An anonymous reader writes "BBC news is reporting a new handheld scanner that can detect cancers in patients. In clinical trials at a hospital in Milan, the scanner was able to correctly identify 93% of prostate cancer patients whose condition was later confirmed by a biopsy operation."
Re:Obligatory response
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How can this be modded off-topic?! It's all about cancer detection, and I was going for funny. If you read the article, the machine is being used to detect breast cancer, not just prostate. And, yes, even guys can get breast cancer
Cansa?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
George Costanza: "Is is Cancer?"
Doctor: "Get out a here."
Negative?! Oh my God! *crying* Huh? Negatives good?
-- Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
What about false positives?
by
DustMagnet
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
93% sounds great. Even the 66% for breast cancer is amazing. What the article doesn't mention is false positives. I could identify 100% of all cancers if you let me have unlimited false positives.
-- 'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:What about false positives?
by
DustMagnet
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The article in New Scientist has some more details, but still no information on false positives.
-- 'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:What about false positives?
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I could identify 100% of all cancers if you let me have unlimited false positives.
I could identify 100% of all cancers with zero false positives if you give me a stick of uranium.
Re:What about false positives?
by
Smidge204
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Obviously, a more traditional method of diagnosis is still required.
What I didn't notice is if the 34% that weren't a success were shown to have cancer and did not, or shown to not have cancer and did.
Taking a "better safe than sorry" approach, if the scanner says you're positive for cancer, then go ahead and get a biopsy even if you're actually healthy. But if the device misses the cancer, then it really can't be relied upon.
Although 94% is pretty good. I wonder what the success rate of biopsy diagnosis is...
And am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd that they can't get their results published in a medical journal? =Smidge=
Re:What about false positives?
by
Sgt+York
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I wonder what the success rate of biopsy diagnosis is...
Biopsy is nearly 100% effective; the false positive/negative risks are low in the hands & eyes of a good pathologist. The hard part is knowing what to biopsy. Some other test has to be done beforehand to show you where the putative cancer is.
Even tumors ID'd with this device would need to be confirmed via biopsy, MRI or CAT scan. Most likely MRI followed by biopsy.
As for publication, they may not have submitted it yet (need more data, timid researchers), or reviewers haven't finished their reviews yet, or the editor is sitting on it to publish it alongside another paper, or the BBC could be blowing the data out of porportion (the latter is the most likely. Happens all the time.)
--
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:What about false positives?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
lmao
Re:What about false positives?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You give a laundry list of reasons for the stuff not be published yet. The fact still remains that press releases or dog-and-pony shows for the media MUST be held suspect. Until they have real peer-reviewed material to back up the claim(s) it's no more than advertising. Maybe they are advertising truthfully. But then maybe they aren't. The real question is: "where does the responsibility lie if the claims are bogus?" The researchers would be goats, but shouldn't the be Beeb catch a smack with the cluestick too?
Re:What about false positives?
by
Sgt+York
·
· Score: 1
or the BBC could be blowing the data out of porportion
The responsibility goes nowhere. People who know this stuff react with "Wow, interesting. Can I see the data?". Media types get wind of stuff, and go ask the scientists questions. They don't listen to half of it, don't understand most of the other half, and spout off "We've got the cure for cancer!!!", when all the scientist really said is that if we look at mice deficient in gene X, they are highly resistant to a few methods of giving them a specific form of cancer.
--
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:What about false positives?
by
Monkelectric
·
· Score: 1
My good man! you have discovered a classic junk science trick -- playing the odds. For items of very low incidence, you can obtain great accuracy raiting by simply sticking with the most common answer. Polygraphs for instance, about.01% of people who take polygraphs are "deceptive" (most people take them as part of background checks, employment, etc). So polygraph operators could get a 99.99% accuracy raiting by simply saying *everyone* was telling the truth. In reality polyographers aren't even smart enough to do that -- as polygraphs have a 20% false acusal rate:) Junk science man to the rescue!!
It is interesting to note that this machine works by means of detecting solid tumors, alas the vast majority of cancers (prostate, breast, lung, colon) have a solid tumor component, but i wonder if one of these machines could be used to pick up, say: muliple myeloma. Or leukemias...
Also it would be interesting to know if it could be adapted to detect other disorders of normal tissue via changing microwave resonance: pulmonary fibrosis, alzheimer's disease, et al.
Good ol' BBC didn't even mention the false positive rate either...
-tid242
--
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
Is is what?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
""Is is Cancer?""
It depends on what the meaning "is is" is.
