NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Technology similar to the nanoknife, as well as more costly technologies and treatments, are readily available under Medicare, the system that the proposed national insurance was based on. In fact, the private insurers are more likely to turn down a new or expensive therapy, as they are concerned about profit, whereas the government is not.

Doc, please stop spreading blatant lied and propaganda, or at least confine it to your own threads, rather than topics you know little to nothing about.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


VneZonyDostupa.....

G'day! It's always nice to see you in the threads!

Regarding cost.....

The NanoKnife technology requires complex cost modeling. Whilst it can be considered relatively expensive “up front” from the point of view of device costs, procedure costs, etc…. , we have seen patients leave hospital within 24 hours, when otherwise they may have spent weeks in hospital recovering from alternative more serious & more traumatic interventions.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I have a colleague whose practice recently purchased a similar device. It's not the Nanoknife, but from how he was describing it, the principle is the same. He has seen remarkable results with it, definitely.

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

 

I have a colleague whose practice recently purchased a similar device. It's not the Nanoknife, but from how he was describing it, the principle is the same. He has seen remarkable results with it, definitely.

VneZonyDostupa.....

That's interesting because I believe the technology & clinical development is locked up so tightly there cannot be another IRE device for the foreseeable future.

I would be extremely interested to know more about that, if you get any info.

Back on a clinical application note.....

It appears the clinical development focus will now narrow down on pancreatic cancer applications, in view of the massive requirement for successful intervention in that condition.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


If I bump into him again, I'll ask what the exact name is. I get the impression it is based more on creating a pinpoint of heat to kill small growths, which is a bit different than the nanoknife, but with a similar concept and application.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


VneZonyDostupa.....

Perhaps it has something to do with this technology:

New Cancer Technology: Photodynamic Cancer Therapy

I am also in the process of evaluating & launching an advanced "new technology" laser for transurethral benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Also.....

I just met with a group of scientists & was shown an extremely new & potential "BLOCKBUSTER" cancer technology that I can't yet write about here. Suffice to say, it takes a systemic / autoimmune approach to all different types of cancer......it is nonspecific.

It's a truly fascinating area!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Oo...an autoimmune approach? That would be interesting to see in use. I've read a few early papers about that sort of approach, priming the body's B-cells against certain cancer markers.

Let me know how it progresses when you can!

Interesting topic.

There were some earlier posts made regarding cancer being a form of immune deficiency condition. Also a few people asked about treatments announced in the media that seem to disappear.

If you are able to and have the time could you answer the following questions for me please for clarification sakes:

1. Is it not true that most media announced 'cancer breakthrough treatments' are just announcements of POTENTIAL treatments that have shown early lab success but are yet to go through in most cases full animal and definitely human testing to obtain approval for widespread usage.

2. Is there any evidence in your experience or from the accounts of colleagues that home cures have a place in cancer treatment and success levels therein. This may be difficult for you to answer as most patients who are at a physicians will generally take their advice. Potentially you could anecdote those that have tried homecures and then had to seek medical assistance for their condition subsequently.

3. You talk in terms of nanoknife being a technology that is fda approved is the approval for treatment of specific cancer conditions or is it a carte blanche approval to treat all and any as a physician may se fit?

4. Further to my question above can you clarify why you say nanoknife is being focussed on pancreatic cancers. By whom and to what end? As part of ongoing clinical trials or merely through your contacts attentions.

5. The new treatment you have been shown but cannot discuss has it been through clinical trials is it now/imminently fda approved? If not how long to market and if approved again how long to market and will it be considered an expensive cancer treatment? Could you go so far as to say that the treatment would be surgical in nature or an ingested medicine? (fully understand if you can answer none of these points specifically having been given a private heads up on the treatment)

Thanks in advance for your time and your interesting posts to this thread.

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

 

Oo...an autoimmune approach? That would be interesting to see in use. I've read a few early papers about that sort of approach, priming the body's B-cells against certain cancer markers.
Let me know how it progresses when you can!

VneZonyDostupa.....

Imagine if there was a ubiquitous receptor on all cancer cells that could initiate apoptic cell death…..

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by spacedonk


Spacedonk.....

Give me a few minutes.....

I shall grab a cuppa & draft a reply to you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


It would certainly make for a lovely target =)

reply to post by spacedonk


Spacedonk…..

Interesting topic.

Yep…..it sure is!

There were some earlier posts made regarding cancer being a form of immune deficiency condition.

I did not mean to imply cancer is caused by an immune deficiency. What I meant to imply is there might be an “immune system” oriented approach to deactivating cancer. There are currently 2 extremely new & extremely different technology approaches to this that I am involved with.

Also a few people asked about treatments announced in the media that seem to disappear.

It’s a horrifically complex area, from all points of view. Speaking from personal experience…..

Some technologies seem to show clinical promise that in the end can’t be proven.

Some technologies just don’t make financial sense in the end because they are so expensive for what they do, it is better to apply the money to something else.

Some technologies don’t make it because the people involved are impossible to work with.

etc..., etc..., etc... :shk:

It’s a very, very difficult area from many, many different points of view.

If you are able to and have the time could you answer the following questions for me please for clarification sakes:

I shall try!

1. Is it not true that most media announced 'cancer breakthrough treatments' are just announcements of POTENTIAL treatments that have shown early lab success but are yet to go through in most cases full animal and definitely human testing to obtain approval for widespread usage.

It’s highly variable. Many announcements are made from a point as you describe above. Many announcements are made much later in the technology cycle.

