NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks for your detailed explanation. Yes it did answer, mostly.

Magnetic Resonance is expected to be conflicting.

After all, the two are merged into a single word - electromagnetic. In the presence of 1, the other will be present. So it will obviously interfere.

As for Computed Tomography, I am more concerned with it than traditional x-rays.

It was reported to be equivalent to "74 mammograms or 442 chest x-rays". You know which thread I'm referencing, you even replied to it.

Cancer from CT Screenings?

As for ultrasound, this is the most promising to me, see this news from aug. 2008

Physicists Develop Ultrasound Alternative To Mammograms

There you have it, an ultrasound alternative to mammograms, without radiation. The accuracy is 5 milimeters in diameter.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


G'day Zosynspiracy

Ok then.....

Thank you for dropping in to the thread.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by jjjtir


G'day jjjtir

You have raised some interesting points there.

I really must get to work now, but Ill address your points in detail tonight

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks so much for your reply Maybe...maybe not. I've been putting off the surgery because right now the acoustic neuroma (tumor on the acoustic nerve) seems to be be benign and hasn't grown much over 2 years.
The risk of losing hearing is one in three using the gamma knife and there is also danger of losing facial muscle control. If left alone it may take my hearing in one ear. So the surgery doesn't seem to be a good choice right now,
With some luck perhaps this new procedure can offer me some hope of better odds. I will definitely be keeping an ear out for more news on this. I'm a musician and the last thing I would want to lose is my hearing!
Thank you again, ATA

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I know you didn't direct your question directly to me. But if I may add a brief note...

I think the obvious deterrent is the solid skull bone.

Most cancers would be on soft tissue, but the brain is locked into the solid skull.

So the electrical electrodes can't penetrate inside.

My guess is it would need the dreaded sawing open of the skull in the awake state.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


G'day ATA

Nothwithstanding the significant aforementioned central nervous system (CNS) electrical field issues, the nerve sparing of the NanoKnife could be a "big plus" for you.

On the other hand, as per jjjtir the access could be a problem.

I guess the first people to undergo CNS oriented treatment with NanoKnife will be those who have been given 3-4 months to live based on the diagnosis of an aggressive glioma or similar.

It is strongly prefered the animal CNS trials are completed prior to in man CNS use.

Canine gliomas are a very close analog to human gliomas for purposes of testing such technology. I am of the impression the canine glioma tests will be finished in the reasonably near future.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

G'day jjjtir

Magnetic Resonance is expected to be conflicting.
After all, the two are merged into a single word - electromagnetic. In the presence of 1, the other will be present. So it will obviously interfere.

There is also a basic problem in that any metallic equipment will be magnetically "sucked" into the magnet, including the NanoKnife, the U/S scanner, etc....like this complete ICU bed was sucked into this magnet.....!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6da3c3c701a9.jpg[/atsimg]

As for Computed Tomography, I am more concerned with it than traditional x-rays. It was reported to be equivalent to "74 mammograms or 442 chest x-rays". You know which thread I'm referencing, you even replied to it.

In the context of the comparative radiation exposure between radiation therapy & a diagnostic CT, the diagnostic CT exposure is so low as to be inconsequential. Also, the diagnostic CT exposure is not as much as you might expect, because of the specific area that is being scanned.

As for ultrasound, this is the most promising to me, see this news from aug. 2008. There you have it, an ultrasound alternative to mammograms, without radiation. The accuracy is 5 milimeters in diameter.

The 5 mm resolution figure for breast U/S is incorrect. It is very easy to resolve well below 0.2 mm on tissue phantoms, with a corresponding potential resolution in breast tissue not withstanding the usual breast imaging complexities inherent in every examination.

Even so, it is highly unlikely that breast U/S can ever be used for screening, thereby replacing mammography because that breast U/S resolution is still nowhere near good enough for that. It is also the case that breast U/S cannot properly image microcalcifications, whilst mammography can.

In my opinion, the "holy grail" for breast imaging is the use of a monochromatic x-ray system to produce phase contrast imaging of the breast. By doing this you can obtain hundreds, if not thousands of times more information using more than 100 times less radiation.

Such an x-ray beam could also (theoretically) be used for an extremely low radiation therapy technique called Auger cascade therapy.

Unfortunately, as yet this can only be done with a medical beamline on a synchrotron.....which is a machine that is hundreds of meters in diameter & costs more than 1 billion dollars.....hardly practical!

There are projects afoot to produce such a monochromatic x-ray beam using a miniaturised device that operates on a principle called inverse compton scattering. Unfortunately, nobody can get one working properly as yet.

I hope this info is interesting.....I find it a fascinating area.

Kind regards

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

G'day

So as not to distract this thread from the cancer treatment aspects of NanoKnife.....

