Well, there is this:


JAMA. 2017 Dec 19;318(23):2306-2316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.18718.

Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.


It's a device called Optune by Novocure that generates a low intensity 200Hz alternating field. When used in combination with standard of care chemotherapy, patients treated with the device showed modest improvements in progression-free survival (6.7 months vs 4 months with chemotherapy alone) and overall survival (20.9 months versus 16) with an improved 5 year survival rate of 13% vs 5%. As a single modality (without the chemotherapy) the device was previously shown to have similar effects to standard chemotherapy regimens. Is that a miracle cure? Maybe, if you are one of the 13%. The treatment cost in 2017 was over £18,000 per month, however. That's not been deemed cost effective for the NHS. The mechanism appears to involve modulating certain proteins that have a high dipole moment including tubulin. This disrupts microtubules leading to mitotic catastrophe. Mechanistically, that's not much different from just giving the patients a microtubule poison like Taxol which is one of the old-school cytotoxic chemotherapy agents (except it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier so doesn't work well in these particular patients). It also doesn't give much scope for selective targeting of the molecular mechanisms of cancer, of which there are a great many.


This leads to the point "what kind of cancer"? There are hundreds of "cancer genes" which can be mutated in all sorts of combinations. Every cancer is at least as genetically unique as the patient and then some. That's exactly why there isn't and never will be a single "catch-all" treatment for cancer. On the other hand, try telling a CML patient on Imatinib who has been progression-free for a decade and more that modern drug discovery is all alchemy (although there is, I accept, a bit of serendipity involved). It's hard to see how "tumour treating fields" can specifically target a tumour with, say, epidermal growth factor receptor mutation. Still, if it works reproducibly in certain settings then that's obviously a good thing if the therapy can be offered at a realistic price.


The previous point is correct: there isn't enough information about the Spooky2 device. In fact there is no information. There is nothing at all on Pubmed, which leads to the obvious conclusion that this device is simply snake-oil. The claim that they have developed programs that target specific DNA sequences can certainly be dismissed as nonsense. In general, it is extremely reckless and dangerous to make claims about anticancer properties in the absence of evidence. I direct that to the suppliers of the device rather than individuals who are possibly desperate to try anything. If they think the device treats cancer they should test that in a clinical trial (which, incidentally, are a 20th Century invention and continue to improve with more recent approaches like Bayesian designs). Simple answer: it is NOT an alternative to best current therapy.

Well, there is this:


JAMA. 2017 Dec 19;318(23):2306-2316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.18718.

Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.


It's a device called Optune by Novocure that generates a low intensity 200Hz alternating field. When used in combination with standard of care chemotherapy, patients treated with the device showed modest improvements in progression-free survival (6.7 months vs 4 months with chemotherapy alone) and overall survival (20.9 months versus 16) with an improved 5 year survival rate of 13% vs 5%. As a single modality (without the chemotherapy) the device was previously shown to have similar effects to standard chemotherapy regimens. Is that a miracle cure? Maybe, if you are one of the 13%. The treatment cost in 2017 was over £18,000 per month, however. That's not been deemed cost effective for the NHS. The mechanism appears to involve modulating certain proteins that have a high dipole moment including tubulin. This disrupts microtubules leading to mitotic catastrophe. Mechanistically, that's not much different from just giving the patients a microtubule poison like Taxol which is one of the old-school cytotoxic chemotherapy agents (except it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier so doesn't work well in these particular patients). It also doesn't give much scope for selective targeting of the molecular mechanisms of cancer, of which there are a great many.


This leads to the point "what kind of cancer"? There are hundreds of "cancer genes" which can be mutated in all sorts of combinations. Every cancer is at least as genetically unique as the patient and then some. That's exactly why there isn't and never will be a single "catch-all" treatment for cancer. On the other hand, try telling a CML patient on Imatinib who has been progression-free for a decade and more that modern drug discovery is all alchemy (although there is, I accept, a bit of serendipity involved). It's hard to see how "tumour treating fields" can specifically target a tumour with, say, epidermal growth factor receptor mutation. Still, if it works reproducibly in certain settings then that's obviously a good thing if the therapy can be offered at a realistic price.


The previous point is correct: there isn't enough information about the Spooky2 device. In fact there is no information. There is nothing at all on Pubmed, which leads to the obvious conclusion that this device is simply snake-oil. The claim that they have developed programs that target specific DNA sequences can certainly be dismissed as nonsense. In general, it is extremely reckless and dangerous to make claims about anticancer properties in the absence of evidence. I direct that to the suppliers of the device rather than individuals who are possibly desperate to try anything. If they think the device treats cancer they should test that in a clinical trial (which, incidentally, are a 20th Century invention and continue to improve with more recent approaches like Bayesian designs). Simple answer: it is NOT an alternative to best current therapy.