Testator Silens....

[testatorsilens]

Bit of a break from long, probably boring, text posts...This shows is a coloured micrograph image of a human breast cancer cell...I'm definitely torn between a career in Science Communication and a career in Imaging!

Image courtesy of NCI/PHOTOTAKE inc/Alamy.

[testatorsilens]

what does testator silens costestes e spiritu silentium mean?

a spot of swift Googling tells me it means: Silent Witness, Spirit Ends,Yourself Rest, Stillness...lol hope that helps x

[testatorsilens]

RhoB-ed Controllers?? Say Whut??

Now I'm sure it's common knowledge that tumours are composed of Tumour Cells....'obviously', however what people are less likely to know is that tumours also contain a large number of cells known as Stromal Cells.

'What do they do??'

Stromal Cells basically provide essential support to the tumour and have signalling network in place which is key to tumour activity. 

'Potential??'

This signalling network is unfortunately rarely considered when drugs targeting tumours are being developed which has resulted in an increase in drug development risks because say, for example, a drug was developed which targets a certain aspect of Tumour Cells e.g. cell surface markers but because the signalling pathways of Stromal Cells was not considered, there could be potential metabolic interference which could alter the effects of the drug in a negative manner...'see what I mean?'

So it is evidently important to consider Stromal Cells and the signalling pathways during drug development.

This is where the article published in The Journal of Cancer Research recently comes in. Kazerounian et. al have shown that differential regulation of Akt by the small GTPase RhoB in cancer cells or stromal endothelial cells can determine whether said cells lay dormant or over grow outgrowth when angiogenesis becomes critical.

'Hang on...too many big words...too much science...Explain??'

Akt (also known as Protein Kinase B) = is a serine/threonine- specific protein  kinase that plays a key role in a vast number of cellular processes as seen below.

[1]

GTPase =  make up a large family of hydrolase enzymes that can bind and hydrolyse guanosine triphosphate (GTP).

RhoB (Ras Homolog gene family, member B) = is a protien which is a member of the Rho GTPase family. 

'Hopefully that's cleared things up a little for you'

So....RhoB...what's the deal?

Well, ordinarily, RhoB functions as a tumour suppressor and restricts the the occupancy of the cell surface by EGF receptor (EGFR) as well as suppressing Akt signalling and does this in Cancer Cells both in vivo and in vitro.

But when the angiogenic (meaning to form new blood vessels – Angio = blood vessel, genic = to form) switch is activated, RhoB switches function and acts in the opposite way, as a tumour promoter and does so by sustaining, rather than restricting Akt signalling. As well as this, RhoB also sustains growth and survival of Stromal Cells which act to mediate tumour neoangiogenesis (the abillity of the tumour to form new blood vessels to support its own growth).

The dilemma here, however, is the fact that as much as RhoB is beneficial in terms of angiogenesis, which could be extremely useful in treating certain injuries for example, the fact that it promotes tumour growth is an extremely negative side effect.

'Conclusions?'

I feel that this is something that should definitely be studied further to see if there is any potential way of  maintaining the promotion of neoangiogensis but at the same time, eliminate the sustenance of the Akt pathway.

[1] http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/9/a011189/F2.expansion.html

[testatorsilens]

To remove or not to remove?

So it seems that one of the major questions surgeons have to ask before removing cancerous tissue is 'What's cancerous and what isn't?' because obviously it's important to know whether you're removing the right thing or not.

Now it's understandable that it's difficult to visibly distinguish between cancerous tissue and normal tissue, especially when working with things like lymph nodes which are tiny at only half a centimetre in size which makes them difficult to distinguish from the surrounding tissue during surgery. And even when lymph nodes can be located, the fact that they are unable to distinguish between cancerous and normal tissue means more lymph nodes than necessary are removed which then results in a hindered immune system, right?

'Wait...what are Lymph Nodes??'

In short, Lymph Nodes are small nodules, located throughout the body which serve as filters that contain immune cells to fight infection and clean the blood.