As per my earlier post, I have started another thread regarding the cardiac application of this technology, wherein it is used to prevent coronary artery blockage.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please feel free to continue with the cancer treatment aspects of NanoKnife in this thread, if you are interested in doing so.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


So that news report was reporting outdated technology for the time in 2008?

Or in just 2 years the resolution advanced so fast and improved to 0.2 milimeter?

-

About your microcalcifications point, I was under the impression ultrasound could deal with calcium effectively?

Does it not break kidney stones, largely composed of calcium?

would it not destroy these calcifications?

-

As for the monochromatic x-ray, what is the point of reference for the 100-fold decrease in radiation?

I mean, it could be from a CT point of ref., and in the end still be equivalent to a xray.

From logical extrapolation of the CT radiation equivalency report, it stands in the crescent order

Xray
Mammogram
CT

[edit on 11-3-2010 by jjjtir]

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

G'day jjjtir

So that news report was reporting outdated technology for the time in 2008? Or in just 2 years the resolution advanced so fast and improved to 0.2 milimeter?

I don't understand that quote because that resolution was way out of date in 2008.

The resolution quoted by you was achievable 20 years ago.

Edit to add: I've just looked at that resolution quote again:

"So far it's been able to see almost all the cancers that are above five millimeters," says Peter Littrup, M.D., radiologist at Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, Mich.

I think they might be saying that although it can ultimately resolve below 5mm, they have not done enough patients & analysis to validate the system to resolve below 5mm.

About your microcalcifications point, I was under the impression ultrasound could deal with calcium effectively? would it not destroy these calcifications?

You are refering to completely different technologies & processes.

Diagnostic ultrasound technology cannot image microcalcifications as per mammography.

It is also magnitudes weaker than the ultrasound technology used to treat kidney stones (renal calculi).

Much more powerful therapeutic ultrasound can be used to break kidney stones (renal calculi) by 2 different methods:

1. Ultrasonic lithotripsy via the propogation of an ultrasonic wavefront through the skin, as produced by either a large, powerful transducer element (piezoelectric) array or a "spark gap" type wavefront generator

2. A contact method wherein a shaft of an instrument is vibrated against the renal calculi.

These methods are not related to ultrasound imaging.

As for the monochromatic x-ray, what is the point of reference for the 100-fold decrease in radiation? I mean, it could be from a CT point of ref., and in the end still be equivalent to a xray.

The point of reference is that a monochromatic x-ray derived mammography image is produced with approx 100 times less radiation than a polychromatic (i.e. "normal) x-ray derived mammography image.

I might add the monochromatic image can be obtained without the very painful compression of the breast that is required in normal mammography.

I should probably start a seperate thread on this very interesting topic

Please let me know if I'm not answering your questions clearly enough.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

I tend to avoid CT, and opt in for ultrasound and MRI instead.

Whenever possible I would choose ultrasound-guided and MRI-guided procedures.

Is it possible to use either of the 2 guiding methods above for NanoKnife or is CT the only available option for now?

Originally posted by jjjtir
I tend to avoid CT, and opt in for ultrasound and MRI instead.
Whenever possible I would choose ultrasound-guided and MRI-guided procedures.
Is it possible to use either of the 2 guiding methods above for NanoKnife or is CT the only available option for now?

G'day jjjtir

Here is the picture I included in my opening post:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3bd2deb72599.jpg[/atsimg]

As I stated previously, the initial localisation & positioning appears to require CT.

However, the electrodes are then tracked via U/S as they are manipulated into position.

That is why you can see the patient in the CT scanner (which is switched off at this time), whilst the electrodes are being subsequently positioned & checked by the U/S scanner (the machine on the right facing away from the camera).

I confirm again the CT dose is relatively low because the positioning & imaging is very specific.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I'm an Aussie.

Is the work in Australia still continuing?

Originally posted by Haftu Fokuss
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

I'm an Aussie.
Is the work in Australia still continuing?

G'day Haftu Fokuss

The work in Australia has been carried out at The Alfred Hosp in Melbourne.

The work has presently been put on hold due to funding & ethics committee complications.

I am going to make enquiries as to when the work will recommence.

A professor in Sydney is very keen to commence his own work with NanoKnife, contingent on his receipt of appropriate positive & supportive responses from the Co that manufactures the device.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

G'day

Here's another article about NanoKnife.

The patient response is very interesting to read....."it's beyond elation"

New "Nanoknife" gives surgeons less invasive option to remove tumors

(NBC) - January 13th a Nanoknife is used at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5f3c19c247f.jpg[/atsimg]

It's new technology designed to destroy tumors without surgery.

"The way we do it is with imaging guidance and we use very thin needles or electrodes, probes as we call them. We place them in the vicinity of the tumor. Usually around it and its connected to a generator," Govindarajan Narayanan, an Interventional Radiologist, said.

