US researchers have found an antibody that hunts down prostate cancer cells in mice and can destroy the killer disease even in an advanced stage, a study showed Monday.
The antibody, called F77, was found to bond more readily with cancerous prostate tissues and cells than with benign tissue and cells, and to promote the death of cancerous tissue, said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS).
When injected in mice, F77 bonded with tissue where prostate cancer was the primary cancer in almost all cases (97 percent) and in tissue cores where the cancer had metastasized around 85 percent of the time.
It recognized even androgen-independent cancer cells, present when prostate cancer is incurable, the study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania showed.
F77 "initiated direct cell death of prostate cancer cells... and effectively prevented tumor outgrowth," it said.
But it did not target normal tissue, or tumor tissues in other parts of the body including the colon, kidney, cervix, pancreas, lung, skin or bladder, the study showed.
The antibody "shows promising potential for diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer, especially for androgen-independent metastatic prostate cancer," which often spreads to the bones and is difficult to treat, the researchers wrote in PNAS.
Currently, the five-year survival rate for metastatic prostate cancer is just 34 percent, according to the study.
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men, claiming half a million lives each year worldwide, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Favorites
Supermegadope
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2009El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2009croghan26
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2009The drug is useless if it 'cures' the cancer but kills from some other effect.
RavenWizard
4 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2009psommerfeld
2 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2009Nartoon
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2009Paradox
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2009Sinister181
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2009Kedas
3 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2009Obviously you will have to sign that you take full responsibility for any results.
croghan26
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2009Rushing things into usage can have horrible consequences.
DozerIAm
not rated yet Dec 30, 2009For example, it says:
Note theat it gives the survival rate for METASTATIC prostate cancer and in the next sentence describes the occurence rate for ALL prostrate cancers. They follow it with the death rate from what is presumably the metastatic cancer, since regular prostrate cancer isn't deadly, but by that sentence most men are already unnecessarily worried. This is disingenuous and misleading, many men with prostrate cancer don't need treatment and most of the ones who do need it for LOCAL secondary symptoms like difficulty in urination, etc.
kshultz222_yahoo_com
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2009What we are telling patients is: "We have a cure for your terminal illness, but it MIGHT kill you. We cannot afford the risk to our . . . "
DozerIAm
3.5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2009I agree with you. However, no contract, no matter how well explained and how clearly written and ironclad will escape the Doctor, hospital and drug manufacturer from getting sued and possibly losing a huge lawsuit. And even if they win the lawsuit, the expense in both money and community good will would be onerous. I blame this entirely on medical malpractice lawyers getting rich on settlements for cases which shouldn't have been made. Tort reform would help here, but will probably never happen.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Dec 30, 2009Maybe PhysOrg could do a section where they tell us about theories and trials that actually have been released for public consumption?
x646d63
not rated yet Dec 30, 2009Temple
not rated yet Dec 31, 2009Agreed. Many commenters are seemingly confusing an antibody with a chemical drug. An antibody is essentially a 'tag' that tells your own body's white blood cells: "kill this". Obviously it's important that that antibody doesn't cause your autoimmune system to start going nuts and destroying your healthy tissues, but we're not looking at the same questionable side-effects of a chemical drug or radiation treatment.
croghan26
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2009Methinks that using the dying to test for possible beneficial effects of drugs and treatments is morallly a shakey proposition.
Phelankell
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2009Methinks that most of the dying would wish to attempt anything to extend their lives or to prevent others from suffering their pain and eventual death when it was possibly preventable.
Sinister181
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2009Seconded.
MickeyMouse
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2009I was curious why the cervix was mentioned for MALE patients ?!? Did I miss something in biology??
physpuppy
not rated yet Jan 01, 2010First what if there is no curative effect and the effect of the drug is to increase suffering ten fold? (as in maybe an even more unpleasant death)
Another consideration - at the early stages of drug development, the cost for dosages are extremely high. Think of buying a car vs a "concept car". Now consider the case of the "concept car" built at a very small scale (analogy: dosage amounts for mice). Now it needs to be built to fit a person and still work properly (scaling up the chemistry to larger amounts is often not trivial)
Now who will pay for the treatment that might turn out to be ineffectual? We're not talking $1000/per dose here - likely much much more - solvents, reagents, researcher's time to produce the drug are all expensive.
GDM
not rated yet Jan 02, 2010