Let's just hope the device isn't *causing* cancer
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The device, which looks a little like the metal detectors used in airports, works because different types of body tissue resonated in different ways when exposed to a fluctuating frequency of microwaves given off by the device.
Thank God. I'm getting close to the age [if not there, uggh] of getting THE PROBE during a yearly physical. I would really like to see this become mainstream or at least find a doctor that uses it.
-- --
Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
Re: 93% of prostate cancer patients
by
qengho
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'm getting close to the age [if not there, uggh] of getting THE PROBE during a yearly physical.
Dude, I'm looking forward to it. My wife had a diagnostic colonoscopy and to judge from her behavior afterwards, they gave her some good drugs!
Re: 93% of prostate cancer patients
by
phorm
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure about you... but I'd wait until I find out how they used the scanner first.
Chances are the ol' rubber glove is a lot more comfortable than having a hand-scanner rammed up there (which was my first mental image when I thought about scanners and cancer tests)
True...from the description and photo it seems non invasive. It would most liikely be best to adopt a wait and see policy I guess.
-- --
Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
Re: 93% of prostate cancer patients
by
hplasm
·
· Score: 1
It would most liikely be best to adopt a wait and see policy I guess.
And then a grin and bear it posture..
-- ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Re: 93% of prostate cancer patients
by
JUSTONEMORELATTE
·
· Score: 1
Hate to burst your bubble, but the good drugs are only for the big scary sigmoid thing.
Ol' Doc RubberGloves (the "manual digital inspection" for your prostate) is, as another poster phrased it, Grin and Bear it.
Of course, you could always BYODrugs, I suppose. Personally, I'd hate to go into that physical while drunk. Pavlov teaches me that I'd associate the sensation of being drunk with the resulting... uh... discomfort. I'd have to quit drinking from there on out.
--
Re: 93% of prostate cancer patients
by
qengho
·
· Score: 1
the good drugs are only for the big scary sigmoid thing.
Naw, I had one of those already. It's quite uncomfortable, and they don't give you anything. A colonoscopy goes much farther into your nether regions, so they make you happy while they do it.
Despite the discomfort, it was cool to watch the video of the sigmoidoscopy. My lower colon in real time. Reality TV at its disgusting best.
Re:Let's just hope the device isn't *causing* canc
by
GiMP
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Only at frequences that resonate with water (2.4ghz) like your microwave oven or your WiFi card. In the case of the WiFi card it isn't a big deal since the power is very low.
What about those 7%
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That didnt have cancer, but had the biopsy? Sucks to be them!
Re:What about those 7%
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Re:Let's just hope the device isn't *causing* canc
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Learn the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Microwaves are non-ionizing.
Re:Let's just hope the device isn't *causing* canc
by
Sgt+York
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They are, but the doses here aren't high enough to hurt you.
This reminded me of something I heard years ago, in college. A guy from a cancer research organization (Stehlin) came by & talked to our class about cancer treatments. One of the investigative techniques focused on microwaves.
Apparently, it's more damaging to cancer than normal cells (has to do with plasma membrane composition). If exposed to low levels for a fairly long period of time (several minutes to an hour a day for several weeks), the tumor would dissolve and the local normal tissue would remain. The main problem they had at the time, he said, was that the cancer cells tended to lyse all at the same time, and the subject would go into lethal toxic shock, a prety bad way to go(this was working in mice.)
This was a while ago, 1990 or 91. I haven't heard anything from them about this stuff in a while, so it probably fell through.
--
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Inconsitent
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Public interest in the long-term health effects from exposures to nonionizing radiation has increased substantially in recent years. To date, epidemiologic studies of cancer risk associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF) have been inconsistent.
Watch for these in Insureance offices first
by
infonography
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Sorry Mr Morton, we can't issues you that 4 million dollar policy, you have cancer. It's a pre-existing condition so you assed out.
-- Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I wonder if you could get this to work with flatbed scanners. It would make a great excuse to give to your boss/parent/professor...
"No, honestly sir, I was scanning myself for colon cancer - see this slashdot article? Umm, no I don't know anything about the emails with odd picture attachments my co-workers have been getting. It must be an unrelated incident."
Linking to the Press Release?
by
krysith
·
· Score: 1
Why do editors link to articles which don't tell you anything when they could just as easily link to the original site which doesn't tell you much more? I don't think that the BBC mentioned "Hybrid State Maser" or other remotely technical details...
Trimprob
Raise an eyebrow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I hope they tested for cancer BEFORE they used the device too!
Person walks in with prostate problems. (Really doesn't have cancer)
Med scans prostate.