When cancer cells break away from a tumor (metastasise), the cells can travel through the lymph system and hide in these Lymph Nodes.

The point of their removal is to determine if a cancer has spread.

All clear?? Ok, good.

So this is where a team of surgeons and scientists at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine come in. They have developed a new technique which will allow surgeons, during surgery, to determine which tissue is cancerous so that healthy tissue can be saved, e.g. non cancerous lymph nodes will not be removed thus preserving the effectiveness of the patient's immune system. 

'So what exactly is this technique and how does it work??'

This new technique is essentially just molecular targeted imaging whereby fluorescently labelled molecules are injected and the tissues which 'take up' the fluorescent molecules and fluoresce are cancerous whereas those that don't are normal. Simple right?

This pioneering technique eliminates not only the unnecessary removal of lymph nodes, but also eliminates the need to have said removed nodes (and other tissues for that matter) sent off to the labs for pathological examination to determine whether cancer is present which makes detection of metastases and determination of the presence of cancer a lot faster and more accurate.

This technique is an improvement over traditional sentinel node mapping, which only allows the detection of the location of the lymph node but gives no information on actual cancer involvement.

Nguyen, director of the facial nerve clinic at UC San Diego Health System is quoted as saying "The range of the surgeon's visual field is greatly enhanced... so that no tumour is left behind." which goes to show just how much potential this technique has.

'The details'

The technique involves the use of Ratiometric Activatable Cell-Penetrating Peptides (RACPP) which contain Cy5 (a far red fluorescent donor) and Cy7 (a near infra-red fluorescent acceptor).

The Cy5 and Cy7 work in the way that when the intervening linker between the 2 is cleaved, either by tumor-associated matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) 2 and 9 or elastases (found in cancerous tissues and tumours) the Cy5:Cy7 emission ratio is increased almost 40 fold.

This then triggers the retention of the fragment of the RACPP which contains Cy5 by the tissues thus causing the cancerous tissues to fluoresce making them easily distinguishable from normal tissues.

'Conclusions??'

Seems like this technique will be extremely beneficial in terms of reducing the time in which metastases is determined as well as improving the accuracy of tissue removal, both which can only benefit patients.

I personally look forward to seeing this technique being implemented, especially as I know how stressful unnecessary surgery and testing can be on cancer patients as my mother was subjected to it on countless occasions throughout her treatment. So anything which can benefit patients and put them even at the slightest of ease and reduce the stress they're under is a win in my books!

[testatorsilens]

Men in the UK have a problem and they don’t want to talk about it.

Owen Sharp - Chief Executive of Prostate Cancer UK

[testatorsilens]

Another amazing image, (credit to Science Photo Library for this one) this one is a coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) image of a Cervical Cancer cell at 4000x magnification. The detail is incredible and shows even the tiniest of microvilli on the surface of the cell. This cell was cultured from a smear taken from a human cervix.

'What is it??'

Cervical Cancer is an uncommon form of cancer which, as the name suggests, affects the cervix (the entrance to the womb from the vagina for anyone who didn't know).

'Symptoms'

The early stages of Cervical Cancer has no real symptoms however the later stages are often identifiable by the presence of abnormal or unusual vaginal bleeding which can occur after sex, between periods or after menopause.

'Screening'

The NHS offers a national screening programme for all women over 24 years old. During screening, a small sample of cells is taken from the cervix and checked under a microscope for abnormalities. This test is commonly referred to as a cervical smear test. 

It is recommended that women aged between 25 and 49 are screened every 3 years and women aged between 50 and 64 are screened every 5 years.

'Treatment'

If diagnosis is made early, treatment is usually in the form of surgery with the womb often able to be left intact. However, in some cases, the womb may need to be completely removed (Hysterectomy). Radiotherapy is another alternative option for early stage Cervical Cancer and is used in combination with Chemotherapy to treat the disease in its later stages. This can however, lead to infertility as a result.

