RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:About the addition of up to 9 CSS ...
CancerSlayer wrote:
Eoganacht wrote: Hi CancerSlayer - Thanks for that. It's a new area for me. I'm not sure if this ROS resistance applies to pdt or not because of the violence of the reaction when the PS is exposed to light and the immediacy of damage to surrounding tissue.
"PDT uses a PS molecule as a prodrug that under light irradiation generates an intense blast of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as superoxides (O2−), hydroxyl radicals (HO−), and/or singlet oxygen 1O2, which eventually cause cytotoxic damage to biomolecules adjacent to the PS."
"TLD1433 is known to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) with high quantum efficacy in many cancer cell lines."
TLD1433 Photosensitizer Inhibits Conjunctival Melanoma Cells in Zebrafish Ectopic and Orthotopic Tumour Models
I agree...the intensity & immediacy of ROS production using our type of ACT overwhelms a cancer cell. Imo, the ability of a cancer cell to survive our ACT more likely relates to inadequate delivery of PS to the cancer cell (causing a sub-cytotoxic level of PS within the cell) & not the mechanism of action of our PS/PDT. The key for success in this case would be maximizing the delivery of PS into every cancer cell.
The research to date seems to point to the fact that ROS production plays a key role in cancer cell death for various therapies (I.e. chemo & radiotherapy), & the data to date seems to demonstrate that our ACT does it very effectively & efficiently w/o the heavy collateral damage.
I see lots of opportunity for Pharma/other therapies wanting to ride on our coattails, exploring/using our ACT as both a stand-alone & as an adjuvant/combo option. Regarding the latter, one could not only take advantage of having additional/instantaneous ROS production, but also have the potential advantage of destroying cancer synergistically....or at least having the ability of utilizing multiple cancer-destroying pathways (direct & immunologic) for their additive gains. Until a stand-alone can independently beat cancer, the combo approach is going to be the go-to option for many cancers in the foreseeable future imo. Our ACT should make an excellent partner.
HOWEVER, I certainly can see a stand-alone approach (using our ACT) as being a good go-to option (or even first-line) for patients/docs who want to use a more patient-friendly "two treatment" option that is relatively cost-effective & that can deliver results. Even in the instance a combo approach buys you a little more time, the negative impact on both one's pocket book & quality of life can make for a very difficult decision. In the world of growing medical costs & medical bureaucracy, there will always be pressure to control costs, & not uncommonly at the expense of the patient = real world medicine, unfortunately.