Many hypothesis, one of my favorite, however not at all proven, is the heavy use or sautee / stir fry cooking over gas stove. That’s like second hand smoke exposure at least a few times a day
Really impressive results. The real victory here wasn't the breakthrough drug, which many have pointed out is another flavor of PD-1 inhibition (Nivolumab, Pembro) It's the patient selection - careful curation of MSI status with Next Gen Sequencing. Clinically it has already been implemented and is changing the outcomes of thousands of patients every year.
Really very cool, the time savings alone for places without autocontours is perhaps an hour per patient. Would be cool to see the following features in the next update - please dm if you want to collab!
1. Longitudinal comparison of images over time for response assessment
2. Prediction of radionecrosis vs. brain metastases
3. Flags for hypertrophy or atrophy of normal organs (i.e. cardiomegaly, splenomegaly) Easy to do based on volume
1. We have already developed the module for the longitudinal comparisons of the follow-up MR images. The module is not yet published but you can see the follow-up tab on the top of the dashboard (now grayed)
2. There's an on-going research between us and Stanford hospital on the prediction of radiation necrosis vs. brain mets. Our publication could be found in last year's AAPM conference.
Also I don't think you could DM on HN (maybe I'm missing something). But if your side wants to collaborate or implement this into your clinical workflow (We do provide free local installation of the whole platform inside your clinic network.), you could email me at coolwulf@gmail.com or hao.jiang@neuralrad.com
As an oncologist, the cause is unknown. But it's not so simple to point fingers at one cause. For example someone who is a heavy smoker (ie. a pack a day) gets cancer at a rate of 25% in their lifetime should they live to age 80. It's a delicate interplay between genetics, development, and environment. We should identify all modifiable risk factors and change our behavior to reduce exposure to them.
A 2022 study claims that a combination of vitamin D supplements, Omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and (mild/moderate) exercise reduces cancer risk by 60% or so for older adults, but the same factors apply to young people as well.
It seems that many (maybe most) cancers are kicked off by inflammation, or otherwise stressed tissues, after the conditions are just right (genetics, carcinogen, or otherwise damaged dna). Cells that are damaged enough to spread as cancer can avoid getting replicated for years or even never without a trigger. So, it could be that we aren't more exposed to carcinogens, but more frequently encounter the conditions that make the damaged cells start spreading. So, vitamin-D and Omega-3 could indeed help in that regard, and some other cause of chronic inflammation could be responsible for the upward trend.
Yes, you are exactly correct! Vitamin D and exercise share a common result. They both increase and maintain our body’s growth hormone production at healthy levels which is the prime driver of a healthy T cell cancer/virus killing immune system function!! Chronic growth hormone deficiency is at epidemic levels in adults and increasingly in young adults that is weakening our killer T cell immune system function and causing cancer at unprecedented levels!! Sadly, most physicians who read this will roll their eyes because they think they know it all! If they did we wouldn’t have such record levels of disease and death today!!
> For example someone who is a heavy smoker (ie. a pack a day) gets cancer at a rate of 25% in their lifetime should they live to age 80
I'm curious what the odds are for an 80 year old light or never smoker. Is it 24%? 2.4%? .0024%? Do you know?
Also curious how long you have to live as a non smoker to get to that equivalent 25%. I'm under the impression that everyone gets cancer if you live long enough.
Odds for a never smoker aren't well estimated, but I'd say it's in the single digits. Definitely less than 5%. It depends on one's radon exposure, asbestos exposure, exposure to gas stoves/coal burners, smog pollution, and genetic background. Many lung cancers in non-smokers are driven by single gene alterations (i.e. EGFR, ALK)
Your second question is also interesting. For a nonsmoker to get to 25% lung cancer risk, I guess he/she would have to live past 80, which few people do.
Your statement that we all probably get cancer eventually is mostly true - as we age there is an accumulation of mutations which eventually should cause cancer. Some super-elderly people in their 90s and 100s may have more senescent cells than others, and paradoxically lower their risk of new cancer later in life.
I wouldn't have my brain frozen unless we have a better understanding of the fundamental stuff that makes up consciousness. The mind is more than the neurons and synapses. Yes it's a necessary condition to have a brain but consider the following anecdotes:
1. Under anesthesia, the neurons within the brain are fully connected and have access to blood and other resources of the body, yet it is not functioning at all. No pain, respiratory drive, no memory
2. Patients with large parts of their brains removed, or large parts of their brains injured by stroke, can recover fully to a point that is functionally indistinguishable from their previous intact state.
1. The neurons are simply not firing /exchanging neurotransmitters.
2. That’s not true. They might look they have recovered but passing a standard cognitive test and the artifice will go away. The brain is notoriously bad at healing itself because mammals and especially humans don’t produce new neurons after teenage apart from very restricted areas (SVZ, stratium, which are still controversial btw).
Benefits - Can target tumor noninvasively with active imaging. No damage of nearby blood vessels.
Cons - Sound waves can only penetrate a few centimeters into the body. Also need a liquid medium to travel, ie. Can't target brain tumors because of the skull, can't target lung tumors due to presence of air.
> Cons - Sound waves can only penetrate a few centimeters into the body.
For an Air -> flesh medium interface. I'd be very surprised if they didn't couple this to gel to have gel -> flesh interface for what is done with ultrasonography (e.g. imaging for pregnancy) and the article mentions that they do ultrasonography prior to make sure they know where to aim the energy so that would make sense.
That's not accurate at all. A lot of tumors cannot be safely cut out or else they'd just cut out all tumors. Many climb around arteries and other critical areas.
Debulking most of the time isn't an option so if you can use this sound wave thing then that would be a game changer.
I too am calling bullshit, although for different reasons. Take a look at Figure 3A. Is there really that big of a difference between THC and CBD treated vs. not treated images? To me, a seeing person with eyes, no.
They didn't claim that there was a statistical difference in 3A. It's with senescent cells at the 48 hour time-point when combined with hydrogen peroxide, that they saw the biggest difference. (3C, on the right)
They weren't trying to get results, only giving a low dose to verify acceptable side effects. Wait for the larger doses to render judgement on clinical results of the treatment modality itself.
I completely agree with you. If there was even one response I would be much more optimistic. Since there is no clinical signal this is at best a proof of concept and safety.
> Although the efficacy of the treatment was low, the researchers used relatively small doses of T cells to establish the safety of the approach, says Ribas. “We just need to hit it stronger the next time,” he says.
