Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
MOHS
Jul 2, 2013 16:04:00 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 16:04:00 GMT -5
James it is. Jamesp is Jim. VegasJames is James. Makes it less confusing anyway!
Of course, my anecdotes are just that. I cannot find the studies to refer to. I hate skin cancer.
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 2, 2013 16:11:15 GMT -5
Post by vegasjames on Jul 2, 2013 16:11:15 GMT -5
Don't get depressed. There are things that can be done. For example, there are many antiviral compounds that are quite effective against cancers as well such as betulinic acid. And cancer cells can be selectively killed by several means. For example, skin cancers can be selectively treated with the application of food grade (35%) peroxide. The process is painful though as concentrated peroxide burns like you are being branded. Only hurts for about 20 minutes though. And if it is basal cell, there is a topical cream chemotherapy that targets it specifically. www.cancer.org/cancer/skincancer-basalandsquamouscell/detailedguide/skin-cancer-basal-and-squamous-cell-treating-other-local-therapiesAll the best Sheltie! I cannot believe they mentioned photodynamic therapy. Even though it works and is specific to cancer cells it is rarely ever mentioned in cancer therapies. And this is technology that has been around for decades. I first read about it over 30 years ago. The process is not just limited to skin cancers. It can also be used to treat internal cancers that can be accessed by fiber optics to deliver the laser light. Although I heard they have new techniques that are allowing the use in areas that cannot be accessed by lasers. As for the cream, 5-FU is an old and very nasty drug. It will destroy healthy tissue it comes in to contact with just like it destroys cancer cells. Therefore, it would have to be carefully applied to only cover the tumor and not any healthy tissue. Although, it has to be kept in mind that some chemo drugs do absorb through the skin. The small amount of 5-FU in the cream though would not do any serious damage inside the body though if it absorbed.
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 2, 2013 17:41:25 GMT -5
Post by helens on Jul 2, 2013 17:41:25 GMT -5
You are full of tantalizing factoids, James!!! Peroxide kills skin cancer?! Wouldn't that be topical only? How would that get to the subcutaneous portions of the tumor?? Can you actually get ahead of tumor growth by continuously killing the visible part of it (with the peroxide), wouldn't it eventually grow inward so the peroxide would eventually become ineffective? And I actually wondered about this... why wouldn't lasers work on skin cancer, the under skin types? They have multiple different lasers for melting fat under skin layers now, if it can melt fat, couldn't they be directed at melting tumors from within? Great subject! Yes, peroxide kills cancer cells. In fact, this is how our own natural killer (NK) cells kill cancer cells when they can be detected by the immune system. Unfortunately, cancer cells have developed various means to evade the immune system, which is why the immune system rarely destroys cancer cells in the body including actual tumors. Therefore, the primary role of the immune system in cancer is not the direct control of cancer cells but rather tumor causing pathogens. When the immune system is capable of detecting malignant cells though the NK cells attach to the malignant cell and inject peroxide in to the cell to destroy the cell. The reason this works and why peroxide selectively destroys cancer cells is because healthy cells contain various enzymes such as catalase and superoxide dismutase that break down the peroxides to protect the cells. Cancer cells on the other hand do not contain these enzymes. When they are exposed to peroxides the peroxides enter the cancer cells causing them to swell and burst. When using 35% peroxide, which is concentrated, the use is strictly topical. And it is is not recommended around very sensitive tissue such as the eyes since the peroxide will burn tissue. With healthy tissue though healthy skin cells only get mildly burnt like a very mild sunburn. They are not destroyed like cancer cells. Some people will dilute the peroxide to a 3% solution then do therapy by dropping one drop in a glass of water then drinking it on an empty stomach. Then they work up to two drops, then three........ The process is very slow though and would not be quick enough in most cases to deal with cancers. Ozone therapy, which also works in large part of the peroxide principle is much faster and safer. The reaction is a chain reaction and so will follow the tumor inward. In short, as the peroxide breaks down there is a highly reactive singlet oxygen formed, which reacts with the lipid membranes of the cancer cells to form a lipid peroxide. As the lipid peroxide is broken down another highly reactive singlet oxygen is formed starting the whole process over. To give you an example, I once saw .01ml of 35% peroxide take out half of a tumor the size of golf ball in seconds. Eventually all the singlet oxygens get used up by reacting with other singlet oxygens forming O2 or by reacting with other substances. Another friend of mine had a tumor a little larger than a quarter. When the peroxide was applied to the opened tumor the peroxide immediately destroyed all the malignant cells leaving a crater about 1//4 inch under her skin as the peroxide followed the cancer cells downward. Cancer cells can be "cooked" to destroy them. This technology has been around since the 1950s, but is not widely used for the simple fact it is cheap and effective just like many other cancer cures that have existed for decades or for even more than a century. Cancer is an extremely big and profitable business making massive amounts of revenue for both big business, non profit groups such as the American Cancer Society, and for the government. This is why you always hear about these really promising developments they claim will take 14 years to develop to bring it to market yet they never make it to the market. Anyway, hyperthermia utilizes radio-frequency to heat up the tumor literally cooking it to death. Malignant tumors cannot dissipate heat as easily as healthy tissue so the heat can build up sufficiently in the tumor to kill it. Lasers could be used to destroy tumors, but this would be more likely by coagulation of the blood vessels feeding the tumor. Same principle as coagulating spider veins to get rid of them. Unfortunately this would not cure the cancer. The out cells could survive by getting oxygen from diffusion in the same manner cells from newly developing tumors do. It would be harder to develop a laser that could selectively cook malignant cells without cooking healthy tissue. Interesting. So... wouldn't a 'crater' from peroxide on a superficial and small tumor be less collateral damage than full excision of the tumor with all the surrounding tissue? I can see that deeper internal tumors can't be treated this way, but why don't doctors just topically inject peroxide directly into small tumors? The peroxide would eventually oxidize and become water when exposed to air (or possibly even while interacting with oxygen rich blood vessels feeding the tumor in the first place). Not just your friend or a handful of doctors, but all derms? I guess it's not as profitable as the pharm kick backs. Very interesting and curious, never heard of using peroxide in cancer treatment before (but then, I'm not in the field). Speaking of HEAT, have you heard of Celsion? What is your take on this one for targeted cancer delivery? They just failed a Phase 3 FDA Trial for treatment of one of the most lethal forms of liver cancer, but they are still in trials for other forms of cancer. Part of the failure is due to the FDA fast tracking the results, so that that end point survival rates weren't necessarily correctly measured... This is not a specific drug, but a patented DELIVERY method for chemo. The technique has broad implications with a full range of cancer types. They are still underway with various phase studies for breast cancer, bone metastas and pancreatic cancers as well. The site: celsion.com/This stock clobbered me earlier this year before the Phase 3 results were in. I got in at $1.50, and the stock spiked to $9... and I got greedy and hung in there (hey, if Phase 3 succeeded, this would have been a $60 stock overnight). It fell back down to about $1 after the fail, and I'm still holding , because the concept is just so promising (I do know better, but that rarely stops me). Here's the synopsis from their site (the technology was originally developed by Duke University): "Our approach is based on Lysolipid Thermally Sensitive Liposomes (LTSL), a unique liposomal technology with a novel mechanism of action that delivers high concentrations of drug in a region targeted with the application of localized heat." What would be intriguing is a inside and outside approach to tumor eradication... like injecting peroxide into the heart of the tumor, and blasting the outside of the tumor with chemo, opened up with HEAT. Fun fun speculations:).
