In article <48p1j0$h1d at ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, steven18 at ix.netcom.comP
says...
>>In <816180076.3745 at njosborn.demon.co.uk> nigel at njosborn.demon.co.uk>(Nigel2) writes:
>>>>Could anyone out there tell me whether this is really a good idea or
>>totally bollocks or perhaps even not novel?
>>>>Metastasis is a major problem in the treatment of cancer. About 50% of
>>all cases of cancer have already spread by the time of diagnosis.
>>>>So why can't we prevent metastasis simply by passive immunity-
>>injecting antibodies into someones bloodstream which bind any free
>>cancer cells preventing them infecting some other organ. I can only
>>believe that you would need such a large dose of antbody as most will
>>bind to the tumour itself.
>>>>However, my understanding is that surgery to remove a tumour often
>>causes secondary tumours as cells are dislodged during the operation.
>>Surely it would be sensible to inject the cancer antisera during and
>>after the removal of the tumour.
>>>>Any suggestions/comments/insults.
>>>>WILL IT WORK?
>>>>Nigel J.Osborn.
> I expect I'm about to talk a load of rubbish, but who knows, I might be
right.
As I understand it, one of the major problems with targetting any cancer
using the immune system is that there are very few antigens specific for
cancer cells on the surface of cancer cells. If it was possible to get an
antibody that specifically recognised cancer cells, it would be easy to get
rid of the cancer anyway (magic missiles in which the antibody is bound to
another toxic protein like ricin are one, or just allow the classical pathway
of the complement system to do its bit).
That's why I think your idea won't work, but since the last time I saw a
cancer cell was seven years ago, I could easily be wrong.
--
****************************
William H.H. Reece
Dept Immunology,
Western Infirmary,
Glasgow,
G11 6NT
Scotland
*****************************