'Causes'

Almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a very common virus that's spread during sex. It's a common cause of Genital Warts too.

The 2 main strains of HPV which are known to be responsible for almost 70% of cases of Cervical Cancer are HPV16 and HPV18.

'Vaccination'

In 2008, a national vaccination programme was launched to vaccinate girls against HPV 16 and HPV 18. The vaccine is most effective if it's given a few years before a girl becomes sexually active, so it's given to girls between the ages of 12 and 13.

The vaccine used is gardasil - which provides protection against cervical cancer and genital warts.

[testatorsilens]

Put your finger WHERE??!!

On a slightly less scientific tangent here, but reading about how funding for Prostate Cancer Research has very recently been cut despite the fact that Prostate Cancer is the most common form of cancer affecting men and the fourth most common cancer affecting the population overall made me think about why this has happened. Because if a disease is THAT common, surely logic would dictate that MORE funding should be available so that further research can take place....no??

As well as the reduction in funding for research, it seems that public awareness of the disease is also waning, with fewer people taking an interest in understanding the disease, warning signs, how to spot it, what to look for and what a diagnosis means in terms of life expectancy and so on.

OK....

So let's think about some of the potential reasons as to why Prostate Cancer is being left behind when it comes to both scientific research in major aspects such as understanding of how the disease occurs, any potential genetic links which may be linked to development of the disease and treatment options as well as in terms of public awareness and understanding of the disease.

To me, it seems a bit like a vicious circle in the way that the lack of public interest had resulted in Prostate Cancer being seen as an unimportant subject which has led to the funding cuts, however the lack of public understanding seems to have come from the poor communication of previous developments in research as well as poor communication amongst the public themselves. This has therefore made it seem as though the public are not interested in developments in Prostate Cancer research which has ultimately, led to cuts in funding and said research to be made less of a priority.

So let's focus on the point about a lack of communication regarding Prostate Cancer amongst the public and explore the reasons why this is such a big problem.

Now I know it's probably one of the biggest cliches in history, that men don't 'talk' or open up but it seems that when it comes to Prostate Cancer, men simply refuse to talk about it, similar to Testicular Cancer.

'Why??'

Why is it that men can happily brag about their genitals in a comical or sexual manner ('mine's this big / look at his hairy..../ she did this to my....') but shut down when it comes to discussing a disease and their health??

With regards to Prostate Cancer, it's most likely the fact that men either 

a) don't know how to examine their prostate

b) find it 'gay' or 'disgusting' if they do know how to examine it.

It seems as though this is a typical male ego thing here where men refuse to talk about it because it makes them look like 'less of a man'. This is reinforced by the fact that Prostate Cancer affects older men, typically over the age of 50 who are less likely to be welcoming or accepting of the idea of a prostate exam or talking about anything similar because it wasn't the 'done thing' when they were young.

'So what exactly is a Prostate Exam?'

Well, to put it briefly, the examination consists of feeling the prostate gland to check for any signs of change i.e enlargement. 

Due to the location of the prostate gland as seen in the diagram below, the easiest way to access it is via the er....anal passage (yep...that is correct...anal passage) and as the majority of the male public are not medically trained experts, they're unlikely to know what they're looking for in terms of what's normal and what isn't which is why the examinations are usually performed by doctors.

This is what men seem to have a major issue with, having someone else's finger up their rear end, it's seen as taboo and thought of as 'gay' and 'weird' and therefore something men are highly opposed to.

Not only the exam itself, men do not seem to talk openly amongst their peers about the subject due to this exact perception, they don't want their mates to think they're 'gay' or 'weird' for voluntarily going to have this done to them. ('Think Karl Pilkington on Idiot Abroad - personally I think this is ridiculous but ok...)

'Take a leaf out of their book'

So it seems that the male public need to do more to raise awareness amongst themselves in order to break the vicious cycle which makes them seem disinterested in the disease which has led to funding cuts.

