Stem cell Breast Reconstruction

[NippleMuncher]

I came across an interesting article recently on the use of a patients own stem cells (derived from their own body fat ) for reconstruction of breast tissue after lumpectomy and partial mastectomy surgeries.

An excerpt of one article:

Breast Reconstruction And Adipose Stem Cell Therapy

Stem cell treatments and/or therapies represent the back bone of regenerative medicine. That said, no one yet understands exactly how stem cells do what they do, only that in trials they seem to do it to one extent or another. So, for example, it is extraordinarily difficult to visualize how bone marrow derived stem cells can repair damaged heart tissue as studies have shown they can. Visualization is much easier when we're talking breast reconstruction with small amounts of the woman's own fat and stem cells. That difference in visualization ability may be the key to Cytroi Therapeutics' recent dramatic increase in Market capitalization.

Cytori Therapeutics (CYTX), one of our Sector Companies, reported interim results of its European Restore II study on breast reconstruction last weekend. The headline of that report was as follows:

* Cytori's RESTORE 2 Interim Data Demonstrate High Level of Patient and Physician Satisfaction

Here is the reported evidence:

* The study reported a high degree of patient (73%) and physician (82%) satisfaction at the interim six-month observation period with the overall outcome after a single treatment in difficult to treat breast reconstruction patients. On a scale of zero to five (five is extremely satisfied and zero is extremely dissatisfied), mean patient satisfaction scores improved from 2.8 at baseline to 3.9 at six-month follow up. Mean physician satisfaction scores improved from 3.1 to 4.1. For the 32 patients, there was a mean age of 52 years and a mean defect volume estimated by the investigators of 106 milliliters (a little more than 7 tablespoons - between a third and a half a cup) in 33 treated breasts (one patient had both breasts treated).

The reported evidence is a good attempt at making a cosmetic effect seem as scientific as possible. We can be pretty certain the patients were biased toward finding any improvement good. As for the doctors, we're not told what exactly their 'satisfaction' means.

Fat grafting of the breast, once taboo in plastic surgery as practiced in the U.S., has been recently readdressed as a way to fill in some contour irregularities in breast reconstruction. While Cytori, which makes a machine that extracts and processes stem cells from autologous adipose tissue, has been working to create a market primarily in heart and cosmetic applications for these cells for several years now, we think the company's future is most likely in stem cell cosmetic therapy.

The whole article here.


In addition to the medical reconstruction of damaged breast tissue, it may also be a means of natural cosmetic augmentation. This sounds like a promising new technology. Thoughts?? Opinions??

 

[fire_breeze]

I came across an interesting article recently on the use of a patients own stem cells (derived from their own body fat ) for reconstruction of breast tissue after lumpectomy and partial mastectomy surgeries.

An excerpt of one article:


The whole article here.


In addition to the medical reconstruction of damaged breast tissue, it may also be a means of natural cosmetic augmentation. This sounds like a promising new technology. Thoughts?? Opinions??

I am always always utterly fascinated by the medical advances that we are capable of making. The other month, I read an article on biotechnology and how rapidly it's improving the lives of amputees, the blind and the deaf (they gave a boy who was born deaf some implants and now he can hear almost perfectly). Micro technology recently saved my Father when he had a heart attack this summer. It completely captivates me and I become excited when I think of all the people it could benefit.

And then my cynical side comes through: will this technology be used to help people or to make a profit? If it's used for profit then it would make the technology unaffordable for those that could, and should, use it.

Just my pre-afternoon caffein two cents.

 

[NippleMuncher]

I too am amazed at technology. I enjoy watching science programs, particularly those based on medical research for the betterment of man, such as prosthetic engineering, paralysis reversal or mechanical prosthetics to regain motor/limb use. There's been a series of brain related shows on PBS lately that have been fun to watch.

 

[bailadora]

And then my cynical side comes through: will this technology be used to help people or to make a profit? If it's used for profit then it would make the technology unaffordable for those that could, and should, use it.

Just my pre-afternoon caffein two cents.

This is a topic I've discussed with others on several occasions and never seem to quite resolve where I stand. On the one hand, it would be nice if the only motive to spur creation and innovation were alturistic, but for the most part, human nature doesn't seem to work that way. If I bust my ass on something, then dammit, I want to be compensated for it and I hardly think I'm alone in this attitude. The problem occurs when trying to define what constitutes adequate compensation. What I might consider reasonable, someone else might consider highway robbery. And if I don't feel I'm getting enough reward for my work, then eventually, I'm gonna say fuck it and go on to something that I feel is worthy of my effort. I get what you are saying about wanting to make technologies affordable for everyone, but I'm not sure that's a doable goal. For every medical breakthrough, there are thousands upon thousands of avenues of research that didn't pan out. Regardless of the outcome, people have to be compensated for their work, and facilities, equipment and supplies still have to be paid for. The profits from that one breakthrough either pay for the ones that failed or fund other avenues of exploration.

My husband often likes to reference Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged when he debates this topic with people. I've not yet read it, but given his synopsis of the book, I'm leary of regulation in the name of making everything affordable to everyone. I think our best and brightest minds would get tired of it and just stop innovating altogether.

 

[Eilan]

*pounces on bailadora*

[/hijack]

 

[bailadora]

*waves at Eilan*

Heya, girl! What's shakin'?

(we now return you back to your regularly scheduled program)

 

[NippleMuncher]

it would be nice if the only motive to spur creation and innovation were alturistic ...

For the purposes of this conversation, let's assume that motives are pure, I'm sure that to do otherwise would result in rants from all of us on the putrid vessel that seems to be the human animal.

What intrigues me most about this technology is using ones own body to assist in the healing and reconstructive process, rather than relying on foreign objects. I'm curious what would cause the cell growth to stop, when the body would still be offering an infinite supply of building blocks. Stem cells mimic other cells, which is why they are able to grow other types of tissues. Could it be that the body's own DNA code would dictate the amount of breast tissue growth, so a small breasted woman would only regain what God gave her, or in the case of augmentation, double what God gave her??