Why there is no cure for cancer on the market, Part I – written in collaboration with oncologist
In this post, I will present you the timeline of discoveries made in cancer research and try to explain you the logic behind the regular scientific work and try to debunk some myths and misconceptions.
I’m M.Sc. in molecular biology and I used the help from my friend, Ph.D. in the field of cancer research since 2012. For all my claims, you will find the references with the links to solid scientific publications.
If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask me in the comment section. We will answer you as soon as possible.
Let's start with the timeline:
Approximately 1.700.000 years ago
The oldest case of cancer (osteosarcoma to be more precise) is known from the fossil records from South Africa. Thus, the cancer is not modern disease. Source
Image from Nat. Geo.
Approximately 5.000 years ago
The earliest known description of cancer, found in an Egyptian textbook known as the Edwin Smith Papyrus. The paper describes 8 cases of breast cancer and the surgical treatment done with the ”fire drill” but without success. There is no ancient treatment, as least it was not known to Egyptians. If you know the hieroglyphs, you could read the text here. I’m kidding, there is an English version as well.
Approximately 2.400 – 2.150 years ago
Hippocrates uses the word carcinos for the first time. And the Galen uses the word oncos (swelling) to describe the tumors.
Modern times
1775, Percivall Pott, Squamous Cell Carcinoma
For the first time in history we understood that the environmental factors (chimney soot) are related to the higher incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the scrotum. Source
1863, Rudolph Virchow, Leukemia
Rudolph Virchow has found white blood cells (leukocytes) in cancerous tissue, and made the first connection between inflammation and cancer. He also gave the name to the disease, “leukemia”. Source
1882, William Halsted, Mastectomy
Even after 3.000 years there was no clear progress, but at least we started to fight back. Source
1886, Hilário de Gouvêa, Cancer can be inherent
This is the remarkable discovery for its time, because we didn’t knew much about the inheritance at all and yet, Hilário de Gouvêa have found that the retinoblastoma could be inherited from the father to the son. Source
Quick recap
Since the beginning of the time until XX century, people got cancers and tried to treat them but without success. Good thing is that we got the basics of the origin of cancers and we realized that it has some relations with the genetics and not some parasite, fungus or whatever.
1902, Theodor Boveri, Tumor begins as the single cell
Yet another great achievement in the understanding of the origin of cancer. Source
1903, S.W. Goldberg and Efim London , Victory, Use of Radium
Radium was used to treat two patients with basal cell carcinoma of the skin. Source
1909, Paul Ehrlich, cancer and immunity
The hypothesis that the immune system could suppress the formation of cancer. Source
1911 – 1915, animal models
In 1911, Peyton Rous discovered a virus that causes cancer in chickens (Rous sarcoma virus). Source
And in 1915, Katsusaburo Yamagiwa and Koichi Ichakawa induced the cancer in rabbits by exposing them to tar. Source
In conclusion, something is changing the genetic material, either the virus or the chemical.
1928, Pap Smear Test, Prevention!
George Papanicolaou discovered that cervical cancer will arise if the specific cells are present in the smear. Source
1937, Sir Geoffrey Keynes, surgery + Radiation, Another Victory
Sir Geoffrey Keynes, surgery have proposed new method of treatment of breast cancer, with breast-sparing surgery followed by radiation therapy. After the surgical removal of the tumor, long needles of radium were inserted throughout the affected breast and near the adjacent axillary lymph nodes.Source
In part Two, we will see the progress in treatment after the WWII.
Besides the mentioned sources, I used this source as the general guide for the progress in research.
Thank you for the reading and thanks for all the people who use #steemstem, source of great articles
Thank you very much for the support! I really appreciate your confidence and I can promise you more quality content.
Here is the link for Part II
I think, in addition to the information given in the post, an answer to why there is no cure, singular, to cancer is that cancer is not a single disease but a group of many complex diseases which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to make a single drug cure all of these very different ailments.
One question that I do have though is that radiation was found to cause genetic mutations in 1927 which could be used to directly question its potential to cause cancer. My question from this is if there is a reason you are leaving this fact out? I mean I understand that there are vary large quantities of successes when it comes to oncological research, especially in the time frame given, and that you would not be able to put all of them. It was just a curiosity, otherwise the post was a good read.
Today I will write about the modern ages, from WWII until 2000's with the focus on the development of molecular biology methods as well. Considering the radium, until recently, the logic was "wack them all".
Cell cultures became popular somewhere between 1940 and 1950 thus at the time it was easier to work with the whole animals.
Plus we should keep in mind that the radium and the radioactivity at that time was a bit "hype".
I tried to find when the MTT (cytotoxicity) test was discovered but it came after radioactive-based assays, thus it also must be after WWII. Probably they intentionally tried with something that kills all the cells. And they tried to "localize" the effect by using those needles.
Part II will be much more interesting.
Thanks for support! :)
With your first entry in the timeline, you are of course assuming that the age of 1.7 million years is accurate. In any case, I routinely see doctors misdiagnose simple conditions in people that are still alive, and here you are telling me that doctors can diagnose cancer from 1.7 million years past, from an old chunk of bone. Where do these magicians live? I'd like to see them next time I feel ill.
1.7 plus or minus 0.1 million years meaning the uncertainty of the age is roughly 100,000 years (which is pretty accurate) and there are multiple way to determine the age and each of them, when used together, can produce a pretty accurate estimate. As for diagnosing issues, it is a lot easier to diagnose things when you are allowed to use destructive testing (generally considered a no-no on living patients) which is why we can tell if someone was misdiagnosed after an autopsy because they can do those destructive tests. So I do not think you truly want to go see them when you are feeling ill 😂
Thanks for your question. And here are the answers:
About the age and the results in general. It is a common practice to have the "last significant digit". For example, if I am 187 cm tall, it means 187 +- 1 cm or in other words 186 - 188. In case of practical use, this error is considered reasonable. If it's written 187.0 cm it usually means 187.0 +- 0.1 cm. In this case, the bones are dated to 1.6 - 1.800.000 years. How many years exactly - we don't know because those are the limits of our measurements.
If you go to the source article, you will find this sentence in the very first paragraph: The reported incidence of neoplastic disease in the extinct human lineage is rare. Only a few confirmed cases
of Middle or Later Pleistocene dates (780 000 to 120 000 years old) have been reported. [References 1 and 2].
In other words, this is rare to find but not unique
XTH225ST µXCT system, at an energy potential of 100 kV and resolution
of 17 microns. Reconstruction was performed by E.J.O. and P.R.Q. using
Avizo Amira 5.4 to generate both 2D orthoslice and 3D surface rendered
views
In other words XCT, common device used in diagnostics.
😍A very informative post. Great job. Keep it up! 😍
Very good job ! I missed that ... Resteemed
@originalwork