Delivering high voltage electrical current through the probes.

"And what the current does is it makes multiple nano sized holes in the tumor in the cell membrane thereby killing the tumor cells," Dr. Narayanan said.

The patient in this case is 67 year old Maria Gomez. They're treating a tumor in her liver.

"They had recommended early on that I have a liver transplant, and I didn't really want a liver transplant now. So secondly they recommended this," she said.

5 weeks after her procedure Maria has a cat scan to see if the Nanoknife has a made a difference.

Dr. Raj Narayanan pointed to the tumor before treatment, which shows up lighter than other tissue. Now a dark area is where the tumor has disappeared.

And he shows Maria the results.

"And I don't see any active tumor there," Dr. Narayanan said.

First there's disbelief:"But the lesion is gone," Maria said.

"The lesion, I don't see any," Dr. Narayanan said.

"Its beyond elation. Just feeling very grateful to God, and Dr. Narayanan and his team just for being so lucky that I can be helped," Maria said.

So far only a handful of patients have been treated with the Nanoknife at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. All have had liver tumors.

In the future doctors at UM Sylvester will expand its use to include kidney and lung tumors as well.

Posted: Mar 18, 2010 10:44 PM
Updated: Mar 18, 2010 10:44 PM

www.wsfa.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Here is an article regarding another hospital that has implemented NanoKnife technology.

www.themonitor.com...

There are now 6 hospitals in the USA using this technology.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

ATS Team:

Here is another interesting link regarding the planned intra cranial application of the NanoKnife:

Nonthermal irreversible electroporation for intracranial surgical applications

medicine.journalfeeds.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 22-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

ATS Team:

Here is an update regarding the in vivo canine testing of the NanoKnife on canine cerebral gliomas, which are a strong analog to human cerebral gliomas.

Journal of Neurosurgery. 2010 Jun 18.

NONTHERMAL IRREVERSIBLE ELECTROPORATION FOR INTRACRANIAL SURGICAL APPLICATIONS.
Ellis TL, Garcia PA, Rossmeisl JH, Henao-Guerrero N, Robertson J, Davalos RV.
Department of Neurosurgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina;

Abstract:

Nonthermal irreversible electroporation (NTIRE) is a novel, minimally invasive technique to treat cancer, which is unique because of its nonthermal mechanism of tumor ablation. This paper evaluates the safety of an NTIRE procedure to lesion normal canine brain tissue.

Methods:

The NTIRE procedure involved placing electrodes into a targeted area of brain in 3 dogs and delivering a series of short and intense electric pulses. The voltages of the pulses applied were varied between dogs. Another dog was used as a sham control. One additional dog was treated at an extreme voltage to determine the upper safety limits of the procedure. Ultrasonography was used at the time of the procedure to determine if the lesions could be visualized intraoperatively. The volumes of ablated tissue were then estimated on post procedure MR imaging. Histological brain sections were then analyzed to evaluate the lesions produced.

Results:

The animals tolerated the procedure with no apparent complications except for the animal that was treated at the upper voltage limit. The lesion volume appeared to decrease with decreasing voltage of applied pulses. Histological examination revealed cell death within the treated volume with a submillimeter transition zone between necrotic and normal brain. Conclusions The authors' results reveal that NTIRE at selected voltages can be safely administered in normal canine brain and that the volume of ablated tissue correlates with the voltage of the applied pulses. This preliminary study is the first step toward using NTIRE as a brain cancer treatment.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

ATS Team:

It is encouraging to see the increasing availability of the NanoKnife:

www.carealliance.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Is there any hospitals in the US who are using this?
I have a very personal reason......my father was diagnosed with bladder cancer, a very agressive form. He was sent to the specialists in the Indiana University hospital, where they developed and have vast experience with the "neo-bladder" surgery. His operation was last Monday. It was expected to be about seven hours long. We saw the surgeon after only one hour......something no one wants. The cancer was described as a "sheet", had not metastiised(sp?), but is in the bladder, through the bladder, outside the bladder, pressing on the urethras (kidney blockage was a known issue with unknown cause going into surgery), into the rectum, and along the abdominal wall going into the pelvis (specifically around the nerves connected to the muscles of the inner thigh). The surgeon specifically said it wasn't a "peek and shriek", but he would not be removing any cancer, because he wouldn't be able to remove all the cancer and didn't want to cut into the tumour possibly allowing it to "seed" other places. My father got a urostomy, and will be taking chemo of possibly two medications, daily, with hopes that the tumour will shrink enough to be completely removed in a relatively short time, perhaps 4 months. I think I understand what that all means.
Were I in the same condition, I have already told all people involved that I would be a gunea pig willingly. I think that is the best thing, ever. As his tumor was described as a "sheet", I don't know if he would qualify for this type of thing, but it would be something worth looking into.