Device causes cancer, THEN detects it.
Person now has prostate cancer.
ha! Inspired by your ingenious idea, I have created a foolproof device for detecting lung cancer: a case of cartons of unfiltered cigarettes.
2.4 GHz common misconception
by
jamesc
·
· Score: 1
Only at frequences that resonate with water (2.4ghz) like your microwave oven or your WiFi card. In the case of the WiFi card it isn't a big deal since the power is very low.
That's a common misconception. The resonant frequency of water is not at 2.45 GHz (the freq of microwave ovens). There is an absorption peak around 22 GHz for liquid water. (See How a microwave oven works and the graph from Ask Mr. SETI.) Of course, the molecules of water interact more than those of a gas, so things are a bit more complicated.
2.45 GHz was chosen as a compromise that would heat water, fats/oils, etc, as well as what was easily manufacturable back then.
In any case your are very likely correct. Neither WiFi cards nor diagnostic devices will be emitting very strong microwaves.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Because it would ruin a perfectly good joke: It says it's handheld, but it doesn't say what you do with it; Whether you wave it over their arse, or just stick it up in the middle of it. If it's the latter, then the only thing it's going to possibly solve is the occasional stinky finger due to latex failure...
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Biopsy still necessary in many cases
by
Metameme
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
IANAD, but my wife's currently on her third bout with lymphoma (NHL once, Hodgkin's twice) so I have researched this pretty heavily.
Biopsied tissue is not subjected to a pass/fail test for cancer. Often the excised tissue is tested against different combinations of chemotherapy drugs to see which the tumor(s) will respond to best. In addition, a biopsy can help determine what specific type of cancer cells are present; knowing that a patient has lymphoma says very little about rate of growth, type of treatment indicated, etc. There are several types of lymphomas, both Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkins. Even knowing the difference between those two categories is helpful as non-Hodgkin's can be treated with monoclonal antibodies whereas Hodgkin's cannot.
This device, if it lives up to the hype, can still help.
First of all, we've had a lot of failed biopsies because they took tissue from areas that were benign and had to go back for more tissue in different areas. If the device could determine *where* the cancer is, it would make a biopsy more effective the first time around and prevent a lot of needless suffering and expense.
Secondly, many patients go through a staging surgery to determine the progression of the disease after the initial diagnosis. In lymphomas, the stages are ranked as I-IV, with an additional A or B tag. Simply knowing the cancer is both above and below the diaphragm in multiple sites will tell you that the patient is stage IV. The A/B tags represent whether there is organ involvement (B) or none (A).
Additionally, remission is often diagnosed through the results of CT and PET scans, which are not entirely conclusive but much less traumatic than surgery for additional biopsies, especially considering the effects of chemotherapy on the immune system and the healing ability of the body.
Hope this helps clear it up; anyone in the know please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this...
Re:Biopsy still necessary in many cases
by
Imabug
·
· Score: 1
It sounds like the thing is intended as a screening device, so it's not going to tell you where it is. Maybe in the future, but as with all screening methods (mammography being the most common), it's intended to check a lot of people quickly and non-invasively. If something suspicious is found, then follow-ups are done using more detailed and possibly more invasive methods.
Perhaps the most important part of the NewScientist article is at the bottom
the results of the early trials have yet to appear in a peer-reviewed medical journal and must be regarded with caution until then.
-- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
Re:Biopsy still necessary in many cases
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good luck to you and your wife especially.
..nothing...good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
by
AllenChristopher
·
· Score: 1
Pretty much everything involved in treating cancer is "bad for you." Chemotherapy is the introduction of poisons into the system, sometimes at the site of a tumor and sometimes just of a toxin that tends to kill tumors more than it kills you. Radiation therapy is about killing cancer cells with the kind of radiation that comes off off radioactive metals or with X-rays, both of which can kill you or cause cancer. Of course trying to just cut a tumor out usually involves getting a lot of healthy tissue.
Porphyrin phototherapy is the injection of toxins that are activated by light, called porpyhrins, into a tumor. Porpyhrins are extraordinarily "bad for you" in many circumstances, and when the light hits these particular porphyrins they destroy all the tissue in which they are present. The nice thing is that then they're gone, unlike the toxins in chemotherapy, which often wander off and poison the wrong thing. Thing is, though, a porphyrin combined with iron is called a heme, with which one builds hemoglobin, which is on the whole "very good for you," in the sense that air is very good for you. But then oxygen can eat through glass. It's all too complex for a scorecard approach.
