagnosed via the old digital rectal

exam technique. That is significant progress.

Another way to think about this is that there were virtually no

treatments at all for prostate cancer, or for any cancer, over

the entire evolutionary history of humans until the 20th century.

Everything we have today has happened in much less than 100

years.

If we look at some other cancers we see even greater progress.

As I understand it, 90% of women diagnosed with breast cancer are

still alive five years later. That was not true in Nixon's time.

I believe most were dead by then.

Almost all pediatric cancers were fatal in Nixon's time. Now,

most are actually cured.

Some cancers like leukemia were universally fatal in Nixon's time

but today are manageable for years, often for decades, with new

drugs like Gleevec, which was introduced only in 2001 and is now

approved for ten different cancers.

> You say, in the context of advances <snip> I'm thinking for

> example of Provenge, which is not a cure for cancer but is a

> truly revolutionary treatment, unlike any cancer treatment that

> came before. <snip> I must say I’m not entirely convinced about

> Provenge, but that is by the by. When work was started on this

> treatment, and others like it, all the experts denigrated it

> because it was an accepted fact that the immune system could

> never control tumours once they had developed. That was a

> scientific belief and an article of faith. What the Provenge

> and other studies have done is to demonstrate that. Suitably

> assisted the immune system can in fact attack and destroy

> tumour cells.

Provenge really is an advance. When the experts said the immune

system wouldn't kill cancer they were right. It wouldn't. It

will now not because we discovered that we were wrong about how

the immune system worked, but because some extraordinarily gifted

scientists discovered a way to trick it into killing cells that

evolution did not evolve it to kill. The science behind the

trick is mind boggling. It involves a very deep understanding,

down at the molecular level, of objects that are too small to be

seen even in powerful microscopes and which have to be understood

not just as they are, but in the complex, ever changing

environment of living tissue.

> It seems to me that there are so many other scientific beliefs

> that it will take a good deal longer than the foreseeable

> future to get past them.

I don't think we're being held back by old scientific

prejudices. I think we are being held back by the difficulty of

understanding complex cancer biology.

The human body is thought to contain on the order of 10^14 cells,

that's a one followed by fourteen zeros. Each one of those cells

is thought to undergo somewhere on the order of 10^6 or more

chemical reactions *per second*! That's somewhere around 10^20

chemical reactions per second in each one of us.

The types of interacting molecules are very diverse and very

complex. A single DNA molecule may have 200,000 subunits, each

of which has 30 or more atoms. A change in one of those subunits

might eventually result in cancer, but we're only beginning to

discover which ones and why they have that effect.

A single protein, and we know more than 8,000 different ones

already with more being discovered all the time, may have 50,000

atoms in a complex folded, three dimensional structure where tiny

differences in the electrical and spatial properties of each fold

can make all of the difference in how the protein functions in

the cell. These proteins, and the genes that code for them, make

up the machinery of cell division, control of gene expression,

hormone reception, tissue differentiation, immune system

response, and virtually every other cancer process.

All of our knowledge of all of this stuff originates in the 20th

century. Most only dates to the last half of the 20th century,

and most of the most complex stuff has been discovered since

Nixon's time.

The progress in cancer biology is very analogous to the progress

in computers. Just as basic research in semiconductor materials

control systems, computer assisted design and manufacturing, etc.

have been essential for computer progress, so too basic research

in biology is essential for progress in cancer treatment. And

the research results in just the last 20 years go way beyond

anything dreamed of before then.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, find a cell biology

textbook from Nixon's time. Then look at a copy of the 2008

edition of Alberts' _Molecular Biology of the Cell_. You'll be

astounded at how much greater and deeper our knowledge is today.

Many of the basics were there in 1970 but the understanding was

superficial in comparison with today's science. And I have no

doubt but that today's science will look shallow 25 or 50 years

from now.

There have been periods of great advance in human history. The

age of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Renaissance, the

industrial revolution, the computer revolution. I think we are

in such an age now. I think the revolution in biology is

comparable in scope and will lead our grandchildren and their

grandchildren to a very different future from the one that awaits

us.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Wow, Alan, nice job.> > Alan,> > When you say <snip>. The science really is moving forward. It's> not as fast as we wish but it is progressing and it's gradually> building up momentum. <snip> my sense of history tells me you> may be whistling in the dark. When was The War On Cancer> declared? That was back in President Nixon’s time, I believe.> And how many billions of dollars have been spent since then?> And how many innovative, good, reliable treatments have evolved> from that process. I don’t think there are any. Surely, some> have been improved greatly and we probably see less side> effects now, but then again the median age of diagnosis

has> dropped ten or more years and younger men heal better than> older men. Same thing goes for success - the earlier you treat,> the longer it may take for a ‘failure’ to manifest itself. The> one thing that hasn’t change is the median age for death from> prostate cancer: it is still a fact that the majority of men> are over the age of 80 when they die from the disease.Forgive me, but this is a subject dear to my heart. I'm going tospeak in superlatives for a while and express my recklessenthusiasm.I know it's frustrating that we haven't gotten further than wehave, but I think there has been tremendous progress.We have to look at the whole picture of how cancer diagnosis andtreatment has evolved since Nixon's "war on cancer" in the early1970's.Let's consider developments in prostate cancer to start with.1. The PSA test has made it possible to