Women seem to have done the complete opposite when it comes to the most common cancer affecting women over the age of 50 - Breast Cancer. With worldwide campaigns and events such as the Race For Life and the Pink Ribbon Campaign, Tickled Pink as well as stories and accounts from real women including celebrities such as Sharon Osbourne, seen almost daily on TV shows, in magazines and in papers, it shows women find the issue an important one which has resulted in research into the disease being backed rather than having the funding cut and put on a back seat.

This seems to have been recognised as being the issue with regards to Prostate Cancer and the new awareness campaign sees comedian Bill Bailey as the face of the campaign in the hope of making the subject relateable and more accepted by the male public. 

'A finger up the rear end isn't the same as talking about your breasts' I hear you say.....well women have cervical smear tests and are just as open about that as they are about their breasts so it comes down to male ego and pride again. Are men just afraid to admit they're afraid? 

So basically, it seems that not only should awareness be increased by promoting the subject through campaigns and events and so on, the male psyche needs to be worked on too it seems because if men continue to view it negatively, research into Prostate Cancer will continue to get left behind which means the disease may become more and more common with little available in terms of treatment and understanding.

Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Prostate Cancer UK, said: "Men in the UK have a problem and they don’t want to talk about it. Neither do the wives and partners who will end up supporting them, the doctors who will treat them, nor the politicians who will count on their vote. Prostate cancer is the UK’s best kept worst secret.

“Prostate cancer is simply not on the radar in the UK. Even though it kills one man every hour, that’s 10,000 men each year, most men and women don’t know enough about it. We need to follow the lead of the successful female movement against breast cancer and create a real change for men.

If ever there were a more fitting phrase....'MAN UP'

[testatorsilens]

Cytotoxic T-cells...assemble!

So my previous post touched briefly on this idea and having seen it mentioned again more recently by BBC news today, I figured a more in depth look at this and the science behind it could be a good focal point for my blog.

'So what's new??'

Well basically, the article I read today talks about the use of Cytotoxic T-cells which recognise surface markers on displayed on cancer cell surfaces and use these as 'homing signals' to target their attack.

'Cytotoxic T-cells??'

Put simply, these cells are a form of white blood cells which express T-cell Receptors (TCR) on their cell surface to detect markers known as Cell Surface Antigens which are expressed by malignant cells as well as infected cells via the MHC1 Pathway.

'MHC1??'

I'll try not to make this too confusing as it definitely has the potential to be!

Basically, MHC = Major Histocompatibility Complex and there are two variants: MHC1 and MHC2.

MHC1 is found in all types of cells and presents antigens as markers on the cells surface which leads to activation of the cytotoxic T-cells (also known as Killer T-cells) and the targeting of the cells displaying these markers.

MHC2 essentially does the same thing, however it is only found in specialised Antigen Presenting Cells (APC), such as Macrophages and Dendritic Cells, which are types of white blood cell and lead to the production of mature B-cells which are specific to particular antigens.

Hopefully that wasn't too confusing! 

If it was, the diagram at the link below should hopefully help you to visualise things a bit better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antigen_presentation.svg

'So what does this have to do with anything??'

Essentially, what the researchers at The University of Tokyo and the Riken Research Centre for Allergy and Immunology have achieved is the mass production of these Cytotoxic or Killer T-cells using 'advances in stem cell technology' to make more T-cells...

'Hang on a minute...'

How exactly have they done this?? What is the exact science behind this?? Yet again the media has failed to effectively inform us of the facts so the exact methods as to how this has been made possible are as much of a mystery to me as they probably are to you.

Anyway, one group of researchers successfully extracted T-cells which targeted skin cancer ('Which form?? What type??...Again, lack of real details here so for now we're just going to have to go with 'skin cancer'') and were converted into stem cells known as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC's) to increase the yield of cells in the laboratory before being converted back into large numbers of T-cells which possessed the ability to target this cancer.