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 2, 2013 20:34:23 GMT -5
Post by vegasjames on Jul 2, 2013 20:34:23 GMT -5
Yes, peroxide kills cancer cells. In fact, this is how our own natural killer (NK) cells kill cancer cells when they can be detected by the immune system. Unfortunately, cancer cells have developed various means to evade the immune system, which is why the immune system rarely destroys cancer cells in the body including actual tumors. Therefore, the primary role of the immune system in cancer is not the direct control of cancer cells but rather tumor causing pathogens. When the immune system is capable of detecting malignant cells though the NK cells attach to the malignant cell and inject peroxide in to the cell to destroy the cell. The reason this works and why peroxide selectively destroys cancer cells is because healthy cells contain various enzymes such as catalase and superoxide dismutase that break down the peroxides to protect the cells. Cancer cells on the other hand do not contain these enzymes. When they are exposed to peroxides the peroxides enter the cancer cells causing them to swell and burst. When using 35% peroxide, which is concentrated, the use is strictly topical. And it is is not recommended around very sensitive tissue such as the eyes since the peroxide will burn tissue. With healthy tissue though healthy skin cells only get mildly burnt like a very mild sunburn. They are not destroyed like cancer cells. Some people will dilute the peroxide to a 3% solution then do therapy by dropping one drop in a glass of water then drinking it on an empty stomach. Then they work up to two drops, then three........ The process is very slow though and would not be quick enough in most cases to deal with cancers. Ozone therapy, which also works in large part of the peroxide principle is much faster and safer. The reaction is a chain reaction and so will follow the tumor inward. In short, as the peroxide breaks down there is a highly reactive singlet oxygen formed, which reacts with the lipid membranes of the cancer cells to form a lipid peroxide. As the lipid peroxide is broken down another highly reactive singlet oxygen is formed starting the whole process over. To give you an example, I once saw .01ml of 35% peroxide take out half of a tumor the size of golf ball in seconds. Eventually all the singlet oxygens get used up by reacting with other singlet oxygens forming O2 or by reacting with other substances. Another friend of mine had a tumor a little larger than a quarter. When the peroxide was applied to the opened tumor the peroxide immediately destroyed all the malignant cells leaving a crater about 1//4 inch under her skin as the peroxide followed the cancer cells downward. Cancer cells can be "cooked" to destroy them. This technology has been around since the 1950s, but is not widely used for the simple fact it is cheap and effective just like many other cancer cures that have existed for decades or for even more than a century. Cancer is an extremely big and profitable business making massive amounts of revenue for both big business, non profit groups such as the American Cancer Society, and for the government. This is why you always hear about these really promising developments they claim will take 14 years to develop to bring it to market yet they never make it to the market. Anyway, hyperthermia utilizes radio-frequency to heat up the tumor literally cooking it to death. Malignant tumors cannot dissipate heat as easily as healthy tissue so the heat can build up sufficiently in the tumor to kill it. Lasers could be used to destroy tumors, but this would be more likely by coagulation of the blood vessels feeding the tumor. Same principle as coagulating spider veins to get rid of them. Unfortunately this would not cure the cancer. The out cells could survive by getting oxygen from diffusion in the same manner cells from newly developing tumors do. It would be harder to develop a laser that could selectively cook malignant cells without cooking healthy tissue. Interesting. So... wouldn't a 'crater' from peroxide on a superficial and small tumor be less collateral damage than full excision of the tumor with all the surrounding tissue? I can see that deeper internal tumors can't be treated this way, but why don't doctors just topically inject peroxide directly into small tumors? The peroxide would eventually oxidize and become water when exposed to air (or possibly even while interacting with oxygen rich blood vessels feeding the tumor in the first place). Not just your friend or a handful of doctors, but all derms? I guess it's not as profitable as the pharm kick backs. Very interesting and curious, never heard of using peroxide in cancer treatment before (but then, I'm not in the field). Speaking of HEAT, have you heard of Celsion? What is your take on this one for targeted cancer delivery? They just failed a Phase 3 FDA Trial for treatment of one of the most lethal forms of liver cancer, but they are still in trials for other forms of cancer. Part of the failure is due to the FDA fast tracking the results, so that that end point survival rates weren't necessarily correctly measured... This is not a specific drug, but a patented DELIVERY method for chemo. The technique has broad implications with a full range of cancer types. They are still underway with various phase studies for breast cancer, bone metastas and pancreatic