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

71–80 of 125 posts

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

#71

Post by always_swapping »

pstuart wrote: post #58
always_swapping wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Best of luck for your friend. I've first hand witnessed FUS in neurological applications and believe it is a game-changer.

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

#72

Post by cxxgvcx »

HorizonXP wrote: post #37
radicalbyte wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any chance that these techniques could be equally effective for other cancers? For example Liver, Kidney, Lung cancers?

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…

For a lung cancer patient could you:

Put them in a coma

Lower their T to significantly decrease the matabolism

Fill their lungs with a liquid air solution (it’s a perfluorinate liquid that absorbs lots of O2. It works, but sucks)

Since CO2 isn’t soluble in fluorinated liquids. Intravenously remove the CO2 (hard, but you’ve lowered the metabolism rate)

Slowly circulate the fluid

Starts blasting away at the tumors.

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

#73

Post by 1_over_n »

BurningFrog wrote: post #68
fortran77 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is 100% true, and I could have made that clearer. Another reason it's left untreated is that the surgery side effects are fairly serious.

This is a great point. There is a good book which i think features a statistical perspective on screening in relation to dying with prostate cancer vs dying from prostate cancer. This book is a great read and i would advise anyone who is interested in health issues to get an intuition of "risk".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-Decisions/dp/0...

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

#74

Post by bduerst »

brain5ide wrote: post #38
bduerst wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we not spread these pseudoscience lies on HN? Steve Jobs died in part because he believed he could cure his pancreatic cancer with herbal remedies and diet, which you're espousing.

Well, also because the mortality rate of pancreatic cancer is pretty damn high. And it's pretty damn fast. Source? Family. The same month as Steve.

My condolences. Steve Jobs had a neuroendocrine tumor though, which is much slower growing than the other types of pancreatic cancer and more treatable if caught early (which it was).

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

#75

Post by adventured »

mrtksn wrote: post #35
Dolores12 wrote: post #15

This is good video[0] explaining how it works. Chosen resonating waves may destroy bridges, not to mention some cell membrane. The problem is there is no money in that for big pharma & co. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0_kazbb_U

I always approach these statements with skepticism. Okay, let’s say that there’s no money for the big pharma, what about governments with socialized health care? What about rich people and their loved ones who suffer from cancer? The “not much money in this” aspect seems believable only when the condition is a rare one but cancer is a huge unsolved issue for everyone, including rich people and politicians. How can th…

Further to that point, there is radically more money in big healthcare than there is in big pharma. In the US big healthcare is 8x-10x larger than big pharma.

There is a lot of money to be made by big healthcare in any procedure in the US, including one as described by the article. Hospitals, admin, doctors, nurses, techs, medtech, they'll all be thrilled to ring the cash register instead of big pharma.

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

#77

Post by clort »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #2

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

I had a recurrent kidney infection a few years ago, and they inserted a camera up into my bladder this way to have a look. It really wasn't that bad but I did notice that when the doctor was getting ready, the nurse subtly became very close at my other side in a very casual manner and I suspect she was ready to restrain me. I did wonder how often the doctor got a black eye for his trouble..

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

#78

Post by Tharkun »

Beltiras wrote: post #31
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.

How much heat are we talking about? General anesthetic amount or local enough?

Considering they're putting a rod up your urethra which will be burning you from within, and another device up your rectum, while you're in the uncomfortable confines of an MRI scanner, I suspect local might not be something most people would be comfortable with.
Post reply on HN