But then surely not all cancers are exactly the same?? And if these cancer specific T-cells are being produced to target a certain antigen expressed by cells taken from a certain patient, how mass marketable is this idea as a treatment?? Especially when mutations are considered and the act that not all cancers may display the surface antigen required. This then would make things expensive as many variants of these T-cells would need to be produced....right?? '...food for thought..???'

'So now what??'

Well as exciting as this development may be in terms of achieving large yields of T-cells which have the potential to target cancer cells, the researchers have only managed to extract and grow these cells, their effects and potential of the effects have not yet been tested in human patients which makes the report somewhat of an anti-climax really.

All it has proven is that they are capable of getting the T-cells, not if the treatment is effective or if it is even viable as a treatment. This is exactly the kind of media ploy that is used to drum up excitement but at the same time, fuel public misconception and misunderstanding of science and medical treatments.

'Next steps then??'

The researchers theorise that these T-cells will need to be directly injected into patients in order for the treatment to work so this is the next step in terms of their research, to test whether the treatment is viable and whether it would be successful in human patients.

However, there are questions which arise as to the safety of both the use of these T-cells as well as the safety and economy of producing them in such large questions which may potentially outweigh any benefits that might be seen if the treatment were to be successful.

So what I can conclude from this is that researchers have a potentially groundbreaking idea in terms of medical treatment, however it needs to be tested further and developed further before any real conclusions can be made.

I personally think that this treatment would be amazing if it could be perfected so it is mass marketable and relatively cheap and easy to produce the T-cells as then it would definitely be suitable to be offered on the NHS, so I will definitely be watching for any further developments.

[testatorsilens]

Another incredible piece of imaging - shows a T-cell attacking a cancer cell-but this one has an interesting background story.

It relates to the use of cancer vaccines which act to boost the body's immune system in order to combat cancer which is already present in the body as opposed to protecting against the development of cancer altogether.

ImMucin, a product produced by Vaxil, activates the immune system by training T-cells to search out and destroy cells that display a specific marker not found on healthy cells.  T-cells won't attack cells that don't display the cancer marker, meaning there are no side effects. More than 90% of different cancers have the MUC1 marker which indicates the vaccines potential in terms of safer, more effective and targeted treatment.

[testatorsilens]

PIG[eon] Breasted??

A story which caught my eye recently is one that has strong personal links for me as my mother recently went through something very similar.

The story presented by BBC News tells of a pioneering procedure being performed by surgeons in Bristol, UK, which involves grafting pig tissue onto the bottom of the muscle underneath the breast (the Pectoralis Major) following a mastectomy (complete breast removal), allowing the breast to be removed and reconstructed using this tissue in one single operation as opposed to two separate ones.

What?? Pig Tissue?? In humans??

Now I can instantly see the benefits of this as it not only reduces the amount of stress the patient would be under having to undergo one procedure to remove the breast then another to reconstruct it, but it also eliminates the mental and psychological effect on patients as it also eliminates the feeling of having 'lost something' and the need to wear a prosthesis while the body heals enough to allow the reconstruction surgery. As well as this, it also means that patients need not have tissue removed from elsewhere on their own body to replace the lost breast tissue which, cosmetically speaking, would again benefit the patient. It also means that patients do not need to be fitted with implants which would then need replacing in around 10 years, subjecting them to another surgical ordeal.

However, there are bound to be issues surrounding this procedure which I feel makes it somewhat questionable as to whether it will be introduced to many more hospitals in the UK.

Obviously there will be ethical issues as the tissue is derived from pigs and is not human, people will undoubtedly be asking 'Is it safe??' 'Is there porcine DNA in the tissue??' 'Will it affect me in any way?'.....wouldn't you though?? Especially if the science behind the procedure and the way in which the tissue is cultured is not explained fully.

That said, the report quotes breast surgeon Simon Cawthorn as saying 'All of the animal DNA is taken out of the tissue, it is safe to use and our patients like it'...

Do they really??