cancers as well. The site: celsion.com/This stock clobbered me earlier this year before the Phase 3 results were in. I got in at $1.50, and the stock spiked to $9... and I got greedy and hung in there (hey, if Phase 3 succeeded, this would have been a $60 stock overnight). It fell back down to about $1 after the fail, and I'm still holding , because the concept is just so promising (I do know better, but that rarely stops me). Here's the synopsis from their site (the technology was originally developed by Duke University): "Our approach is based on Lysolipid Thermally Sensitive Liposomes (LTSL), a unique liposomal technology with a novel mechanism of action that delivers high concentrations of drug in a region targeted with the application of localized heat." What would be intriguing is a inside and outside approach to tumor eradication... like injecting peroxide into the heart of the tumor, and blasting the outside of the tumor with chemo, opened up with HEAT. Fun fun speculations:). Yes the crater due to peroxide is preferable to excision for several reasons. The hole will be smaller and only cancer cells are targeted unlike the taking a wide margin of healthy tissue around the malignancy or suspected malignancy. This is something the doctors are not going to recommend though becuase it is is cheap and effective. Just like they won't mention ozone therapy, which is even better. As another example, I was discussing the use of magnesium for high blood pressure as it acts like a natural calcium channel blocker. She said she had never heard of that so I said "preeclampsia" and she responded "oh, that's right". What I was referring to was the fact that the treatment of preeclampsia hypertension in hospital settings is the intravenous injection of magnesium salts, which drops the blood pressure immediately by displacing calcium out of the blood vessel muscle. Blood vessel walls are composed of smooth muscle. An influx of calcium in to muscles causes the muscles to contract. When magnesium influxes in to muscles it displaces calcium causing the muscles to relax. This is a similar principle to the use of pharmaceutical calcium channel blockers, which work by blocking calcium from entering the muscles of blood vessels. So here we have a case where it is a known fact that magnesium salts can lower blood pressure and do it a lot safer and more effectively than pharmaceutical calcium channel blockers. We don't see doctors telling their patients to take magnesium salts such as magnesium malate or citrate for high blood pressure where calcium channel blockers are indicated because it is cheap and effective. And as you pointed out doctors do get "incentives" from the drug companies to prescribe their drugs. These include frequent flyer points, televisions, trips, etc. On top of that many doctors own stock in many drugs. Therefore, many patients get put on drugs, even if they don't need them, simply because the doctor wants to prescribe drugs they are invested in to. I have seen so many cases of this happening. I had not heard of Celsion before, but reading their information I don't see where it would really work. The basis they are using is hyperthermia, which has been shown to work. In my opinion though their drug delivery system is flawed mainly for the same reason conventional chemotherapy delivery fails. They are assuming that their delivery system will somehow increase absorption of chemotherapy drugs by creating a heat sensitive liposome. Liposomes are basically small molecules based with lecithin, which is an emulsifier. Lecithin has a one tail that attracts water and another that attracts lipids (fats) linking them together like a bridge. This makes the lipids water soluble. One problem I see with their claims though is that if the blood vessels within the tumor are more leaky to begin with then a delivery system is not required as the molecules would readily migrate through the blood vessel wall. If they want a delivery system that would help draw more of the drug in to the tumor then why not bind the drugs to glucose molecules, which is a primary fuel source for cancer cells? Although fatty acids from lipids are another fuel source for cancer cells it is not a primary source. The main problem though that they overlooked is the well known fact that tumors are highly vascularized, but in a very disorganized manner. This is why chemotherapy has such as poor success rate. It is not an issue with the drugs reaching the tumor it is the poor vascularization interfering with the oxidative effects of the chemotherapy. In other words, chemotherapy and radiation therapy both rely on the production of oxidative free radical production to kill cancer cells. The poor vascularization of the tumor though prevents proper oxidation of the tumor inhibiting the formation of the oxidative free radicals needed to kill the cancer cells. So getting the drug to the cancer cells is only a fraction of what is required to get the drug to work. What they are doing is like having a working fuel pump supplying fuel to an engine but restricting air flow through the air intake inhibiting the fuel from doing its job properly. Adding heat is not going to change this fact. Heat dilates the blood vessels, which will make them more permeable, but again, what it is the use of getting more drug to the tumor when the poor vascularization is still inhibiting the drug from doing its job to its full potential?
