Hepatoblastoma: Cancer at a Young Age

Getting cancer really can turn your world upside down.

"Will I die?"
"There were so many things I wanted to do in life!"
"How many more days do I have?"
"How painful will it be?"
"Is there anything I can do to get better?"

These are just a few of the questions you might ask if you found out you had cancer. But what would your first questions be if you found out your toddler had cancer, such as hepatoblastoma?

Cancers in children are a very different beast. When treating cancer in an adult, you can really beat up the body to kill the cancer, and the damage to healthy tissue can repaired. But in a child, the tissue is much more fragile, and there are issue of future development that come into play. Dumping loads of chemotherapy drugs, and dosing with large amounts of radiation can drastically interfere with the growth of the child, especially during adolescence. For example, bombarding a child with radiation to destroy a cancer in a child's abdomen may kill the unwanted neoplastic tissue, but greatly increase the child's chances of heart disease as early as their teens. (Check out this news report for more about childhood cancer and heart disease.)

Hepatoblastoma is a liver cancer that tends to develop in children under 3 years old; the reason for the young age is that the tumor is born out of developmental cells called blasts. In a body that small, small medical procedures can have big effects. So treating this disease has to be done VERY carefully. Surgical interventions can be very effective if the cancer is caught early. The external scar may be significant, since surgeons hands often are bigger than a child's abdominal cavity. However, since livers regenerate, resectioning a liver or performing a liver transplant can often lead to a full recovery...as long as you are able to remove ALL of the cancerous tissue. Chemotherapy agents are often included with the surgical option to help the doctor fully excise the tumor.

Cisplatin and doxorubicin are two common drugs used to kill cancers, including hepatoblastoma. Both act by crosslinking DNA, which leads to cellular apoptosis. While all DNA is crosslinked, it is mainly dividing cells that are effected. This is because all cells have machinery that can repair and remove crosslinked DNA, given enough time. Cells that are dividing don't necessarily have the needed time, though. Right before cellular division the cell's quality control mechanisms check to see if the DNA has been copied correctly. If it hasn't (and it won't be if it is crosslinked), the cell instead triggers self-destruct mechanisms, a process called apoptosis. And since cancers are cancers because of out-of-control tissue growth, the hope is that these neoplasms die before the rest of the person. This explains why other rapidly dividing structures are affected during chemotherapy, such as hair loss.

But in a child, EVERYTHING is dividing. This small person's body is busy growing, developing, and maturing. So chemotherapeutic drugs can ravish a child's body if not selected and dosed correctly.

There is so much more to say about childhood cancer's such as hepatoblastoma. A great website to learn more about hepatoblastoma can be found on MDiTV.

Gone but not absent

Since I am working two blogs, it is difficult to keep up with them both. Many of the things I post on the other blog I could post here, but that would be a bit redundant. I keep those posts more anonymous, since I am wanting to post events that others plan too. For those of you that still keep an eye on this blog, you might want to also keep an eye there too...I tell about all the interesting events that are going on and sometimes post a recap or pictures of what we did.

So check it out!

Portland Hobnob
Pictures of events

Riding the OHSU tram

Today was the first day OHSU employees and students were allowed to ride the tram. I went up to the OHSU terminal to take pictures, and saw that very few people were getting on the tram. So I ended up going for a roundtrip on the tram!

I must say that it was quite a rush to be standing out on the platform, since they have not put up any substantial fence or wall yet, just a waist high plywood wall (I think they will be putting up a glass wall sometime soon).

How was the ride? Well, the view was INCREDIBLE! The tram moves along smoothly and silently (unlike ski lifts), at a good speed but far from warp speed. This is a good thing for the faint of heart...combining heights and speed could send a few DIRECTLY to the hospital (pun intended). The tram slows automatically when it reached the mid-way tower, a nice feature. For those unsure about riding it, I must say that riding elevators is much more gutwrenching than the tram. The heights were never a problem for anyone aboard the tram (as far as I could tell), and there was never any jerking or dropping. When the tram is 20 feet from the terminal, it gradually slows down making the landing very smooth.

So here are some pictures. The first 10 are from last August and the last 12 are of today.

Here is the geocache of them, since it is fun to compare the August and December pictures from the same locations.

For three short videos taken during the ride, go to my Putfile page.

Portland Tram Construction

Everyday, on my laborious walk up the OHSU, I get to see all that is going on in the construction of OHSU's new skytram. Very exciting stuff, and really cool to see how it is all put together. Here are some photos of the OHSU tram construction.

Stem cells, real cures, and the media

I have been trying to find the most eloquent way to discuss this stem cell topic, but am finding it difficult to do. "Perhaps I can just not comment," I tell myself. But that isn't possible...the topic is too important and so many involved are twisting the truth for their own ends.

First off, here is a series of well written, and easy to read articles about the issue:
James P. Kelly #1
James P. Kelly #2
James P. Kelly #3
James P. Kelly #4

James P. Kelly is a man paralyzed man who at first supported stem cell research. However as he looked into the subject, found that the media and scientists have not been presenting the truth as to the potential of stem cells.

