Although in this case it seems like it's just an alternative to surgery, rather than a cancer cure? Just a way of vibrating cells in a certain location to death?
Does anybody who actually understands medicine know if this is a great breakthrough or not?
As far as I know these coloring chemicals are very specific for cancer types. This means perhaps they are a cure but not for all cancer types. Or the chemicals are poisonous and typically only used on biopsies. Or they are not specific enough. I don't know. We will see whether it is THE miraculous cure. I am afraid not, but let's hope.
EDIT: let's cite:
> Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer, they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching themselves to the outside of cells.
It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, however this is a seemingly reasonably good breakthrough in treatment - being able to destroy cancerous cells without exposing the patient to further harm via targeted radiation or harsh chemo drugs (basically targeted poisoning) feels like a win.
If we can break the cells down and let the body's immune system take care of the remnants instead of having to slice someone open, huge win!
Things like the HPV vaccine which in my province saw a 90% drop in just a few years. I think everyone should get it no questions asked which maybe they don't anymore?
The Hepatitis B vaccine too since having the disease is a cause of liver cancer.
But if all else fails it's also good to have a tools to try to get rid of cancers.
"It doesn't make sense to say 'cure for cancer.' Cancer is a wide variety of disorders with different manifestations and etiology. It makes as much sense as saying 'a cure for virus'."
Here, Thomas Seyfried can explain this much better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusaU2taxow
I think once we know where cancer comes from we can be much more effective at preventing it in the first place (proper diet) and treating it after the fact. With the current progress I think at some point we should be able to prevent pretty much close to all deaths from cancer.
Obviously, people will always be dying of something so preventing a cancer will only mean we will have other challenges to face.
(Lead clinician for the melanoma multidisciplinary team at a major teaching hospital in London for what it's worth)
If you can do the same but instead of gamma rays use infrared, even if it kills indiscriminately, that should still be a net positive, don't you think?
And the main benefit here is that you can get these molecules into specific cells which in theory should allow killing cells based on some chemical characteristic.
In that sense it's an alternative to surgery.
New modern chemotherapy (anti-body drug conjugates) are also similar to how it "adheres" to cancer cells, by binding to specific cell expression. It's not re-inventing this technology, just finding a new way to leverage it. The drug will also bind to normal cells, but by directing light to a specific area the goal is to minimize damage and side effects.
It means, at worst, don't go outside or be in bright sun-lit spaces, but also, we can shine a flashlight on where the cancer is to kill it. Even if it weren't very selective (which could be adjusted with other targeting molecules), light-trigged theraputics are easy to understand the propagation of.
That is not a clickbait headline, it's very descriptive of the contents of the article. Clickbait would be like "Crazy new cancer cure will literally punch cancer cells to death! You won't believe it!"
This attribute of the infrared light is key to treating cancer anywhere in the human body with this method. As long as the patient is not obese, I assume 10 centimeters of penetration depth are enough to reach any part of the body.
Penetration depth and the precision of the desired effect is something that is very important in radiation therapy as well. With radiation therapy you basically shoot small particles at the cancer cells but you also damage surroundings if you don't aim precisely enough. Dependig on the depth of the cancer cells inside the body, different particles are used. The amount of damage the particles deal depends on physical effects. Photons deal most of the damage on the surface. More heavy particles like alpha particles deal most of the damage once they are slowed down inside the body. (See Bragg peak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_peak ).
I wonder if this is affected by tissue types, e.g. bone.
> Light-induced with IR light (IR penetrates tissue much better than visible/UV and it's cheaper than microwaves/RF)
> can rupture melanoma cells’ membrane you can cook cancer to death, surprise. The big deal is not cooking everything else, ~~here accomplished with a targeted sensitizer dye that localizes to just those cells~~ Nope, no targeting at all. The advance here is just a new class of IR absorbing dyes that have some cool chemical properties that lend themselves particularly well to disrupting lipid membranes. The reason it's billed as a cancer treatment is because the authors get funding from NIH not NSF, more or less
Prontosil was a pre-penicillin antibacterial based on azo dyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prontosil#History
Brilliant blue, a food coloring, was found to help repair spinal injuries https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719612/
