Sunday, December 8, 2013

BACK AT WORK


Looks like an anniversary
In our little Cowgill house
 
The purpose of this blog is to re-kindle your interest.  I have been away for over a week, and so nothing new has been posted.  The result is that my “hits” dropped from about 150/week – to 6!  And all of them from Moldova!  (Not really.)  So here are some articles I found in the NY Time, which you might want to read.  Well, I doubt if you'll really WANT to read them, but you should, anyway.
The first concerns the availability of new drugs or treatments to end-stage patients, without FDA approval.  Apparently there really is an avenue to do this (without going to Mexico), but it has its limits.  One seems to be not knowing (or not caring) about possible “deleterious side effects.”  I’ve always felt that if nothing approved will work and the patient is going to die, something unapproved could be administered without  violating any ethical guidelines,  No doubt it isn't that simple.  Anyway, here it is: 
The second item of interest is a blog published in the Times, written by an extremely articulate woman who has advanced ovarian cancer.  Heaven forfend that any of you should ever experience what she is going through, but it might be a useful exercise to promote understanding.  Linda went through this, and I didn’t help her enough.  Now I’m trying to make it up to her, when it’s too late.  Anyway, here is the latest blog:
 
 
 
 


Sunday, November 24, 2013

THE FORCES OF DIGITAL CONFUSION HAVE DEFEATED ME: temporarily!


Galapagos, 1989
She liked to snorkel
Me?  I hate cold water
 
I can’t get the blogging robot that governs “Myrl’sBlog” to relent an allow me to publish any more pictures.  Perhaps, at 172 blogs and nearly 10,000 hits it feels that I’ve used up my welcome.  However, the “Fight Back against Ovarian Cancer” blog robot still is willing to cooperate.  So this pathetic entry is to inform you that, for the immediate future at any rate, I will be posting new stuff to the “Fight” address.  For those of you who follow me directly, you can bookmark www.quiltcutie.blogspot.com and go directly to the site.  For those of you who follow me on Facebook, nothing will change.  And for those of you who don’t follow me at all:  shame on you.
Also, I am going to be away for the next ten days or so, so re-read old blogs and give me some feedback.  Thanks.  Myrl



Thursday, November 21, 2013

Nuts, aspirin, coffee. All good for us. Why?

Certainly a birthday
Probably early 80s
I had more hair and less stomach than I do now.
She was as beautiful as ever
 

Amazing how quickly some news items get around!  There is a new paper by Dr. Ying Bao  (and six others) in the New England Journal of Medicine.  It is about nuts: apparently they help you stay alive.   
In the last 24 hours I have heard about this study on TV (once), radio (twice), and read about it in two newspapers.  Contrast this with the cancer-sniffing-dogs story that broke in early September on “Sixty Minutes”, of all places, but has just now made it to the NY Times.  Maybe the Times was saving it for a slow-news day?  Anyway:
 
The nut result falls out of two massive studies, conducted on medical professionals, which lasted for a long time.  After “controlling” for potential confounding factors, nut-eaters appeared to die less (at any given age, of course; we all die eventually) than do non nut-eaters.  Die of things like cancer and heart disease, that is – people who only eat nuts while driving at high speeds on the freeway probably gain no overall benefit.  The question of “why” doesn’t seem to have a definite answer as yet; there was some mention of reducing cholesterol (heart) and inflammation (cancer), but a detailed explanation was lacking.  The result apparently is robust statistically; although maybe we should get Dr. Ioannidis involved.  Moreover, it was reassuringly dose-dependent: the more nuts you ate, the less likely you were to die.  So, pass the nut bowl.
 
As you can imagine, there are many “confounding factors”.  That is, maybe the cause and effect chain only carries nuts along for the ride.  To make up a stupid example:  When I drink beer with my buddies I often eat nuts.  I don’t doubt that there are many more beer-drinkers  like me.  So, maybe it is the beer that reduces mortality.  Or, to make it even more absurd, note that many people who drink beer drink too much, get a headache, then take aspirin.  It has been shown that aspirin is effective against some cancers, and also thins the blood, hence helps with stroke.  So maybe it’s the aspirin that goes along with the beer and accompanies the nuts that deserves the credit.  These are the sort of things that need to be "controlled" for.  Again, calling Dr. Ioannidis.
 
One disturbing aspect of this study is that it was partially funded by the United Nut Pickers of the World, or some such body.  It is stated that they had no hand in the design of the experiment  nor interpretation of the results.  I’m sure that’s true – isn’t it?
 
