Live data from Hacker News

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

newatlas.com

81–90 of 125 posts

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

#81

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

>The problem is there is no money in that for big pharma

I wish there was a chrome extension that could detect such cliches on discussion platforms and automatically hide the entire thread.

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

#82
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ultrasoun…

You can get temperature readings from a higher-frequency transducer. My old lab worked with HIFU and the transducer I used was a combination 1MHz and 20MHz conical transducer, where the inner high-frequency one was used for non-invasive temperature measurement. You get comparable results to implantable thermocouples.

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

#83
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…

If elevated PSA is the only real sign of cancer, then, depending on his age, it's entirely possible your family member could die _with_ prostate cancer rather than _of_ prostate cancer. According to https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-surviv..., 2/3 of "very elderly" men who died of things other than prostate cancer had undiagnosed prostate cancer on autopsy. And, if the cancer is localized, the 5 year survival rate is nearly 100% (same link).

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

#84

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.

The first thing I always think about with ultrasound is how it's used to break up kidney stones. Is there a danger here of breaking up the tumour and thereby allowing cancer cells to spread through the body more easily?

I believe it is using heat (from ultrasound oscillation) to burn them. Cells can't survive the heat.

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

#85
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you have your teeth removed?

Mouth/neck cancer. 35 treatments of radiation. It has been a year and my gums are still destroyed. My teeth were not in the best shape going into this. But the risk was high that the radiation would kill my teeth and need to be removed anyway. The problem here is that I was going to be monumentally fucked from the radiation/chemo and they weren't sure my body could handle pulling teeth if they died. And dead teeth ju…

Wow, that's terrible.

Wishing you the best in your recovery and life :)

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

#86
The headlines don't reflect the results reported in the abstract. In particular, a erectile dysfunction rate of 25% at one year is very high. Furthermore, the criteria for cancer oblation seems to be PSA decrease of 75%, which was achieved in 96% of patients. However, one would generally expect a much larger reduction in PSA if the cancer were truly oblated.

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm and sing the praises of HiFu. Went to China so my spouse could have a procedure done in 2014. HiFu took 1-2 hours and my wife walked away from the procedure. She was hiking the next day. Tumor was shrinking almost immediately. The alternatives we had were surgery that would have removed part of her abs or weekly treatments of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoxifen Neither of which was great. Now we had t…

For which cancers does this procedure work (assuming your wife didn't have prostate cancer)? I understand 25 k USD feels reasonable if it saves your life without surgery and it's complications, but it steep for "just ultrasound". Do you know why it was that expensive?

MRI is probably the major technical cost. It's fairly high touch and the magnets wear out, so the capital cost of each test is fairly real. That and the professional component. Interventional radiologists are very much in the consultant/handyman/engineer business of "Treatment: $1; knowing where to put it: $9999"

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

#89
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lots wouldn't be comfortable, but there's a few who'd likely be ok with it. Urethral+anal electric stimulation is a relatively known kink. There's no way to keep still in that situation though, so I'd expect anaesthesia would be necessary for that.
Post reply on HN