Home
http://www.wired.com/2009/05/cancercompromise/
For all the weapons deployed in the war on cancer, from chemicals to radiation to nanotechnology, the underlying strategy has remained the same: Detect and destroy, with no compromise given to the killer. But Robert Gatenby wants to strike a peace.
A mathematical oncologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Gatenby is part of a new generation of researchers who conceive of cancer as a dynamic, evolutionary system. According to his models, trying to wipe cancer out altogether actually makes it stronger by helping drug-resistant cells flourish. Rather than fighting cancer by trying to eradicate its every last cell, he suggests doctors might fare better by intentionally keeping tumors in a long-term stalemate.
It’s an unorthodox notion. But nearly 40 years after Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, orthodox approaches have produced little in the way of treatment. Cancer death rates have fallen by 20 percent in the last 15 years, but experts say that much of the improvement comes from lifestyle changes, especially drops in smoking, and early detection. Most new cancer drugs provide just a few extra weeks or months of life — a welcome delay, but all too brief.
“It’s hard to convince doctors or patients not to give the maximum dose of chemotherapy and kill as many cells as possible, because that seems like the right thing to do. But the models suggest that it’s the wrong thing to do,” said Gatenby. “The models suggests that we have to go against what’s intuitive.”
Gatenby’s models of long-term cancer stability are scheduled to be published next week in Cancer Research, and he describes his approach in an essay published Wednesday in Nature. He spoke to to Wired.com about a different approach to cancer.
(More of the interview on the link)
For all the weapons deployed in the war on cancer, from chemicals to radiation to nanotechnology, the underlying strategy has remained the same: Detect and destroy, with no compromise given to the killer. But Robert Gatenby wants to strike a peace.
A mathematical oncologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Gatenby is part of a new generation of researchers who conceive of cancer as a dynamic, evolutionary system. According to his models, trying to wipe cancer out altogether actually makes it stronger by helping drug-resistant cells flourish. Rather than fighting cancer by trying to eradicate its every last cell, he suggests doctors might fare better by intentionally keeping tumors in a long-term stalemate.
It’s an unorthodox notion. But nearly 40 years after Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, orthodox approaches have produced little in the way of treatment. Cancer death rates have fallen by 20 percent in the last 15 years, but experts say that much of the improvement comes from lifestyle changes, especially drops in smoking, and early detection. Most new cancer drugs provide just a few extra weeks or months of life — a welcome delay, but all too brief.
“It’s hard to convince doctors or patients not to give the maximum dose of chemotherapy and kill as many cells as possible, because that seems like the right thing to do. But the models suggest that it’s the wrong thing to do,” said Gatenby. “The models suggests that we have to go against what’s intuitive.”
Gatenby’s models of long-term cancer stability are scheduled to be published next week in Cancer Research, and he describes his approach in an essay published Wednesday in Nature. He spoke to to Wired.com about a different approach to cancer.
(More of the interview on the link)