How much does he actually know though?? The report doesn't specify whether this Mr Cawthorn is a scientist as well as a surgeon therefore can his word be fully trusted?? I'm not too sure I would to be honest because I believe that if you're going to tell others facts and what to believe, you should at least know all the facts and detail yourself.

So bearing this in mind, IS the procedure really safe? HAS all the porcine DNA been removed?? Who knows?...Perhaps if this 'fact' was backed up with some form of scientific explanation as to HOW exactly the DNA had been removed, it might put patients at ease and make it more acceptable as a procedure. As I'm sure there are people out there who are horrified at the thought of 'human-animal hybrid body parts' and think it to be the stuff of horror movies due to lack of understanding....reminiscent of public reaction to the use of bovine (cow) ova (eggs) in human fertilisation....

Religion is another major issue which will affect the popularity of such a procedure and it is one my mother had to work with when she was faced with this situation. For Muslims, as it is well known, pigs are an absolute no-no. They don't eat them or even look at them for that matter therefore a procedure like this, no matter what the benefits may be, is going to be refused outright due to the fact the tissue is derived from pigs. As well as this, Muslims are more likely to refuse implants due to the fact that their beliefs do not allow them to be buried with anything that is not part of their physical body, be it false teeth, glass eye or in this case, breast implant. So if the option for tissue grafting from the patient's own body is eliminated for whatever reason, it makes this procedure more likely to be accepted but that isn't to say it will be. And if it is still refused, it leaves the patient in a predicament. A simple solution for this would be to culture tissue from a different animal but if it were that simple, surely someone would have thought of that by now....right??

Not to single out Muslims here, many other religions are likely to have issues with the fact the tissues are derived from animals and therefore tampering with God's creation and all that which makes it difficult for procedures like this to be accepted, especially in religious areas and countries, similar to the laws in effect on abortion due to religious beliefs in Ireland.

Personally, I would have no problem with this procedure provided the facts on how the pig DNA was removed from the tissue was explained fully.

Despite the perceived benefits of this treatment, Mr Cawthorn is also quoted as saying 'It is treatment best suited to small tumours, picked up early, on women with busts up to a C or D cup'.....surely this has just grossly narrowed the treatment base?? Because as average and popular those bust sizes are, surely this contradicts itself?? Because C cup breasts are not that big if you think about it and if this treatment is best applied to tumours which are 'small', surely that must mean the tumours have to be minute in which case they must be detected literally as they have developed, no??

Speaking from the experience I shared with my mother, depending on the size of the tumour in proportion to the breast itself, many treatment options are instantly ruled out, in the case of my mother, lumpectomy was eliminated leaving mastectomy the only option due to the size of the tumour in relation to the breast. So this treatment and its success rate relies heavily on an effective screening programme as the earlier the tumours are detected, the smaller they are and the better the treatment outcomes, right??

So how then is this expected to work in the UK where the NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP) is offered on a regular basis only to patients over the age of 50 whose average breast size is definitely NOT C or D cup??.....

Also, I'm no surgeon or medic or whatever, but the fact that the tissue is not 'self' tissue surely means that the risk of rejection or the grafts not taking is increased??

Also, will the tissue be unaffected in the same way as self tissue would be if the patient is to undergo radiotherapy treatment following the mastectomy?? Or is the tissue more likely to be rejected or damaged by the radiotherapy?

To conclude, I think that as much as this procedure might be '..the beginning of more exciting developments', it still has a long way to go and many questions which still need answering before it can plausibly be implemented and accepted as a valid form of treatment.

[testatorsilens]

Not anything to blog about here, just a really interesting scanning electron micrograph photo (courtesy of Annie Cavanagh - Wellcome Images) which I came across, of some breast cancer cells undergoing programmed cell death (apoptosis)...

Really love the colours used to highlight and enable distinguishing of the intact cells from the apoptotic cells. 

Makes me want to re-think my career aspirations, seeing photos like this!

[testatorsilens]

Jellyfishing for Cancer...