Here are the links:
 
 
 
 
 


Saturday, September 28, 2013

OF CANCER, STEM CELLS, AND SHMOOS


 



Saturday, August 31, 2013


of CANCER STEM CELLS, MICE, AND SHMOOS


 
Linda and lobster pots
 
Newfoundland, , 2001
 
Are you old enough to remember the cartoon strip Li’l Abner?  It was drawn by Al Capp and was one of the funniest things around; often it was the only compelling reason to open the Sunday Riverside Enterprise of my youth.    Anyway, for a time it featured the most benign creature ever conceived   – the Shmoo.  The Shmoo was a small, round, smiling creature that existed only to ascertain  the wishes of humans (seemingly by mental telepathy), then happily turning into whatever was wanted.  If you were hungry, for instance, the Shmoo would suddenly become a hamburger.  Presumably if you were vegan it would become a vegi-burger, with a certified organic, gluten-free, whole wheat bun.  
Well, there aren’t any Shmoos in this world, but there ARE laboratory mice. The laboratory mouse has given its life to benefit humans for many decades.   More have just died to give us important information about cancer stem cells.  They may not have died gladly, but no doubt they went straight to mouse heaven with no pause to clear purgatory.
So, anyway, the British journal Nature has published an important paper about the role of stem-like cells in epithelial ovarian cancer.  The principal author appears to be A. Nikitin to whom the Marsha Rivkin Center gave a nice grant in 2011.   The gist of the matter is that his research team seems to have shown that there are stem-like cells lurking in “niches” in the epithelium of ovaries.  They have a positive role; they repair small tears caused by ovulation.  However, this research also points out that they are particularly susceptible to cancer-causing mutations.  (This may account for the fact, that the more you ovulate, they greater your chance of contracting ovarian cancer.)    They investigated this hypothesis by first detecting and then  isolating mouse epithelial cells with stem-like properties, then injecting them into eight lady mice that previously had several tumor-suppressor genes “knocked out”.  (How this is done is just as much a mystery to me as it is to you, of course.)  Anyway, seven of these unlucky mice developed ovarian cancer.  
I can’t actually discern any immediate applicability of this discovery to human OVCA, but the more we know about the enemy, the sooner we can defeat him.  I got that quotation from The Art of War.  Not really, but I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.
I previously blogged about cancer stem cells on 8/22/12 and again on 8/26/12
 
Do you want to read more about ovarian cancer stem cells? 
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257367.php
 
Do you want to know more about Dr. Nikitin?
 
Do you want to learn more about Shmoos?
 
 
 



Tuesday, August 6, 2013

MRC GRANTS FOR OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH

 


 

Thursday, February 7, 2013


MRC RESEARCH GRANTS



Why I married here: she could do anything.  1967
Most likely a car load of college boys came by 12 seconds later.
I know I would have stopped

Encouraged by the Comment of my granddaughter Amanda, from time to time I am going to “profile” one or another of the cancer researchers we at the Marsha Rivkin Center help support.  We (MRC) offer support in three categories, but it is clear that each emphasizes innovation.  We try to identify people who may have spied an incipient crack in the armour (of ovarian cancer), and  then  help them pry it open.  Once they are inside, we leave it to the far deeper pockets of the NIH to fight the war.  To me – I had no part in the design of any of our programs – this seems to be a remarkably promising approach.  I wish I were 30 again and a biochemist; I’d rather be one of those smart young people than simply an old guy  writing about them.  But, you do what you can with what you’ve got.
Rather than jumping right in, I will describe the kinds of grants we award.  In ascending order of dollars available, and – probably – difficulty in getting funded:   we award Scientific Scholar Awards, Pilot Study Grants, and Challenge Grants.   
 Scientific Scholar Awards:  These go to young, bright, early-career scientists.  The purpose is to enable them to try out new ideas (which the young have in profusion, I am told – I can't  remember.)  Needless to say, the ideas chosen have relevance to ovarian cancer.  A grant amounts to $60,000 for one year, which isn’t much these days but may make the difference between trying out an idea and shrugging it off.  This year (2012, actually) we gave out three of these, to young women in England, Canada, and the United States.
 Pilot Studies:  These are worth $75,000 for one year.  In 2012 we awarded ten of them.  I gather that the successful applicants tend to be better established in their field, but need help and encouragement in developing some novel approach to ovarian cancer.  One of these awards went to a scientist in Helsinki.
 Challenge Grants:  I don’t precisely understand the nature of this award, so I will simply quote what is said in the MRC Website:  Challenge grants in scientific research revolve around posing a grand scientific question to the research community and asking researchers to submit their best ideas for meeting the challenge with creative solutions. With help from our Scientific Advisory Board, the Rivkin Center will identify areas in ovarian cancer research in which the greatest strides can be made today and offer a 2-year, $150,000 Challenge Grant to the research group that proposes the best solution.”
 The 2011-2013 MRC  Challenge Grant was awarded to Dr. David Bowtell, who works in Melbourne, Australia.  Dr. Bowtell is testing the hypothesis that ovarian tumors, especially of the most lethal type – serous – leak pieces of DNA into the blood-stream  in quantities sufficient to serve as an early marker of the disease.  Specifically, he is looking at a mutated version of the gene TP53, which apparently is associated with numerous kinds of cancer.  Incidentally, it appears that serous “ovarian” cancer originates in the fallopian tubes.
 Regarding  Dr. Bowtell’s very important  work:   as an Aussie friend of mine was fond of saying, “Goodonyah”!
 

