These chemicals were used to detect cancer cells by coloring them. Now it seems that they don't only color specifically, but with the help of infrared light they can even destroy.

As far as I know these coloring chemicals are very specific for cancer types. This means perhaps they are a cure but not for all cancer types. Or the chemicals are poisonous and typically only used on biopsies. Or they are not specific enough. I don't know. We will see whether it is THE miraculous cure. I am afraid not, but let's hope.

EDIT: let's cite:

> Aminocyanine molecules are already used in bioimaging as synthetic dyes. Commonly used in low doses to detect cancer, they stay stable in water and are very good at attaching themselves to the outside of cells.

I am not a biologist but I've known a few in my time;

It is highly unlikely there will ever be a singular "cure for cancer" as cancer is a bit of a blanket term given to multiple diseases, however this is a seemingly reasonably good breakthrough in treatment - being able to destroy cancerous cells without exposing the patient to further harm via targeted radiation or harsh chemo drugs (basically targeted poisoning) feels like a win.

If we can break the cells down and let the body's immune system take care of the remnants instead of having to slice someone open, huge win!

It is a long way off clinical application but could potentially be useful for treatment of "in transit" metastases - e.g. multiple metastases spreading from a distal site on a limb and growing on the skin. At the moment these are usually removed surgically or treated with electrochemotherapy. Unlikely to replace conventional treatments such as immunotherapy (checkpoint inhibitors), targeted inhibitors (BRAF/MEK) or emerging treatments such as personalised mRNA vaccines.

(Lead clinician for the melanoma multidisciplinary team at a major teaching hospital in London for what it's worth)

We are currently using radiation therapy which focuses gamma rays on a piece of tissue with cancer cells to kill it.

If you can do the same but instead of gamma rays use infrared, even if it kills indiscriminately, that should still be a net positive, don't you think?

And the main benefit here is that you can get these molecules into specific cells which in theory should allow killing cells based on some chemical characteristic.

I had the same question when reading this. They use the light only at places where cancerous cells were found plus some safety margin I guess.

In that sense it's an alternative to surgery.

Even if this just becomes chemotherapy but locally activated by near-infrared light, that would be great.

It means, at worst, don't go outside or be in bright sun-lit spaces, but also, we can shine a flashlight on where the cancer is to kill it. Even if it weren't very selective (which could be adjusted with other targeting molecules), light-trigged theraputics are easy to understand the propagation of.

If I understood it correctly, the "hammers" seek (or are coupled with a system that attach mainly to) the cancer cells, so they destroy it later. Looks like a clever system.

Every single cancer treatment is about destroying cancer cells. Given the clickbait level of the headline it's clear that it is not worth clicking.

With laparoscopy, you can penetrate patients of all sizes with instruments, and with minimal danger.

> as deep as

I wonder if this is affected by tissue types, e.g. bone.

And the first antibiotic was inspired by the observation that dye stuck to bacteria better than other things! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ehrlich

The blue dye seems to have gone nowhere since the initial study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coomassie_brilliant_blue