FYI…..all of the technologies I post about are available now & approved by major regulatory authorities, albeit they are extremely new.

2. Is there any evidence in your experience or from the accounts of colleagues that home cures have a place in cancer treatment and success levels therein. This may be difficult for you to answer as most patients who are at a physicians will generally take their advice. Potentially you could anecdote those that have tried homecures and then had to seek medical assistance for their condition subsequently.

I truly think it is extremely dangerous for people to spurn proper medical advice & treatment for “home cures”.

3. You talk in terms of nanoknife being a technology that is fda approved is the approval for treatment of specific cancer conditions or is it a carte blanche approval to treat all and any as a physician may se fit?

The NanoKnife is FDA approved for ”soft tissue general” applications, excluding the brain & the heart. Therefore it can be used as the treating interventionalist deems appropriate, within the context of what is authorised by the relevant hospital or clinic management team & ethics committees.

4. Further to my question above can you clarify why you say nanoknife is being focussed on pancreatic cancers. By whom and to what end? As part of ongoing clinical trials or merely through your contacts attentions.

Pancreatic cancer is being focused upon because there is no other technology that can handle this extremely serious condition.

It also appears not to be a technically difficult application for skilled interventionalists.

5. The new treatment you have been shown but cannot discuss has it been through clinical trials is it now/imminently fda approved? If not how long to market and if approved again how long to market and will it be considered an expensive cancer treatment? Could you go so far as to say that the treatment would be surgical in nature or an ingested medicine? (fully understand if you can answer none of these points specifically having been given a private heads up on the treatment)

The “new” technology I mentioned may be able to be applied in several different ways. It might also be able to be used in a manner that enables some very significant advances in medical imaging as pertains to diagnosing areas of cancer in the body. In fact, it might even be able to facilitate the imaging of pre-cancerous cells.

I do not have a time-line in mind for general availability of this new technology.

Thanks in advance for your time and your interesting posts to this thread.

You are very, very welcome!

I’m very pleased you are finding my info of interest.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not


[edit on 30-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

ATS Team:

Here is a video pertaining to early use of the NanoKnife for lung cancer.



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not



It is remiss of me not to have thanked you for your answers which I read within minutes of you publishing them. So thank-you for taking the time to reply.

I read a post on another website here that states that cancer is caused by cells not knowing when to die and therefore continuing to replicate themselves - I assume inferring this is the cause of tumours. The author, although talking about aging in general, effectively says the trick is to tell the cell what to do. Would this be inline with the 'killswitch' you refer to above and do you think it is an accurate description of the fundamental cause of cancer: cells that do not know when to die?

reply to post by spacedonk


Spacedonk.....

You are on the right track.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

ATS Team:

Here is an interesting article regarding the use of NanoKnife in difficult renal applications.

Athermal Technique For Ablating Renal Tumors Looks Promising

Electroporation Spares Urothelium, Is Found Safe In Early Animal Study

San Francisco — Irreversible electroporation (IRE) appears to be a promising nonthermal technique for renal tissue ablation. Findings from an initial evaluation performed in a porcine model support undertaking further animal studies to more fully characterize the efficacy and safety of this minimally invasive modality, researchers reported at the AUA annual meeting.

New Technique For Ablating Renal Tumors

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

ATS Team:

Here’s an article pertaining to ”reversible” electroporation, which facilitates the more efficient introduction of chemotherapy drugs into cancerous lesions.

Robustness of Treatment Planning for Electrochemotherapy of Deep-Seated Tumors

I post this for interest’s only – I emphasise it is completely different to the ”irreversible” electroporation technology utilized by the NanoKnife.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

ATS Team:

Here is a link to one of the first hospitals in the USA utilising NanoKnife technology.

Roper St Francis Healthcare, South Carolina USA

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

ATS Team:

Here is an interesting article pertaining to the first in-man study of renal application of the NanoKnife:

Irreversible Electroporation of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A First-in-Man Phase / Clinical Study I Clinical Study.

Pech M, Janitzky A, Wendler JJ, Strang C, Blaschke S, Dudeck O, Ricke J, Liehr UB.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany, [email protected].

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a newly developed nonthermal tissue-ablation technique in which high-voltage electrical pulses of microsecond duration are applied to induce irreversible permeabilisation of the cell membrane, presumably through nanoscale defects in the lipid bilayer, leading to apoptosis. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of ablating renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tissue by IRE.

METHODS:

Six patients scheduled for curative resection of RCC were included. IRE was performed during anaesthesia immediately before the resection with electrographic synchronisation. Central haemodynamics were recorded before and 5 min after electroporation. Five-channel electrocardiography (ECG) was used for detailed analysis of ST waveforms. Blood sampling and 12-lead ECG were performed before, during, and at scheduled intervals after the intervention.

RESULTS:

Analysis of ST waveforms and axis deviations showed no relevant changes during the entire study period. No changes in central haemodynamics were seen 5 min after IRE. Similarly, haematological, serum biochemical, and ECG variables showed no relevant differences during the investigation period. No changes in cardiac function after IRE therapy were found. One case of supraventricular extrasystole was encountered. Initial histopathologic examination showed no immediate adverse effects of IRE (observation of delayed effects will require a different study design).

CONCLUSION:

IRE seems to offer a feasible and safe technique by which to treat patients with kidney tumours and could offer some potential advantages over current thermal ablative techniques.

Article pertaining to the first in-man study of renal application of the NanoKnife

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

ATS Team:

Here is a video by Roper St Francis Healthcare, South Carolina USA pertaining to their introduction of NanoKnife technology:



Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not