:



Wednesday, July 3, 2013

DISCOURAGED (but temporarily)



Linda and her Mom, on the latter's wedding day
Both gone now, alas.
The world is a sadder place
 
One must not become discouraged.  The fight must go on until victory is achieved.  Be of good cheer.  Or, as Linda would have said “Buck up, Buck!”
No, I’m not talking about General Eisenhower during the Battle of the Bulge.  I am talking to myself, after reading a depressing news article.
If you read these blogs instead of just looking at the pictures you will be aware that one of the hot topics in cancer research is “targeted therapy”.  Targeted therapy consists of using genomics to determine which mutation (or mutations) is driving the uncontrolled cell division that is at the heart of cancer, then developing a specific treatment to cancel its evil activities.   Expensive for sure, but effective.  Well, maybe not.
Dick Ingwall alerts me to an article in the NYTimes: Studying Tumors Differently, in Hopes of Outsmarting Them.  (http://nyti.ms/1cnNE8n).  The opening paragraphs are what brought on my depression.  They relate the story of an unfortunate man who was covered with melanoma blotches, with only weeks to live.  His oncologist treated him with a new targeted therapy drug, vemurafenib.  Like magic his melanoma blotches disappeared, all of them.  Unfortunately, 16 weeks later they all returned,  every single one.  He died a few weeks later. 
The problem, clearly, is that vemurafenib didn’t get all the mutated cells.  There are literally billions of cells in a solid tumor, so if you kill 99.999% of them you still leave of the order of a million cells to mount a counter-attack.  Why didn’t you get them all?  That’s because, as I keep reading everywhere, tumors are “heterogeneous”.  Because they are tumors they divide rapidly.  The chance for a spontaneous mutation occurring is greatest at cell division, when the DNA is duplicated.  Errors occur, and although most are repaired right away and many  that aren’t fixed are harmless – still, some bad ones may get through.  Thus a tumor caused by a single mutation may spawn other deleterious mutations as it grows.  This puts us in a pickle.
The way out of the pickle, this article implies, is to give two (or more?) targeted drugs simultaneously.  This means even more genomics, and more messing around in the laboratory to create the drugs.  And, of course, more money.  
We were meant to be born, grow up, reproduce –  and then,  shortly -  die.  If we all died at 40 cancer wouldn’t be much of a problem.  But the problem is that we don’t WANT to die at 40.  I sure as hell didn’t.  So we keep on wrestling with cancer.  Maybe targeted therapy will someday be feasible, reliable, and cheap.  Maybe immunotherapy will experience a break-through.  Maybe epigenetics is the way to go.  Damned if I know.  But I still think that early detection is the most immediately promising avenue of research.  That’s what my group does.
By the way, another gentle reminder.  Summerun North 2013 is only 25 days away – and only 13 people have signed up, and seven of them can’t be here!  Don’t make me drink all that beer by myself!  To sign up, go to http://community.swedish.org/page.aspx?pid=608&tab=0&frtid=1183.  Recommended donation is $20, but feel free to give anything you want.  Of course, you always can give me money, checks or stolen property on the 28th,, but if you want your name on the web site you must use the link.  Big deal, of course.
Even more imminent is the deadline for signing up to purchase a Linda’s Team T-shirt – only five more days..  If you want one of these elegant shirts, go immediately to http://www.customink.com/signup/3a9v6j52. 
As ever, I hope to see you on the 28th.
 

 


Sunday, June 30, 2013

CROWDSOURCING


 

CROWDSOURCING: A new tool.



In an English tavern.
No, that's not Guiness.  It's her coke.
 
 
Perhaps inspired by  various TV reality shows, the NCI has instituted a program wherein a cancer-related “problem” is defined and “teams” from around the globe invited to work on it.  Then, after the lapse of some time, NCI (or somebody) decides who came up with the best solution and rewards them – hold your breath – with a trip to San Francisco and a chance to publish a peer-reviewed paper in a prestigious medical journal.  It may seem like I'm scoffing, but I'm not:  I think it is a very good idea. 
The projects I just read about are part of a larger program called DREAM:  Dialog for Reverse Engineering, Assessments and Methods.  DREAM engages in “crowdsourcing”, which means taking advantage of expertise and knowledge across the research community to attack specific problems.  NCI-DREAM is a subset  focused on several aspects of breast cancer.  Apparently 52 teams elected to participate.  They were given a standard genome, then invited to: (1) using the genomic data and, I guess, anything else they could drum up, predict  the response of 18 breast cancer “lines” to 31 previously untested drugs, and (2) predict the activity of pairs of compounds on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (again using a standard cell line.)  The value of this sort of research to individualized cancer treatment is pretty obvious.
A team from Helsinki won sub-challenge (1); a team from Texas . #2.    
There also is another challenge afoot, one to predict breast cancer survival rates.  It uses something called “computational biology”.  Around every corner in a cancer research institution one bumps into a statistician, a computer programmer, or this thing called a computational biologist.  And to think I  used to look down on biologists as hopelessly non-quantitative!  Like, geology uses higher math?
P.S.  I am back from Borrego Springs until after Christmas.
P.P.S.  I have used 88 pictures so far, and I am beginning to forget which.  If you catch me doubling up, please let me know - I have many I want to use.  For those who don't know:  myrlbeck@msn.com



No comments: