A treatment for Cancer to replace Chemotherapy

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of using a close circuit with cancer patients, where their blood would go through other people's bodies in order to destroy cancerous cells and prevent metastasis. However, it is pointed out that this method would not work due to the patient's own antibodies potentially targeting their own cells, and the fact that cancer can spread through means other than the blood stream. Instead, research has been focused on cancer vaccinations and dendritic cell therapy as potential solutions. It is also mentioned that this method could potentially be used for other diseases, but it is acknowledged that there must be a reason why it is not currently being utilized.
  • #1
viraltux
250
0
Hello,

As far as I understand Chemotherapy intends to stop cancer growth and reduce it as much as possible as well as to destroy cancerous cells in the blood stream to avoid metastasis.

Now, and again as far as I understand, if someone else cancerous cell would enter my bloodstream my antibodies would detect it as a foreign body and kill it.

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?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
mazinse said:
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.

But at least it would stop metastasis without need for Chemo, right? But I guess if they don't do it already there must be reason...
 
  • #4
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 isn't rejecting someone else's antibodies, and also remember that the original tumor is still killing the person slowly.
 
  • #5
mazinse said:
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 isn't 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?
 
  • #6
viraltux said:
Right... I wonder if anyone ever tried, do you know of any study? paper?

sorry I am not in the cancer area.
 
  • #7
would not everyone's antibodies destroy everyone else cancerous cells in their bloodstream?

Yes, and destroy everything else. Pumping someone's body full of foreign blood has consequences; there's a reason we check for donor compatibility. As has been pointed out, it would have no effect on any cancer that does't reside in a blood stream, or on any metastasis that doesn't involve the bloodstream.
 
  • #8
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/factsheet/Therapy/cancer-vaccines
Dendritic cell therapy: http://cancer.stanford.edu/research/immunology/dendritic.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Monique said:
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/factsheet/Therapy/cancer-vaccines
Dendritic cell therapy: http://cancer.stanford.edu/research/immunology/dendritic.html [Broken]

Oh no, I am not a biologist or anything, I was just curious about if it was possible or there were ways for someone else immune system to help a cancer patient, that's all.

Thank you for your answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
viraltux said:
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.
 
  • #11
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #12
viraltux said:
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 let's 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 won't really have any response.
 
  • #13
Ryan_m_b said:
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 let's 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 won't really have any response.

Well, I didn't mentioned because it seemed to me so, so, so obvious that you would check for histocompatibility before the procedure that I just went on with the main idea.

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?
 
  • #14
viraltux said:
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?
No I'm saying that if they are compatible then Bob won't produce antibodies and if he produces antibodies for Alice's cancer they will most likely target Alice's cells as well. That's not to say your idea of using antibodies in cancer treatments is a bad one btw, in fact it's an active area of research:

Antibody therapy of cancer
Andrew M. Scott, Jedd D. Wolchok & Lloyd J. Old
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v12/n4/full/nrc3236.html
abstract said:
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.
 
  • #15
Ryan_m_b said:
No I'm saying that if they are compatible then Bob won't 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 cells while transiting Bob's body, meaning that those cancer cells won't go back alive to Alice's body in this scenario, which means this would clean the bloodstream from cancer cells... right?

Edit: Thanks for the link by the way.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
viraltux said:
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.
 
  • #17
Ryan_m_b said:
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.

Oh I see... so even if it works, it'd be of little help...

How about with an infection? If Bob's has already developed the antibodies for a dangerous virus and we suspect Alice might have it, would connecting Bob and Alice help in any way Alice?
 
  • #18
viraltux said:
How about with an infection? If Bob's has already developed the antibodies for a dangerous virus and we suspect Alice might have it, would connecting Bob and Alice help in any way Alice?
Sometimes foreign antibodies are used to boost people's immune system: pregnant women, babies from an infected mother, people with a weak immune system. These antibodies do not need to come from human blood though.

An example where foreign antibodies are life-saving are in the case of rabies: the disease develops too fast and is lethal before the body is able to raise it's own immune response. That's why people who are at risk for rabies infection are injected with antibodies, these can be from humans or horses who have been vaccinated against rabies. The antibodies are always purified.
 
  • #19
Monique said:
Sometimes foreign antibodies are used to boost people's immune system: pregnant women, babies from an infected mother, people with a weak immune system. These antibodies do not need to come from human blood though.

An example where foreign antibodies are life-saving are in the case of rabies: the disease develops too fast and is lethal before the body is able to raise it's own immune response. That's why people who are at risk for rabies infection are injected with antibodies, these can be from humans or horses who have been vaccinated against rabies. The antibodies are always purified.

Oh I seeee...So basically we would get the job done and then bottle it up! And from horses too! that was interesting. So obviously not need for blood circuits.

