Posted on 01/17/2007 6:33:23 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers.
But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.
In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.
"You typically get this eureka type of feeling. It's the most exciting thing a scientist can get," Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta department of medicine and a key study author, told CTV News.
The study was published Tuesday in the journal Cancer Cell.
The molecule appears to repair the damage that cancer cells cause to mitochondria, the units that convert food into energy.
"Cancer cells actively suppress their mitochondria, which alters their metabolism, and this appears to offer cancer cells a significant advantage in growth compared to normal cells, as well as protection from many standard chemotherapies," Michelakis said in a written statement.
As mitochondria regulate cell death, cancer cells can resist being killed off.
For years, DCA -- or dichloroacetate -- has been used to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases.
Until recently, researchers believed damage to mitochondria in cancer cells was permanent.
But Michelakis questioned this theory and began testing DCA, which activates a critical enzyme, as a way to "revive" cancer-affected mitochondria.
He says one of the most exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer because they all suppress mitochondrial function.
Therefore, DCA can primarily affect the cancer cells without affecting the normal ones.
Researchers also say DCA may prove to be effective because it is a small compound, thus easily absorbed in the body.
After oral intake, it can reach areas in the body that other drugs cannot, making it possible to treat cancer of the brain, for example.
In addition, because DCA has been used in both healthy people and ailing patients with mitochondrial diseases, researchers know it is a relatively non-toxic molecule that can be immediately tested in patients with cancer.
The compound, which is sold both as powder and as a liquid, is widely available at chemistry stores.
But because it's not patented or owned by any drug firm, it would be an inexpensive drug to administer. And researchers may have a difficult time finding money for further research.
Dr. Dario Altieri, of the University of Massachusetts, said the drug is exactly what doctors need because it could limit side-effects for patients. But there are "market considerations" that drug companies would have to take into account.
Michelakis remains hopeful he will be able to secure funding for further research.
"We hope we can attract the interest of universities here in Canada and in the United States," said Michelakis.
With a report from CTV's Avis Favaro and Elizabeth St. Philip
bump
I'm hopeful, but skeptical.............
It'll never get off the ground because course drug companies want to own a drug so they can charge the moon for it.
bump
Governments at various levels seem to be bending over backwards to fund embryonic stem cell research despite little evidence of utility.
I don't advocate government funding of research, but if its going to happen, this cancer treatment seems like a better use for it.
This seems to me (full disclosure: retired former R&D scientist in a large proprietary pharmaceutical company) a great opportunity for one or more "generic" drug companies to show their worth since they supposedly thrive on selling off-patent drugs.
This is the sort of research foundations should be funding. What billionaire wouldn't want the publicity of helping to fund a cheap treatment for cancer?
They will alter the chemical slightly, claiming it increases potency or solubility, patent it and then make billions. Assuming, of course, there is something to this.
A good example: Prilosec=Omeprazole, Merek was making 11 million/day on it when the patent was to expire. They brought out Nexium=Esomeprazole and claimed it to be better. Omeprazole was the first in the class, little was known about it. Originally it was approved for 20mg/day, no more than 6 weeks. It was learned to be realatively safe over time. Nexium has a recommended dose of 40mg/day, it should work better. Trust me, drug companies know how to work the system.
possible ping
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to take a drug from the labratory to the market? Would you invest in any project or financial instrument if you were offered no return?
I would not be so skeptical. Drug companies could use it in an "additive" formulation. DCA plus X plus Y and patent.
Sorry, chemicals already being used for treatments, so there is clearly already some sort of medical market for it....
Market or no, you get cancer, and you know about this chemical, you are going to take it, whether Bayer or Bristol or whoever wants to sell it to you or not.
Sorry, chemicals already being used for treatments, so there is clearly already some sort of medical market for it....
Market or no, you get cancer, and you know about this chemical, you are going to take it, whether Bayer or Bristol or whoever wants to sell it to you or not.
Ditto to rant!
"Prescriptions" should be recommndations, and you should not need them. Many of our prescription drugs are otc (over-the-counter) in Canada and part of Europe. Don't see their populations dropping like flies.
Assuming a 15% cost of capital it cost approximately $1/2 billion. see http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/howmuch.html
The figure you cite is somewhat on the low side, but my response was based on the uninformed opinion to someone who should be posting at the Democratic Underground.
I'm not sure I'd go that far because of the problem of addiction. Addiction can be considered a market failure. The drug causes people to make a different choice than they otherwise would have made.
When I was recovering from surgery last year, I was glad to have a physician who managed my pain medication. He first gave me strong stuff. He then gave me prescriptions for weaker and weaker stuff. I realized how easy it would have been to get hooked if my physician wasn't being careful. Given how many people get addicted to painkillers now, how many more would get addicted if we didn't have any controls?
The solution is not to get rid of the prescription system, but to make it a lot more flexible. People should be able to make their own choices about risk versus reward. If people want to get something that hasn't gone through all phases of testing, they should be allowed to take that chance.
Whenever there is a discussion of legalizing medication for over the counter there is always someone that brings up narcotics. My response is.. Keep these illegal and requiring a prescription. Now can we get on with legalizing the rest as OTC?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.