Tested in animal models of acute myeloid leukemia, the new nanomedicine was dramatically more effective while also less toxic.
  • MTK@lemmy.worldEnglish
    263·
    2 days ago

    Who is designing drugs for cancer? What about drugs for the patients?

  • arrow74@lemmy.zipEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    A common cancer drug has been restructured to make its cancer cell killing abilities up to 20,000 times more effective while also reducing its toxicity

    far more powerful and targeted—leaving healthy cells unharmed.

    The new drug entered leukemia cells 12.5 times more efficiently, killed them up to 20,000 times more effectively and reduced cancer progression 59-fold. This was all without detectable side effects, according to the researchers.

    It has only been tested in animals thus far, but wow

  • charade_you_are@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    131·
    2 days ago

    I’m just waiting for the next article which says one of the potential side effects is that patients might dissolve into a puddle of goo.

    • Korkki@lemmy.mlEnglish
      8·
      2 days ago

      There are always a lot of good news. The goods news just don’t make ‘good news’ for the news companies. Nobody wants to read that x metric is slightly better now, disaster was averted, or slight progress was made in world changing new technology. That doesn’t sell subscriptions or bait clicks.

      • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        11 hours ago

        Additionally, not all the good news ends up panning out. They might find later that this has significant other negative effects.

      • kelpie_is_trying@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        I do not disagree. Still, it is nice when some of it breaks through, and even nicer when it has to do with such an otherwise cold and unforgiving topic like this. Very good point tho!

  • scintilla@crust.piefed.socialEnglish
    22·
    1 day ago

    What does “it killed cancer cells up to 20000 times more effectively” mean? Genuinely asking because in my mind it’s ethier dead or its not. The other stats make some amount of sense to me but I can’t figure out what this one is saying.

    • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      11 hours ago

      You can read the article and the study, but presumably a single dose kills that many more cancer cells.

      • scintilla@crust.piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        9 hours ago

        I read the article it never clarifies this point. It also doesn’t link to a study as it reads like its just an interview about an ongoing study. Your interpretation makes sense though.