Here's an interesting one for you:

DNA strands which float like jellyfish tentacles and have the ability to grab hold of cancer cells in the bloodstream...

Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? That's what I thought when I first saw the article published in PNAS the other day...

But actually looking into it, it seems scientists were intrigued by the way jellyfish utilise their long tentacles to capture food, regardless of where it lands in relation to their bodies, and apply this to the production of a microchip which is connected to strands of DNA.

So you're probably wondering how this whole thing even works....

Well basically, several short strands of DNA (called aptamers) which bind with targeted cancer cell surfaces were taken and copied hundreds of times using a technique called 'Rolling Circle Amplification'.

'Rolling Circle what???'

Rolling Circle Amplification - what it says on the tin really, rapid replication of circular DNA (e.g plasmids).  

The link below shows a simple representation of Rolling Circle Amplification.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Rolling_circle.svg/250px-Rolling_circle.svg.png

So these newly replicated DNA aptamers were then connected to form long strands over tens of microns in length which is actually even longer than the cell itself! One end of these aptamers was attached to a microchip and the other end floated freely in the bloodstream.

‘So how exactly does it work??’

Well, cancer cells present in the bloodstream drift by and the aptamers bind to them – simple. Results of experiments showed a 60% cell capture rate. I think this shows that this method has the potential to become a useful tool in cancer diagnosis and treatment as in, it could be used to give an idea of the levels of cancer cells present in the blood stream – this could be particularly useful if the concentrations are low or if cancer is suspected but not yet proven due to low levels…perhaps? It could also be used to study the biology of cancer cells to determine which type of chemotherapy is best to use dependent on the response from the cells….food for thought….

The benefit of the use of DNA strands is that once cancer cells have been captured, the strands can be cleaved easily using enzymes allowing for further investigation of the captured cells with ease.

So after reading all that and (hopefully) understanding what it all means, you’re probably as excited as I am at the prospect of such an innovative diagnostic technique breaking through and being used to benefit patients, right??

Well unfortunately, this has yet to be tested in actual human patients which makes the findings somewhat redundant…disappointing, I know… but perhaps this is something that they could work on in future??

Who knows?? Maybe the future of cancer diagnosis and treatment lies with techniques like this. I, personally, would like to see it come to fruition and be implemented in vivo, in human patients with the same results as were achieved experimentally as this would open so many doors for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

[testatorsilens]

Playing God...

So a BBC News article recently brought to my attention that a 'Postcode Lottery' has been put in place which determines whether children are entitled to life-saving cancer treatment funded by the NHS or not...

'Sorry...what??' 

Yes, you did just read that right, children suffering from Neuroblastoma (one of the deadliest forms of extracranial - outside the skull - cancer affecting immature nerve cells in infants and children) are not all entitled to a treatment pioneered by doctors in the US and Germany which gives a 20% increase in the chances of survival.

20% may not seem like much but for parents whose child is suffering from a life threatening disease, I would imagine any increase is better than nothing and a chance worth taking....right?? I mean, imagine if it were your child?? Exactly..

So why are the treatments being 'awarded' like prizes to those lucky few who happen to live in the right place and not to every child who needs it??

Take a guess....it's the NHS....yes, you guessed it - funding....or lack of in this case it seems. The treatment costs in the region of £65,000 which some NHS Primary Care Trusts (PCT's) are providing the funding for but due to a need for 'budgeting', some are ignoring the advice of Great Ormond Street Hospital Cancer Specialists and simply not providing the funding for the treatment.

Granted, the treatment would have to take place abroad and the cost of £65,000 IS substantial, however picking and choosing who gets treatment and who doesn't, lottery or not, is it not simply just playing god? Effectively just saying 'you can have a better chance of surviving but you can't'?? Is £65,000 really that much money?? Really?? In my eyes, no amount of money is worth more than a child's life...children have their whole lives ahead of them and should be a priority, so called 'budgeting issues' or not...

