OK

This dicholoroacetate (DCA) story keeps dogging me. A cheap drug which kills all cancers! But Big Pharma won’t let the cat out of the bag, because it’ll kill their billion-dollar profits! Does a story get any sexier than that? Think about it: cancer fears; a discovery that would spark hope in millions of patients and their loved ones; and a great whopping conspiracy theory to top it all off. Wow.

The other day, I spent at least an hour reading reading Randula's diary (with comments), and this morning, a good friend asked me about it, too. What follows is my response to my friend.

But first, my credentials, such as they are: I am an ear, nose, and throat doctor. I have an MD/PhD, and the PhD is in cancer biology. Full disclosure, though: I've never been involved in cancer research and my PhD was awarded in 1990. A lot changes in 17 years, believe me, and at best I've been only an armchair cancer biologist. What follows is my modestly informed opinion, something I trot out when the latest "cure for all cancer" is announced. I've cross-posted this 'dichloroacetate cures cancer' business at my place, too.

You know the line, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? With respect to DCA, that's almost certainly the case. We're talking about a drug which has not seen a single cancer-related clinical trial. Is the preliminary data exciting? Sure it is. But there are a number of factors which  should temper anyone's enthusiasm:

1. There is no single disease, "cancer". Every type of cancer is  genetically and behaviorally unique. Within a single type of cancer,  every patient's cancer is genetically and behaviorally unique. And  within a single patient, that cancer's genetics and behavior changes  over time. That's why very few types of cancers are cured with chemo alone, by  the way. And it's also why the only chance a patient has with some  cancers (like pancreatic) is surgical. If you can physically remove the  cancer, you have a shot at cure. But with pancreatic CA, one of the most  lethal of all cancers, I think the 5-year survival is still only 22%  even if you're in the lucky minority who can have surgery.

2. In medical research, there's a long history of diseases cured in  tissue culture, cured in animal models, etc. Tissue culture and animal  models are important, but they are no substitute for human studies. I'm  particularly sensitive about this point. If my wife were a mouse, her multiple sclerosis  would have been cured back in the 80s. LOTS of drugs have worked  dramatically for animal cancer models -- I'm thinking back to the 90s,  when we thought the anti-angiogenesis drugs were going to be the next  cure-all, based on mouse (or rat?) studies. Ten years later, these drugs  are seeing limited use, but they're far from being panaceas.

3. In any given tumor, you have a population of cells with genetic  variability within the population. Think of it as evolution on a small  scale. When you radiate or give chemo to the patient, you're applying  selective pressure to that population. Many die, but the ones who resist  are left behind to continue their cell division. Only now you have a new  population, don't you? Newer, tougher. Point is, DCA (this new wonder  drug) might have some efficacy against cancer, but until we hold human  clinical trials, we have no way of knowing how readily human tumors can  'outwit' (if you'll forgive the anthropomorphism) the drug.

4. I think this particular story has legs because of the "Big Pharma is  Baaad" meme. Since it's a simple molecule (dichloroacetate -- doesn't  get much simpler) and it's out there in common usage (to treat lactic acidosis,  apparently, although I couldn't find it in the Physician's Desk  Reference), the pharmaceutical companies can't make a profit off of it.  And since it's this big panacea, it would cost them billions in lost  profits, yatta yatta.

My point (buried in the comments to Randula's diary): if this drug is as great as everyone says it is, Big Pharma will FIND a way to make it profitable. Here's one idea: link DCA to a  large molecule which is cleaved from DCA in the liver, let's say. The  large molecule is something inert, has little biologic activity, or  perhaps has anti-cancer activity of its own. Et voila. You have a large,  patentable product, and you can doubtless devise a study to make it look  better than DCA alone. Or say fuck it all, I'm not even going to compare  it to DCA alone. I'll do this trial: standard chemo regimen with  "DCA-plus" versus standard chemo regiment alone. Wow! Look how great  "DCA-plus" is!

But this all plays into people's yen for conspiracy theories. Big Pharma  hates us. And yes, I've indulged in this on my blog, I know, I know. Big  Pharma is bad. But they also make money off of healing people.

You know what the worst part of this DCA flap is? It builds false hope. And when it comes to cancer, I think there are fewer things crueller than building false hope. It's sadism, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted to Balls and Walnuts on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:56 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.