Here is how I see the big debate, and how different layers of assumptions got us here:

1) Scientists discover that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body
2) Scientists theorize that these stem cells could be implanted into people, and grow to replace damaged tissue
3) Media hears this and presents it as a possible cure (for cures are what sells papers)
4) People, especially ones with terminal diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and spinal cord injuries, hear about a cure and push to get funding
5) Politicians get pressured by the people, give in to their demands, and allocate funds for more research
6) Scientists see funds for research, and change their focus so they can get said funds
7) Research finds that an easy source of stem cells is embryos
8) Pro-Life people say no to research on embryos

Enter the current debate

9) Common public gets involved in the big debate: embryos vs. "curing" people
10) Celebrity spokespeople like Christopher Reeves and Michael J. Fox enter the picture, putting a bigger face on the issue
11) Politicians that stand up for the embryos get ridiculed and told that they don't care about the people. Many politicians cave.
12) Media eats it up, sells more papers
13) Scientists get more and more permissions to do research on stem cells
14) Even though scientists begin to find great limitations to using embryonic stem cells, they use their saleman techniques and still claim that the answer is right around the corner.
15) When a recent report comes out that embryonic stem cells can be harvested WITHOUT hurting the embryo, stem cell scientists poo-poo the idea saying that distroying the embryo is easier.

Interesting chain of events, but nothing spectacular. Well, I have left two important details out (you may have noticed this if you have read the above articles):
1) Embryonic stem cells (ESC) curing people is a theory, but has never actually worked in real life. There are many reasons, but a few are:

ESC are not programmed to live in an adult

ESC create tumors, not healthy tissue, in adults (cancer and stem cells grow rapidly for the same reasons)

ESC create tissue rejection within adults

2) Adult stem cells are available (within the nose) without killing anyone

These stem cells ARE programmed to live in an adult

These stem cells can be controlled

These stems cells ARE YOUR CELLS, and so your body won't reject them

These stem cells can be harvested easily, even from older people, without damaging (let alone KILLING) anyone.

I personally am angered that the media has manipulated the public by not telling the whole story. I am angered at Pro-choice people for using this misinformation to further their cause. I am angered at people with terminal illnesses for pushing so hard to have hope that they are harming others (embryos). I am angered at the media and the self-interest groups for giving people with illnesses false hope just to further their agenda. I am angered at politicians for not looking into the subject, but instead caving in for fear that they would look heartless.

Someone has really played the whole system.

Mel's Mistake

Explain this to me, please. Everywhere I turn there are people putting down the Christian faith, be in around town, on the television or radio, in our government, and even in the movies. It seems like the thing to do these days. However, after Mel Gibson let his mouth run afoul, saying some disparaging remarks regarding Jews, it seems like the thing to do now is to slam Mel. And no amount of remorse or apology is enough to satisfy many of his critics.

Now don't get me wrong: Mel should not have been saying those things, and I sure hope he doesn't believe them. But even if he did, why is it alright to put down Christians, blaming them for everything under the sun, but then demand that people of another faith be left untouched? Thinking of other religions of the world, I have observed that it is more socially acceptable to put down the muslim faith, and possibly the hindu faith and the atheistic faith (because it has become a form of religion these days), but not Jewish people. Why is that? I support people of all faiths, including Jews. My issue is how there is such a protection for one religion but not others. Where is the line between "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion"? Are Mel's critics slamming him now because they were unsuccessful at getting him when he made "The Passion of the Christ"?

Another blogger wrote a very well-written blog about this incident, that I recommend reading. It is level-headed and pulls no punches. One interesting point he makes is that there are many people in Hollywood that have put down Jews much more violently and much more consistently, than this incident with Mel. However these individuals are rarely, if ever, called on their words. It makes me feel that much more that Mel's critics have been lying in wait for him to make a mistake, wanting to find fault with him, and that they are much less concerned over his putting down Jews.

And relatively speaking, what all did Mel actually say against the Jews? He blamed them for being responsible for all the wars in the world...a bit extreme, but a personal opinion not much worse than people saying that the U.S. is responsible for all the wars in the world. He used an expletive followed by the word Jew...people say that expletive ALL THE TIME with other things, and it is pretty much ignored. What else did he say? We don't know. So, there really isn't much ammo against the guy right now, and yet the critics are really getting their moneys worth out of it.

I read this interesting article on Yahoo about how scientists are questioning physical constants of the universe. It cracked me up, and I have been talking about it too everyone in the lab. Either way you look at it, I feel it supports Creationism:

1) If it is true, then it shows that conclusions made today about how old the earth is or how the earth might have "evolved" are based on huge assumptions.

2) If false, it is another example of scientists twisting and tweaking the facts to fit their theory.

You may ask, how can they both support Creationism since that would be another example of making the data fit the model. Well, it is less of what they found and more that there is even a discussion. It is the "models based upon gross assumptions" that gets me. It is the "theory presented as fact even though there is so much that is unknown."

My take on the whole subject is that since everything was created by a Creator (that is my premise, so live with it...also, this is MY blog), there was a time when these things didn't exist. So as each one was created, things interacted differently (equilibrium was in a different place). As we look at things created near the beginning (via the mighty telescope), they may have different properties than they do know.