What are the chances that breaking up a tumor this way seeds cancer elsewhere in the body? 2024 meta analysis of seeding I didn't see ultrasound in there: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39605885/

Here is a study on AEs specifically from this type of ultrasound: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Quote: "Cavitation detaches cancer cells/emboli from the primary site and thereby releases them into the circulation, leading to metastasis"

▲

TaupeRanger 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We simply won’t know until they do the inevitable phase2/3 RCTs. They will need to show that this method helps people survive longer or with better quality of life than the current standard of care.

▲

cowsandmilk 5 hours ago | parent [-]

HistoSonics has studies published with 50 patients. Their upcoming study with 5000 liver patients obviously will give more information, but we already have some.

And with that said, these studies are more relevant than the top of thread linking to a review from 2011 looking at papers from 2005-2006 for ultrasound cavitation causing metastases.

▲

observationist 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>>> ... the study found that removing the parachute prior to jumping led to a shocking increase in mortality among skydivers.

When there's a clear causal mechanism, additional research that doesn't propose a clear resolution to the underlying problem doesn't negate the clear causal mechanism. Releasing a bunch of loose cancer into the body is a clear causal mechanism, so unless you're filtering it or killing the loose cancer somehow, I'm not sure what those studies could tell you that overcomes the underlying problem. And until they address that problem, it's going to be limited to a quality of life type application - stopping the tumor from killing you now with the certainty of metastasis killing you later.

▲

kaibee 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The thing about this kind of 'just so' story causal mechanism is that we still have to actually do the science to find out. Your body does filter and kill potentially cancerous cells all the time already. And cancer cells aren't like, some super thing that evolved to kill you specifically. My just-so story goes like this: 'the cancer cells die because they're suddenly outside of the specific bodypart that they were exploiting'. And we're probably both right, depending on the location of the cancer, the type of cancer, etc.

▲

gcanyon an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some tumor types metastasize well, others not so much. But the article doesn't say anything about metastasis, or leaving any cells behind from the target. Rather, it talks about destroying the targeted cells entirely, leaving behind only proteins.

▲

nradov 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So what's the problem? The vast majority of cancer treatments seek only to put the condition into remission for a while. Realistically that's often all that can be done.

	▲	thaumasiotes 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Putting it into remission is basically the opposite of causing it to metastasize.

▲

adamredwoods 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Chemo post-histrophy would remove any lingering cancer cells effectively. Cancer cells need lots of fuel or they stop replicating, and this is what traditional chemo is great at stopping.

▲

gamblor956 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The keto diet is also very good for this because many (but not all) cancer cells can't metabolize ketones. However recent research from Columbia Medical School suggests that it can promote metastasis.

▲

makestuff 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is the idea that you would need less chemo after the tumor is broken up to remove any remaining cancer cells versus just starting out with chemo to remove the tumor?

	▲	adamredwoods 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Chemotherapy isn't always successful, and depends on the tumor's characteristics, but the idea is yes, less chemo. Histrophy is similar to resection, physically removing a tumor. I've seen chemo options for both scenarios with resectable cancers. For example, hormonal therapy is usually prescribed after resectable breast cancer, regardless of outcome. Or, chemo first to shrink the tumor, and have better surgical margins.

▲

jjtheblunt 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What are the chances that breaking up a tumor this way seeds cancer elsewhere in the body?

that's discussed in the article

▲

pedalpete 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems they are initially focused on pancreatic cancer, which has a very low survival rate ~14% [1].

In theory, this may mean that metastisizing this tumour could destroy it in the pancreas, but allow the cells to spread to more treatable locations?

1 - https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/cancer-types/pancreatic-c...

	▲	cowsandmilk 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		?? HistoSonics first target was the liver, second was kidney. Pancreas is the third organ they’ve targeted.

▲

agumonkey 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would not be the first therapy that may promote spread while curing the primary site. Hopefully there are measures to assess the cost / benefits.

▲

CGMthrowaway 7 hours ago | parent [-]

For sure. Goes without saying in any cancer treatment that cost/benefit is a prime consideration. Still, that will not stop me from asking the question. You can't do that analysis without the answers after all.

	▲	agumonkey 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Stopping you wasn't my intent. I'm just a visitor sharing some stuff. If any medical professional could give answers that would be neat.

▲

candiddevmike 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The mechanical destruction of tumors likely leaves behind recognizable traces of cancer proteins that help the immune system learn to identify and destroy similar cells elsewhere in the body, explains Wood

Seems a little too speculatively worded, IMO.

▲

flir 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If it was true, couldn't you get the same effect by taking a biopsy, fragmenting the cells, and injecting them back in? Like a vaccination, in fact. Somebody must have studied that approach already.

	▲	londons_explore 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I assume the immune system probably already reacts to this in a specific way. For example, a major bruise has a lot of broken up cells, but doesn't warrant a big immune response.
	▲	klipt 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Cancer immunotherapy is a whole field of research and treatment, yes.
	▲	cowsandmilk 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Major damage tends to cause a much larger immune response than a vaccination. That said, they do have therapeutic cancer vaccines that present proteins from cancer (sometimes patient-specific) with adjuvants to help stimulate the immune response.

▲

underlipton 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Interested layman here: IIUC, immunotherapy is currently the holy grail for difficult-to-treat cancers like pancreatic. There are designer mRNA vaccines available that have ridiculous efficacy, but they must be tailored to each individual and so are extremely expensive (and are currently undergoing trials). mRNA COVID vaccines have been shown in some studies to increase the lifespan of pancreatic cancer patients. So, it's not hard for me to imagine that a treatment that gives the immune system a crack at learning to identify and destroy pancreatic cancer cells will boost survivability.

Part of the freak-out about the Trump admin's attacking of scientific research (including, especially, of mRNA research) earlier in the year is that it threatened these trials.