But for the sake of discussion and Hollywood script-writers; if we are in the middle of the ocean, or the jungle, or in a South Pole station with no possibility to access foreign antibody treatments in a least 10 days, and Bob has been vaccinated but Alice has not and we suspect Alice might have a rabid infection... Would this close circuit help Alice in any way?

I guess I'm desperate to connect Alice and Bob for Hollywood's next romantic comedy :tongue:
 
  • #20
In the situation Bob has to be recently vaccinated, so that his antibody titer is high. Also, the blood needs to be compatible for the transfusion to succeed. It might work, I don't know how much blood would need to be transfused for sufficient transfer of antibodies.

I don't consider these experiment for a Hollywood romantic comedy, they rather remind me of Nazi medical practices.. of course the medical knowledge is very valuable, but experimenting with people by hooking them up in a closed circuit sounds borderline to me.
 
  • #21
Monique said:
In the situation Bob has to be recently vaccinated, so that his antibody titer is high. Also, the blood needs to be compatible for the transfusion to succeed. It might work, I don't know how much blood would need to be transfused for sufficient transfer of antibodies.

YES! So it might work! :smile: Besides, if Alice is infected she will infect Bob which means that Bob's immune system, having already recognized the antigen, might produce more antibodies for the cause.

Monique said:
I don't consider these experiment for a Hollywood romantic comedy, they rather remind me of Nazi medical practices.. of course the medical knowledge is very valuable, but experimenting with people by hooking them up in a closed circuit sounds borderline to me.

Oh! Well... What wouldn't Bob do to save her sweetheart, right? aaahh Love, I think I've got a novel here :tongue:
 
  • #22
viraltux said:
But for the sake of discussion and Hollywood script-writers; if we are in the middle of the ocean, or the jungle, or in a South Pole station with no possibility to access foreign antibody treatments in a least 10 days, and Bob has been vaccinated but Alice has not and we suspect Alice might have a rabid infection... Would this close circuit help Alice in any way?

...Oh! Well... What wouldn't Bob do to save her sweetheart, right? aaahh Love, I think I've got a novel here :tongue:
Unless you can come up for a convincing reason as to why Alice and Bob happen to be stranded in a place which has a convinient apheresis/transfusion machine that they can operate as well as Bob just happening to have recently received a vaccine and they don't have access to antibiotics for some reason this seems incredibly contrived. Especially as what you are proposing is not an established effective therapy.
 
  • #23
Ryan_m_b said:
Unless you can come up for a convincing reason as to why Alice and Bob happen to be stranded in a place which has a convinient apheresis/transfusion machine that they can operate as well as Bob just happening to have recently received a vaccine and they don't have access to antibiotics for some reason this seems incredibly contrived. Especially as what you are proposing is not an established effective therapy.

Here is your convincing (however contrive) reason Sick N.H. woman rescued from South Pole

And when your life is in danger a therapy which is not established as effective is better than no therapy at all.
 
  • #24
viraltux said:
Here is your convincing (however contrive) reason Sick N.H. woman rescued from South Pole
Getting sick in a remote/inaccessible isn't what I found contrived; getting sick in a remote/inaccessible location that just so happens to have the sophisticated medical equipment (but not the simple supplies like antibiotics that would actually help) you need to try an untested procedure that only has a chance of working because luckily a second person just so happens to have had a recent vaccine and also luckily they know how to do all of this is what I find contrived.

I can't say I'm heartened by your attempt to "write a story backwards", in other words you've decided on a scene you like and are trying to make it fit with any explanation no matter how tenuous to justify it. Even though the tenuous nature of the justifications remove a lot of the impact of the scene.
viraltux said:
And when your life is in danger a therapy which is not established as effective is better than no therapy at all.
This is only true if it is the only possible course of action and you've got to come up with a horrendous amount of plot justifications to support that as well as justify how the characters know for certain this is the only course.
 
  • #25
Ryan_m_b said:
I can't say I'm heartened by your attempt to "write a story backwards", in other words you've decided on a scene you like and are trying to make it fit with any explanation no matter how tenuous to justify it. Even though the tenuous nature of the justifications remove a lot of the impact of the scene...with a horrendous amount of plot justifications...

I don't have to decide anything or push the universe into impossible situations because the universe is very good doing that on its own. On the other hand, obviously, Romeo and Juliet wouldn't get you heartened either because, hey! come on! The ending is contrived and backwards and needs an horrendous amount of plot! I guess, after all, that to be heartened you need a heart first.
 
  • #26
viraltux said:
I don't have to decide anything, or push the universe into impossible situations because the universe is very good doing that on its own.
By definition the universe is not good at impossible situations. Furthermore this isn't really an answer to the very real question of how such a set up would ever actually come about.
viraltux said:
On the other hand, obviously, Romeo and Juliet wouldn't get you heartened either because, hey! come on! The ending is contrive and backwards and needs a horrendous amount of plot!
Suicide for a dead lover isn't contrived at all, but regardless this is irrelevant. The merits and flaws of other stories do not alter the flaws of your proposed scenario.
viraltux said:
I guess, after all, that to be heartened you need a heart first.
Baffling logic aside consider this a warning to watch your attitude. When asking people more knowledgeable on a subject than you are to help you out you shouldn't get snarky when you don't like their answers.

Now unless there is anything more to discuss regarding the biology of this premise I think we're done here.
 
  • #27
Ryan_m_b said:
By definition the universe is not good at impossible situations. Furthermore this isn't really an answer to the very real question of how such a set up would ever actually come about.

Anyone would understand what "impossible situation" meant in that context. Anyone without an autistic personality, that is.

Ryan_m_b said:
Suicide for a dead lover isn't contrived at all, but regardless this is irrelevant. The merits and flaws of other stories do not alter the flaws of your proposed scenario.

You made it relevant, I don't remember asking you if my plot makes you feel heartened. And the fact they kill themselves is not contrived but the way they do it absolutely is, sure, I am assuming you've read the story, I hope I am not assuming too much now as well.

Ryan_m_b said:
Baffling logic aside consider this a warning to watch your attitude. When asking people more knowledgeable on a subject than you are to help you out you shouldn't get snarky when you don't like their answers.

I am a very nice person, and regardless how much more I know about a subject I never intellectually bully anyone. If you don't want to answer my questions that's fine, but if you do you be polite. And although I am nice, whether you are a MENTOR, and ADMIN or the Queen of England I can take rudeness so much.

I don't appreciate anyone calling my thoughts experiments "Border line Nazi" as someone else did and I was expecting more from you considering you describe yourself in your profile as "I'm a sociable guy who loves debating and learning." So check on that one.

Ryan_m_b said:
Now unless there is anything more to discuss regarding the biology of this premise I think we're done here.

Absolutely.
 
  • #28
viraltux said:
You made it relevant, I don't remember asking you if my plot makes you feel heartened.
I didn't say anything about your plot, I was talking about your attempt at writing your plot backwards. As I explained: you seem to have come up with a scene (woman dying in remote location, man saves her by cycling her blood through him) and are looking for any vague rationalisation for this inspite of all the legitimate criticisms.
viraltux said:
I am a very nice person, and regardless how much more I know about a subject I never intellectually bully anyone.
Not seeing the post where anyone accused you of bullying...
viraltux said:
If you don't want to answer my questions that's fine, but if you do you be polite. And although I am nice, whether you are a MENTOR, and ADMIN or the Queen of England I can take rudeness so much.
Also not seeing where I wasn't polite unless you are very sensitive about receiving criticism (in which case best of luck; you'll need it).
viraltux said:
I don't appreciate anyone calling my thoughts experiments "Border line Nazi" as someone else did
Actually they were saying that experimenting on humans by cycling blood from one person to another reminded them of Nazi medical practices. If you look into the history of that and the progression of ethics of human experimentation over the time since you'd appreciate why.
viraltux said:
and I was expecting more from you considering you describe yourself in your profile as "I'm a sociable guy who loves debating and learning." So check on that one.
So because I have legitimate criticisms of your idea that you can't seem to accept in a mature fashion my description of myself is somehoe contradicted? Right...going to have to disagree with you on that one and call your statement a non sequitur.
viraltux said:
Absolutely.
Glad we agree, thread locked.
 

1. What is the success rate of this new treatment for Cancer compared to chemotherapy?

The success rate of a treatment for Cancer to replace Chemotherapy varies depending on the type and stage of cancer. However, studies have shown that this new treatment has a higher success rate in terms of overall survival and lower risk of side effects compared to chemotherapy.

2. How does this new treatment for Cancer work?

This new treatment for Cancer works by targeting specific cancer cells and destroying them, while leaving healthy cells unharmed. It may use a combination of methods such as targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or gene therapy to attack the cancer cells.

3. Are there any side effects associated with this new treatment for Cancer?

As with any medical treatment, there may be some side effects associated with this new treatment for Cancer. However, studies have shown that the side effects are generally milder and less frequent compared to chemotherapy. Your doctor will discuss any potential side effects with you before starting treatment.

4. Is this new treatment for Cancer covered by insurance?

The coverage of this new treatment for Cancer may vary depending on your insurance provider and policy. It is important to check with your insurance company to see if this treatment is covered and what the out-of-pocket costs may be.

5. When will this new treatment for Cancer be available to the public?

The availability of this new treatment for Cancer to replace Chemotherapy may vary depending on the specific treatment and location. Some treatments may already be available, while others may still be in clinical trials. It is best to consult with your doctor for more information about the availability of this treatment for your specific type of cancer.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
3
Replies
74
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
7K
Back
Top