diagnose cancer while itis still treatable. I believe that the absolute rate of PCa deaths is significantly lower now, not just the rate relative tothe much larger number of men who are diagnosed. This is notjust a change in procedures, it's a scientific development. PSAwas unknown in Nixon's time.2. New surgeries have been developed. Nerve-sparing surgery wasdeveloped after Nixon's time, as well as the still newer roboticsurgeries. Surgeons have a better understanding of what to cutout, what not to cut out, and how to do it.3. New radiation modalities have been developed that deliversignificantly more radiation to tumors and significantly less tosurrounding tissue. The cure rate for radiation has gone upwhile the side effects have gone down.4. The first successful chemotherapy (docetaxel) was developed.It doesn't cure PCa but does extend life and looks like it mayextend life

much more if used earlier and in combination withother therapies.5. The first ever immunotherapy for any cancer was developed.I'll say more about it later in answer to your later point.6. New hormone therapies have been developed that are safer thanestrogen, are more effective, and don't require irreversiblephysical castration. More new hormone therapies like Abirateroneare about to be approved.The effect of all this is that more men are being cured, and morewho are not cured are living longer after diagnosis. That istrue even for men who are diagnosed via the old digital rectalexam technique. That is significant progress.Another way to think about this is that there were virtually notreatments at all for prostate cancer, or for any cancer, overthe entire evolutionary history of humans until the 20th century.Everything we have today has happened in much less than

100years.If we look at some other cancers we see even greater progress.As I understand it, 90% of women diagnosed with breast cancer arestill alive five years later. That was not true in Nixon's time.I believe most were dead by then.Almost all pediatric cancers were fatal in Nixon's time. Now,most are actually cured.Some cancers like leukemia were universally fatal in Nixon's timebut today are manageable for years, often for decades, with newdrugs like Gleevec, which was introduced only in 2001 and is nowapproved for ten different cancers.> You say, in the context of advances <snip> I'm thinking for> example of Provenge, which is not a cure for cancer but is a> truly revolutionary treatment, unlike any cancer treatment that> came before. <snip> I must say I’m not entirely convinced about> Provenge, but that is by the by. When work was started on

this> treatment, and others like it, all the experts denigrated it> because it was an accepted fact that the immune system could> never control tumours once they had developed. That was a> scientific belief and an article of faith. What the Provenge> and other studies have done is to demonstrate that. Suitably> assisted the immune system can in fact attack and destroy> tumour cells.Provenge really is an advance. When the experts said the immunesystem wouldn't kill cancer they were right. It wouldn't. Itwill now not because we discovered that we were wrong about howthe immune system worked, but because some extraordinarily giftedscientists discovered a way to trick it into killing cells thatevolution did not evolve it to kill. The science behind thetrick is mind boggling. It involves a very deep understanding,down at the molecular level, of objects that are too small to

beseen even in powerful microscopes and which have to be understoodnot just as they are, but in the complex, ever changingenvironment of living tissue.> It seems to me that there are so many other scientific beliefs> that it will take a good deal longer than the foreseeable> future to get past them.I don't think we're being held back by old scientificprejudices. I think we are being held back by the difficulty ofunderstanding complex cancer biology.The human body is thought to contain on the order of 10^14 cells,that's a one followed by fourteen zeros. Each one of those cellsis thought to undergo somewhere on the order of 10^6 or morechemical reactions *per second*! That's somewhere around 10^20chemical reactions per second in each one of us.The types of interacting molecules are very diverse and verycomplex. A single DNA molecule may have 200,000 subunits,

eachof which has 30 or more atoms. A change in one of those subunitsmight eventually result in cancer, but we're only beginning todiscover which ones and why they have that effect.A single protein, and we know more than 8,000 different onesalready with more being discovered all the time, may have 50,000atoms in a complex folded, three dimensional structure where tinydifferences in the electrical and spatial properties of each foldcan make all of the difference in how the protein functions inthe cell. These proteins, and the genes that code for them, makeup the machinery of cell division, control of gene expression,hormone reception, tissue differentiation, immune systemresponse, and virtually every other cancer process.All of our knowledge of all of this stuff originates in the 20thcentury. Most only dates to the last half of the 20th century,and most of the most complex stuff has been

discovered sinceNixon's time.The progress in cancer biology is very analogous to the progressin computers. Just as basic research in semiconductor materialscontrol systems, computer assisted design and manufacturing, etc.have been essential for computer progress, so too basic researchin biology is essential for progress in cancer treatment. Andthe research results in just the last 20 years go way beyondanything dreamed of before then.If you want to see what I'm talking about, find a cell biologytextbook from Nixon's time. Then look at a copy of the 2008edition of Alberts' _Molecular Biology of the Cell_. You'll beastounded at how much greater and deeper our knowledge is today.Many of the basics were there in 1970 but the understanding wassuperficial in comparison with today's science. And I have nodoubt but that today's science will look shallow 25 or 50 years from now.There

have been periods of great advance in human history. Theage of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Renaissance, theindustrial revolution, the computer revolution. I think we arein such an age now. I think the revolution in biology iscomparable in scope and will lead our grandchildren and theirgrandchildren to a very different future from the one that awaitsus.Alan