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 6:08:20 GMT -5
Post by helens on Jul 3, 2013 6:08:20 GMT -5
Good morning James:). Celsion is about targeted delivery... but the type of payload is critical to success. I see your point about the heat not increasing absorption of the drug...but the point of this is to get the drug to the micro metastases that are currently being missed by the drug via conventional delivery. But if vascularization is THE problem...I can see that delivering more drug beyond the tumor's ability to absorb would be pointless, and what you just said could account for the HEAT 3 trial fail, which frankly puzzled the crap out of me. The thing is, in animal trials, it worked... so animals have more efficient vascularization than humans? Here is an illustration of the delivery/drug combo: The actual trial was for a proven and currently used chemo drug, doxorubicin. From their site: Here's a chart of the delivery efficacy in I guess animal studies: celsion.com/docs/technology_thermodoxAll that said, earlier this year, Thermodox did NOT meet the FDA's guidelines for the primary endpoint of the Phase III HEAT Study in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), also known as primary liver cancer. From their release in Jan: Specifically, Celsion has determined, after conferring with its independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) that the HEAT Study did not meet the goal of demonstrating persuasive evidence of clinical effectiveness that could form the basis for regulatory approval in the population chosen for study. The HEAT Study was designed to show a 33% improvement in PFS with 80% power and a p-value = 0.05. In the trial, ThermoDox® was well-tolerated with no unexpected serious adverse events. The HEAT Study was conducted under a Special Protocol Assessment agreed to with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." They are still waiting for the secondary endpoint, but if it failed at the primary, well. The delivery method is still in trials for other cancer types, this was only the first trial. But your suggestion that the poor vascularization of the cancer cells inhibited uptake would indeed explain why the study failed... now why wouldn't they have known this already??? You know... I have always wondered why researchers can't just grow a bunch of cancer cells in a petri dish, and attack them systemically with various chemicals to find out the most efficient way of killing it, then graduating to studies on healthy cells with the most promising effects to see if the damage could be minimized, you know, ala Fleming and his observation of bread mold killing bacteria (Penicillin). Maybe they do, but almost every treatment seems to start with some big systemic study on living creatures these days, with some half baked chemical that does as much harm as good.
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 6:15:19 GMT -5
Post by helens on Jul 3, 2013 6:15:19 GMT -5
I think we dragged the subject way off topic... but one more question... would the reason they have used lipids instead of glucose be because glucose might be absorbed by healthy cells before reaching the target tumor?
|
|
sheltie
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since January 2012
Posts: 982
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 8:17:34 GMT -5
Post by sheltie on Jul 3, 2013 8:17:34 GMT -5
I'm currently using efudex in coordination with desonide. I suspect the latter is meant primarily - at least in my case - to lessen the burning and itching of efudex. I'm in my second week and my face looks like someone has hit it all over with paintball paint, so I guess it's working. I've also used Picato before and that really didn't work very well. The good thing was that I only used it for two days rather than efudex which is two weeks. I really expect this sort of treatment to last for however much longer I live, off and on. Still no call from the lab about my two biopsies, so I'm in a wait and see mode. It's painful to have my face exposed to the sun right now so about all I can do is get on the internet and watch TV. I'm looking forward to next Tuesday when I stop this treatment. If only my saw and polisher were working right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 11:17:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 11:17:02 GMT -5
Best wishes Sheltie. I'll step out on a limbcast here. We are all hoping for favorable results.
|
|
sheltie
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since January 2012
Posts: 982
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 11:49:13 GMT -5
Post by sheltie on Jul 3, 2013 11:49:13 GMT -5
Thanks. Luckily this isn't my first rodeo so I sorta know what to expect.
|
|
sheltie
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since January 2012
Posts: 982
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 15:30:19 GMT -5
Post by sheltie on Jul 3, 2013 15:30:19 GMT -5
Finally some good news, sorta. My biopsies came back this afternoon and the one that was the most concerning proved to be a benign growth and nothing needs to be done about it. The other one is a squamous cell cancer and I'll have MOHS surgery done on it the 21th. It's a very small cell on the side of my nose so I'm hoping the doctor at least leaves me enough to smell the roses.
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 3, 2013 15:56:27 GMT -5
Post by helens on Jul 3, 2013 15:56:27 GMT -5
Grats:)!
|
|
|
MOHS
Jul 6, 2013 3:03:31 GMT -5
Post by vegasjames on Jul 6, 2013 3:03:31 GMT -5
I think we dragged the subject way off topic... but one more question... would the reason they have used lipids instead of glucose be because glucose might be absorbed by healthy cells before reaching the target tumor? It would not really matter. Both healthy cells and cancer cells can use the same "fuels", which include glucose, amino acids, fatty acids and lactate. Cancer cells though have a much higher metabolism and utilize much greater amounts of glucose than healthy cells. This principle is used to test for cancer growth in PET scans.
|
|