all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 43 points 11 months ago

5FU is a very common chemo for a variety of cancer types. Increasing it's effacacy while reducing side effects would be a major win.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Why are we wasting money on getting cancer cells high? Like, shouldn’t we be killing them?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    That's certainly great news! So... How many millions of dollars is a dose going to cost?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    My chemo cost AUD$28,000 a month for two years (but as an Australian citizen I didn’t pay that much). So either more than that or as much as the drug companies can gouge, or both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I suppose "the alternative to buying my product is death" is a rather effective business strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    cancer drug has been restructured to make its cancer cell killing abilities up to 20,000 times more effective while also reducing its toxicity

    Let's say the drug was 1% effective at killing cancer cells. I.e you take the drug and it kills 1% of your cancer cells. Does 20,000 times increase in effectiveness mean its 20,000% effective at killing cancer? I.e. we have a cure that can completely kill cancer???

    I doubt it.

    The 20,000 sounds like A LOT, but what the hell does it actually mean for cancer treatment?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    To stay in your example: if something has a success rate of killing 1% of all cancer cells (which would not be very effective) , it fails at 99% of all cells.

    A factor 20,000 imrovement would mean 0,99^20000 = 5.056988325166235*^-88 failure rate, which would effectively mean complete success in destroying cancer cells.

    Alas I'm sure there's a different math behind that increase in effectiveness.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Sounds like better targeting. Have you read the article?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Yes, I'm not a doctor though. So what does "better targeting" mean for cancer patients in real world?

    I'm just trying to quantify that 20,000 improvement to make sense to me, a regular person, because it's just a random number to me.

    It certainly doesn't mean we have cured cancer. Does it?

    “In animal models, we demonstrated that we can stop tumors in their tracks,”

    They make it sound like they have cured cancer in that sentence. But they haven't.

    So how much more effective is the drug?

    Does it save 20x more patients compared to regular drugs?

    Because it certainly doesn't save 20,000% more patients.

    Is it just a clicbait title? and that 20,000 improvement will only save 0.01% more cancer patients and cost 1000 times more?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Sounds like the 20k number is in vitro. (In a glass dish with cell cultures). In mice its 59 times more effective as without the targeting improvement. The targeting improvement seems to be specially developed for blood cancer (leukemia). Not a doctor, taking out of my ass.

  • source
  • parent