I trust that this note finds you in good health.
>
> Pathology. The study of the science of paths. You are the
> God-like figure to whom bits of human flesh are sent for a
> final verdict. You look at these blivets of humanity and
> say authoritative-sounding things about them. Households
> rejoice... or are hurled into despair when Oppie opines.
Fortunately, it is more than reading tea-leaves. Although there is some
artfulness, in making some diagnosis, it is usually a straight-forward
call.
>
> Question: When you look at or for cancer, what, exactly, are
> you looking for?
I look for malignant glands (okay, thats a tautology); I look for
disorganized glands, abnormally small glands that infiltrate through normal
sized glands, cells with large dark nuclei, other stuff.
Are cancer cells *coatings* of gloop which
> cling to and take over some ordinary nodule of innocence? I
> visualize those strangle-vines which climb up trees and, in
> a desperate reach for sunlight, wind up killing the host tree.
Sure, that a decent analogy. A little soft and poetic, but fine for the
layman.
> All one need do is to cut the vine at its base and its career
> as a killer is over.
No thats not the way of cancer. Malignant cells become independent and can
grow on their own without help from their compatriots.
God knows how many trees I have saved
> with my pocket knife during strolls through the forest. I
> have also envisioned the placement of bright lights at the
> base of the trees to sucker the vines into going down and out
> instead of up and around. Einstein and me.
>
> Are cancer cells found as *infiltrated* networks throughout
> some otherwise normal tissue mass? Or is cancer a discrete
> glob which merely grows and pushes healthy tissue out of the
> way?
Prostate cancer typically infiltrates between normal tissue. Other tumors
push normal stuff out of the way.
>
> Is it your pathologist's impression that cancer can be *peeled*
> off an affected organ... or must it be gouged out, like a kid
> would gouge out the fudge streak in a bowl of vanilla-fudge
> ripple ice cream?
Since its infitrating, you've got to extirpate all nearby tissue. If its
already metastasized, you need systemic therapy.
>
> Or is it like crabgrass in a fescue lawn, whose powerful roots
> threaten the nearby trees and bushes?
I suppose.
>
> What, exactly, does the cancer want?
It doesn't want anything. It goes about its business of getting nutrients,
growing, and dividing. It is just going about its business. The innocent
host just happens to be in the way and unfortunately needs those same
resources that the cancer wants.
It is, after all, a life
> form. Where did it come from in the first place?
Normal cells gone awry through willy-nilly mostly random genetic defects
PLUS the effect of hormonal and nutritional factors.
Is radiation
> and chemotherapy the rough equivalent of weed killer?
Sure.
Are there
> any chemicals or other things which can make the cancer grow and
> become a truly gigantic and magnificently healthy CANCER?
Androgens. Excess nutrition (including high fat diet).
Does
> it seem to have anything in mind besides growth?
No.
Can it be
> induced to grow away from wherever it is growing in order to
> exploit a more advantageous food supply?
No, its growth can probably be slowed by things that decrease its access to
blood (ie, drugs which lower blood pressure, anti-angiogenesis drugs).
>
> How utterly certain are you of your pathology calls?
100%. Anything that I am not sure about, I send on to someone else with
more experience/prestige. The risks are too great for me to stick my neck
out. There is no need to be courageous.
How rigorous
> is the science of looking at smears on slides or growth clouds in
> petri dishes?
I try to be as rigorous as time and economics permits.
Do you make mistakes?
Yes. I try to correct them when I can.
*Can* you make mistakes?
Am I capable of making mistakes? Yes. Am I allowed to make mistakes? No.
>
> Can you tell the difference between an aggressively growing cancer
> and one that is on the verge of crapping out?
I can often tell which ones are mortallly wounded by therapy. I can often
tell which ones are not effected by therapy.
>
> Doesn't normal body tissue have a defense mechanism against
> dysfunctional growths such as cancer?
Yes, sometimes. But in general cancer is not a foreign invader that the
body defends itself against. It is part of the body (albeit a very
dysfunctional part).
Are cancers really
> dysfunctional growths?
Yes.
>
> Are you ever at risk by handling cancerous specimens?
No. But they may be bathed in infectious blood.
>
> Smile, J.R., it really is time that laymen probed the bastions
> of pathology for possible weaknesses.
>
Your questions are interesting, but are rather pedestrian to one who
studies biological science. This is not an insult. One cannot know
everything. I don't know what you have learned in your life, but it
apparently was not life-science stuff. If you are interested in this sort
of thing, I'd recommend a college biology text.
JR