Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#51

Post by HorizonXP »

_Microft wrote: post #43
HorizonXP wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very much so. Ultrasound in medicine is very cool technology. Obviously many of us have experience with ultrasound imaging, which has revolutionized medicine in a number of ways. But we also learned that if you crank up the amplitude and frequency, you can heat the tissue. Our research group was one of several that figured out that you can use MRI-based thermometry to measure that heating, and use it as the inpu…

Would transcranial ultrasound have the problem of unwanted hotspots because of reflections and a focusing effect of the curvature of the skull? I would assume that this could only be done by scanning the head with a MRI, modelling the tissues in detail, simulating the process and then constructing a wave front from many emitters that does what one wants. Ideally all of that in real time as I guess the heating process…

Precisely. See Ultrasound attenuation coefficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation#Attenuation_coeffi...)

You'll note that it's measured in dB/(MHz-cm), and that soft tissue is 0.5, while bone is 6.9. Just like light, anytime ultrasound hits an interface, there are reflections and refractions. Furthermore, since bone attenuates ultrasound so much, you have to increase your amplitude greatly (and even more so with higher frequencies) in order to get enough thermal energy to be deposited at your target. If you don't do it right, you can create dangerous hotspots at the bone-tissue interface, and you can also deposit energy where you didn't intend to. Given that ultrasound therapy intends to be more precise than other techniques, you're kind of defeating the purpose!

Edit: in response to your edit, yes that's exactly what they do. They create an array of transmitters to be able to precisely target various locations within the skull. It wasn't my area of research, but I'm pretty sure they used them to create interference patterns as well, so many emitters were activated to work in concert to target one area.

See this image: https://sunnybrook.ca/uploads/1/_research/about/fus/3-ultras...

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#52

Post by fortran77 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #19
post_break wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is death right? So give me some pills, knock me out, and go to town.

Prostate cancer is rarely lethal since it develops so slowly, and is often left untreated. That said, many cases are life threatening.

My father died from metastasized prostate cancer.

While statistically your statement may be true (in that a large number of people die of something else before the prostate cancer kills them) it's still a lethal cancer that kills more men each year than breast cancer kills women.

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#53

Post by johnpowell »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #2

>The minimally invasive technology involves a rod that enters the prostate gland via the urethra Ouch.

I went 40 years without getting a flu shot because I was terrified of needles. And I mean I would look away if someone was getting a shot on tv. Absolutely terrified of needles.

A little over a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I have had all my teeth removed, had a feeding tube (PEG) installed, chemo, liver biopsy, and more random horrible shit. I went from terrified of needles to getting more of them than I can count.

You adjust.

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#54

Post by HorizonXP »

Beltiras wrote: post #44
HorizonXP wrote: post #18

I did my Masters' thesis with the group that invented and developed this in Toronto. I know some of the co-authors on the paper personally since we worked together. AMA.

Is there a plan for following up in 5 years?

I think they're following up with these patients yearly. It's the same post-operative care procedure they do with prostatetectomy patients, except they're probably being more thorough here because they have something to prove.

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#55

Post by HorizonXP »

hristov wrote: post #48
mooreed wrote: post #34

As someone whose family member recently just received a test showing elevated PSA levels (Prostate Cancer indicator); this article is a very real blessing. # Baseline issues with prostate cancer that suck. 1. Don't treat a benign version and possibly live with trouble urinating and follow on problems from that. 2. Don't treat a malignant version and die 3. Treat it and potentially be impotent 4. Treat it and end up w…

By the way, your family member is probably aware of this but there is another ultrasound treatment option for prostate cancer that is completely non-invasive. It is called hifu. https://www.hifu-prostate.com/ Hifu sends ultrasound from a curved emitter from outside the body in such a manner that the ultrasound ray will be focused on the treatment area. Thus, while you have ultrasound going through your body, only in…

Definitely agree that you should look into HIFU.

HIFU is "competing" with transurethral focused ultrasound (TUS). HIFU works, but has its limitations. Given that it's transrectal, it will not be able to deposit ultrasound energy only into the prostate; the rectum gets hit too. Furthermore, there's no temperature feedback during the procedure; the doctor will send ultrasound energy to the target area and use ultrasound imaging to gauge the efficacy.

It's a decent alternative, but it will never be as good as TUS at targeting just due to their inherent differences. But HIFU is available today, while TUS is not, and HIFU might be "good enough" for most people that it is more commercially successful.

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#56

Post by red9350 »

johnpowell wrote: post #53
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #2

>The minimally invasive technology involves a rod that enters the prostate gland via the urethra Ouch.

I went 40 years without getting a flu shot because I was terrified of needles. And I mean I would look away if someone was getting a shot on tv. Absolutely terrified of needles. A little over a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I have had all my teeth removed, had a feeding tube (PEG) installed, chemo, liver biopsy, and more random horrible shit. I went from terrified of needles to getting more of them than I can…

Why did you have your teeth removed?

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#57

Post by beering »

_Microft wrote: post #43
HorizonXP wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very much so. Ultrasound in medicine is very cool technology. Obviously many of us have experience with ultrasound imaging, which has revolutionized medicine in a number of ways. But we also learned that if you crank up the amplitude and frequency, you can heat the tissue. Our research group was one of several that figured out that you can use MRI-based thermometry to measure that heating, and use it as the inpu…

Would transcranial ultrasound have the problem of unwanted hotspots because of reflections and a focusing effect of the curvature of the skull? I would assume that this could only be done by scanning the head with a MRI, modelling the tissues in detail, simulating the process and then constructing a wave front from many emitters that does what one wants. Ideally all of that in real time as I guess the heating process…

Here's an application of ultrasound towards essential tremors that is already being used on people! https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-11-20/...

Transcranial ultrasound + monitoring via MRI. Requires a rock-solid transmitter clamped on the skull.

Re: Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study

#58

Post by pstuart »

always_swapping wrote: post #36
pstuart wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic, but if it could shrink the prostrate (to treat BPH) with similar technology that would be awesome. And after a quick search it looks like there's some movement there: https://fusfoundation.org/diseases-and-conditions/urological... @HorizonXP, any thoughts on this and it's potential to go mainstream? Asking for a friend...

It seems that 29 centers in the US do this type of FUS treatment commercially as listed on the FUSF website. Any focused ultrasound tech has potential to gain wide acceptance but it is mostly the imaging component (MRI guided in most cases) that hold it back due to costs and availability.

Thanks, I skimmed too quickly :-). Time to do further research, you know, for a friend.
Post reply on HN