A treatment for Cancer to replace Chemotherapy

yeah you solve the whole cancer in the blood stream issue but the not cancer that arent not in the blood stream, which is where most cancers/tumors are. Where are they? they are usually where your normal cells/tissues are.

you are thinking of the right solutions but metastasis can happen all the time. Even if your treatment works you have to have everyone be hooked up to the treatment at all times. And of course we are assuming the antibodies works and that your own body isnt rejecting someone else's antibodies, and also remember that the original tumor is still killing the person slowly.

Right... I wonder if anyone ever tried, do you know of any study? paper?

would not everyone's antibodies destroy everyone else cancerous cells in their bloodstream?

Cells can metastasize in other ways than the blood (think the lymph system). The treatment also doesn't make sense, you're trying to catch tumor cells at the point that they enter the blood stream but before it leaves the blood stream? What if it has already spread undetectably?

Also, did you think about what would happen to the non-cancerous cells in the blood?

I have a better suggestion: many research groups have been looking at cancer vaccinations, where the patient's own immune cells are trained to recognize the tumor. You should investigate this line of research if you're interested.

Cancer vaccines: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...ancer-vaccines
Dendritic cell therapy: http://cancer.stanford.edu/research/...dendritic.html

The question is, if we make cancer patients blood go through other people in a close circuit (it could be other cancer patients), would not everyone's antibodies destroy everyone else cancerous cells in their bloodstream? would not this act in a way like chemotherapy but without side-effects?

I'm afraid this wouldn't work because of the very system you are trying to utilise. The "donor" (for lack of a better term) would produce antibodies for the patient, cycling that blood back into the patient would fill them with antibodies designed to destroy them. The antibodies to target the patient's cancer are likely to just target all patient cells.

Thank you for you answer Ryan,

Well, the idea is that the "donor" kills the cancerous cells in his body with his antibodies, I expect this antibodies will not survive once they go back inside the patient's body.

The idea thus is to kill anything in the blood that is not blood while transiting through the "donor"

And I mentioned this for cancer but it could be used as well other diseases like viral ones; e.g. someone cannot successfully fight an infection and you cycle that person's blood through someone that has passed that infection and his/her immune system can fight it very efficiently.

So I am aware that if we don't do this already is because it doesn't work, but I just can't see why.

I think you misunderstood my reply to you viraltux (Unless I'm missing something), the antibodies will target the patient and be in the blood. So lets say we set up a system where Alice's blood is cycled into Bob, Bob starts producing antibodies against Alice's cells (we'll ignore here the time component) which target all Alice's cells. These antibodies are then in the blood that is cycled back into Alice thus killing her. In fact it's worse than that because if they aren't histocompatible then Bob will have a severe immune response and if they are Bob wont really have any response.

So, what you are saying is that even if both subjects are absolutely compatible in every medical way, the fact that they are connected to each other in a close circuit would kill them both because Alice's antibodies will attack Bob and Bob's antibodies will attack Alice? Do I understand you correctly?

The use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for cancer therapy has achieved considerable success in recent years. Antibody–drug conjugates are powerful new treatment options for lymphomas and solid tumours, and immunomodulatory antibodies have also recently achieved remarkable clinical success. The development of therapeutic antibodies requires a deep understanding of cancer serology, protein-engineering techniques, mechanisms of action and resistance, and the interplay between the immune system and cancer cells. This Review outlines the fundamental strategies that are required to develop antibody therapies for cancer patients through iterative approaches to target and antibody selection, extending from preclinical studies to human trials.

No I'm saying that if they are compatible then Bob wont produce antibodies and if he produces antibodies for Alice's cancer they will most likely target Alice's cells as well.

Yeah but, if Bob produces the antibodies, they will attack cancer cell while transiting Bob's body, meaning that those cancer cell won't go back alive to Alice's body in this scenario, which means this would clean the bloodstream from cancer cells... right?

Antigen recognition and antibody production is a process that takes days, on top of that the antibodies themselves would most likely target Alice's healthy cells. Also as others have pointed out by the time the cancer is in the blood it has metastasized from elsewhere and most likely into other tissues.