If you're not raging at the state of the NHS and questioning the morals behind this 'Postcode Lottery' by now like I am, you probably should be...

So you're probably wondering what this treatment actually is and why it's been so successful...

'How exactly does this treatment work??'....right?

Well basically, the therapy involves the use of antibodies (ch14.18 antibody) which tag the Neuroblastoma (cancer) cells causing cytokines (IL2 – Interleukin 2 and GM-CSF – Granulocyte/Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor given alongside the antibody to ‘help things along’ – these are proteins which act like chemical signals) to stimulate the body’s own immune cells, the T Lymphocytes, to attack those tagged cells. The result of this is tumour shrinkage which allows them to be removed surgically when they previously inoperable.

So basically, the take home messages from this should be that:

a)    The NHS fails us once again... (same old, same old…)

b)    Where are the morals?? Where is the heart?? Where is the compassion??...apparently non-existent…

c)    Some people clearly have their priorities wrong…as a young patient who was refused the treatment’s father so aptly put it:

"Funding is always tough, but when it comes to cancer care it's a matter of life and death - especially for children - they have their whole lives ahead of them and any treatment that gives them a fair chance at life has to be given priority."

[testatorsilens]

Women, Wine and Chocolate...??

That's the stereotype isn't it?

As much as men may find that hilarious and think that's all we ever do, it has actually very recently been proved that both dark chocolate and red wine amongst other foods and drinks (berries, nuts, citrus fruits, tea) contain compounds known as Flavonoids which have shown to reduce the risk of developing cancer.

Sounds too good to be true right? Well that's what I thought...

'Drink ALL the wine and eat ALL the chocolate!'....

But according to a new study published just last month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a diet rich in foods containing these Flavonoids can reduce the risk of developing cancer, Gastric Adenocarcinoma (stomach cancer to you and me) in particular, by up to as much as 50%!

The study concluded that consumption of 580mg of Flavonoids compared to only 200mg daily was enough to see the benefits.

Still not convinced?? Neither was I...

So what ARE Flavonoids and more importantly, what do they DO??

So the basic structure of Flavonoids looks like this:

And basically, Flavonoids make up a large family of compounds called polyphenolic compounds which are made by plants.

Polyphenolic….trust me, that sounds more complicated than it actually is…poly = many, phenol = the hexagons in the structure above…simple!

So Flavonoids are actually pretty versatile and have many different roles which include:

Free Radical Scavenging – that is they bind to free radicals (An unstable molecule that causes oxidative damage by stealing electrons from surrounding molecules, thereby disrupting activity in the body's cells.) which effectively inactivates them. This is what gives Flavanoids their antioxidant properties and is the key feature of their ability to reduce the risk of carcinogen (cancer causing) induced cancers in vitro (in a lab based environment)

Metal Ion Chelators – meaning they can bind to metal ions (thus chelating them = chelation) which, again, contributes to their antioxidant properties and this is good because metal ions can catalyse the production of free radicals which ISN’T good.

Inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis - Unlike normal cells, cancer cells proliferate (multiply) rapidly and lose the ability to respond to cell death signals that initiate apoptosis (cell death). Flavonoids have been proven to inhibit this which in turn, inhibits the development of cancers.

‘So how do wine and chocolate fit into all this??’ I hear you asking…

Well, chocolate is made from cacao beans which are the source of the Flavonoids in it therefore chocolate with a higher cacao content are best consumed in order to see the benefits – the darker the better basically.

And as red wine is derived from red grapes, it contains Flavonoids due to the fact that red grapes are high in them.

That doesn’t, unfortunately, mean we can just drink ALL the wine and eat ALL the chocolate as the number of calories in the amount of chocolate and / or wine needed to reap the benefits is ridiculously high and when the same amount of Flavonoids can be obtained from fresh fruit and vegetables which have much fewer calories, as much as the notion is exciting, it is probably better to enjoy in moderation knowing it’s not completely bad for you!