Is this cure for cancer possible?

[Love_Rhombus]

Here it says that a cheap, safe cure for cancer is possible. I ask the great brains to tell me if this be true.

[Bear_Nenno]

@Love Rhombus

Here it says that a cheap, safe cure for cancer is possible. I ask the great brains to tell me if this be true.

Initially I would think that if it were true, then the SDMB would not be the first place I’d hear about it. I figure I would have heard about this on every News Channel and Radio Show that exists. Everyday since the suggestion was first made.
This would be one of the very greatest medical discoveries of all time. Yet, I’ve never heard about it.

Would love to hear that it’s true, though.

[Canadjun]

I’m not an oncologist, but DCA Research Information and the referenced Cancer Cell (pdf) article certainly look legit to me!

[Squink]

It may be true in some situations, or not.
We don’t have the information to determine what it’ll do in most circumstances.

Dichloroacetic acid

The pharmacology of dichloroacetate. (1989, before this new report)

Mode of action of liver tumor induction by trichloroethylene and its metabolites, trichloroacetate and dichloroacetate. (2000)

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Also being discussed here. Short version: it’s possible, but only time–and human trials on actual cancer patients–will tell.

Sorry, there isn’t any “yes” or “no” answer for this, not until more research has been done. Sure, it’s possible, yes, but it’s also possible for reusable space vehicles to take tourists to the moon and back for dirty lunar weekends. “Possible” doesn’t really signify at this point to anyone other than New Scientist.

[WhyNot]

Holy shit! I predict a lot of off-label use of the drug before testing is even complete. Oncologists’ phones must be ringing off the hook right now.

[ryobserver]

The key word is “possible”. It’s certainly worth investigating. And it should rightly be investigated now, without waiting for drug companies to develop versions of the drug they can patent.

But let’s not get excited. First, many things that work in cell cultures or animal models don’t work, or don’t work as well, in actual humans. (Often the problem in humans is that the drug, while it may be effective, has unendurable side effects. One hopeful sign with DCA is that it’s already in use, and its side effects are well known and appear reasonable, at least at current dosage levels.) Second, if it does work, and if it’s possible for cancer cells to develop resistance to it, they will.

So, it’s true that there’s a possible cure, but not true that there’s an actual cure.

[Squink]

@WhyNot

Holy shit! I predict a lot of off-label use of the drug before testing is even complete.

Easy to synthesize too: DICHLOROACETIC ACID

[Chronos]

Wait, dichloroacetic acid? That would be just vinegar, but with a couple of hydrogens replaced by chlorines? That sounds way too simple for a miracle cure.

Which is, of course, great news, if it does in fact work.

[Squink]

@Chronos

Wait, dichloroacetic acid? That would be just vinegar, but with a couple of hydrogens replaced by chlorines?

That’s the stuff!
It’s an interesting little bugger:

Dichloroacetate (DCA) exerts multiple effects on pathways of intermediary metabolism. It stimulates peripheral glucose utilization and inhibits gluconeogeneis, thereby reducing hyperglycemia in animals and humans with diabetes mellitus. It inhibits lipogenesis and cholesterolgenesis, thereby decreasing circulating lipid and lipoprotein levels in short-term studies in patients…

(from my pharmacology link)

[Askance]

There’s a response letter in this week’s New Scientist, which says in part:

… DCA had never been tested in humans, only in cell lines and experimental animals, and … it [is] totally unavailable to today’s patients.

It should also be pointed out that DCA is a by-product of the water chlorination process and [is] a well-known environmental pollutant. It has been shown to be carcinogenic in rodent models and is also genotoxic, hepatotoxic and teratogenic in animals, all at doses well below what would seemingly be necessary to achieve a therapeutic effect in cancer patients.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

DCA had never been tested in humans, only in cell lines and experimental animals, and … it [is] totally unavailable to today’s patients.

It should also be pointed out that DCA is a by-product of the water chlorination process and [is] a well-known environmental pollutant. It has been shown to be carcinogenic in rodent models and is also genotoxic, hepatotoxic and teratogenic in animals, all at doses well below what would seemingly be necessary to achieve a therapeutic effect in cancer patients.

Huh? I think you’d need to read the whole letter. Of course DCA has been tested in humans. It’s been used in humans for years. Here’s an article which discusses its safety. I hardly think the U of A would allow its researchers to make such claims about DCA if it was all the evil things that letter claims. I imagine there’ll be many letters refuting that one fairly shortly.

[threemae]

Well, I think one could safely clasify this paper as exciting.

Of course it stands that it would be a bad idea to go out and grab this compound right now, ut DCA could prove to be an extremely important chemotherapy agent in the coming years. The authors of the paper have pretty conclusively shown that one of the “hallmarks” of some cancer cells: depending upon glycolytic metabolism compared to normal metabolism, is reversible, and this change seems to make cancer-cells more capable of restricting their own growth by killing themselves.

I’d suggest that everyone check out page 11 of the linked PDF:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/cancer_cell.pdf

The drug itself appears relatively safe, certainly not instant death in a bottle. It is available to patients and has been the subject of other recent studies for some other metabolic disorders:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/1519

I don’t have access to this paper so I have no idea about the dosages used. The Cell authors used 50-100 mg/kg, which they claim to be similar concentrations to the ones used in the lactic acidosis study.

So, yes, IMHO, this is worthy of a fair amount of buzz. Doubtless, clinical trials will commence in the near future.