It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.