Re:..nothing...good or bad, but thinking makes it
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 1
Pretty much everything involved in treating cancer is "bad for you."
Yeah, but this is just detection, not treatment.
microwaves don't really cause cancer
by
siskbc
·
· Score: 1
Only at frequences that resonate with water (2.4ghz) like your microwave oven or your WiFi card. In the case of the WiFi card it isn't a big deal since the power is very low.
I've never even seen proof of high-intensity microwaves causing cancer, at least at intensities not high enough to cook someone. The frequency of the radiation is what matters most - cancer risk scales far more dramatically with frequency (exponential) than intensity (nearly linear).
Otherwise, a ton of microwave transmitter operators would have extra heads by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!
Pretty soon, the'll take the detector one step further -- rather than being hand-held, it will be integrated into the hand
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
George Costanza: "Is is Cancer?" Doctor: "Get out a here."
93% sounds great. Even the 66% for breast cancer is amazing. What the article doesn't mention is false positives. I could identify 100% of all cancers if you let me have unlimited false positives.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Also it would be interesting to know if it could be adapted to detect other disorders of normal tissue via changing microwave resonance: pulmonary fibrosis, alzheimer's disease, et al.
Good ol' BBC didn't even mention the false positive rate either...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
""Is is Cancer?""
It depends on what the meaning "is is" is.
I thought microwaves were bad for you.
Thank God. I'm getting close to the age [if not there, uggh] of getting THE PROBE during a yearly physical. I would really like to see this become mainstream or at least find a doctor that uses it.
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
Only at frequences that resonate with water (2.4ghz) like your microwave oven or your WiFi card. In the case of the WiFi card it isn't a big deal since the power is very low.
That didnt have cancer, but had the biopsy? Sucks to be them!
The handheld sacnner sure as hell beats the doctor sticking his hand up my ass.
May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
Learn the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Microwaves are non-ionizing.
This reminded me of something I heard years ago, in college. A guy from a cancer research organization (Stehlin) came by & talked to our class about cancer treatments. One of the investigative techniques focused on microwaves.
Apparently, it's more damaging to cancer than normal cells (has to do with plasma membrane composition). If exposed to low levels for a fairly long period of time (several minutes to an hour a day for several weeks), the tumor would dissolve and the local normal tissue would remain. The main problem they had at the time, he said, was that the cancer cells tended to lyse all at the same time, and the subject would go into lethal toxic shock, a prety bad way to go(this was working in mice.)
This was a while ago, 1990 or 91. I haven't heard anything from them about this stuff in a while, so it probably fell through.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Sorry Mr Morton, we can't issues you that 4 million dollar policy, you have cancer. It's a pre-existing condition so you assed out.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I wonder if you could get this to work with flatbed scanners. It would make a great excuse to give to your boss/parent/professor...
"No, honestly sir, I was scanning myself for colon cancer - see this slashdot article? Umm, no I don't know anything about the emails with odd picture attachments my co-workers have been getting. It must be an unrelated incident."
Why do editors link to articles which don't tell you anything when they could just as easily link to the original site which doesn't tell you much more? I don't think that the BBC mentioned "Hybrid State Maser" or other remotely technical details... Trimprob
Person walks in with prostate problems. (Really doesn't have cancer)
Med scans prostate.
Device causes cancer, THEN detects it.
Person now has prostate cancer.
Get that thing away from my prostate!
That's a common misconception. The resonant frequency of water is not at 2.45 GHz (the freq of microwave ovens). There is an absorption peak around 22 GHz for liquid water. (See How a microwave oven works and the graph from Ask Mr. SETI.) Of course, the molecules of water interact more than those of a gas, so things are a bit more complicated.
2.45 GHz was chosen as a compromise that would heat water, fats/oils, etc, as well as what was easily manufacturable back then.
In any case your are very likely correct. Neither WiFi cards nor diagnostic devices will be emitting very strong microwaves.
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
"'Age of onset of prostate cancer, 53 years.' When's your birthday?"
"Two weeks ago."
"Uh...hup...yeah, there it goes. Sorry, pal."
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Because it would ruin a perfectly good joke: It says it's handheld, but it doesn't say what you do with it; Whether you wave it over their arse, or just stick it up in the middle of it. If it's the latter, then the only thing it's going to possibly solve is the occasional stinky finger due to latex failure...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
IANAD, but my wife's currently on her third bout with lymphoma (NHL once, Hodgkin's twice) so I have researched this pretty heavily.
Biopsied tissue is not subjected to a pass/fail test for cancer. Often the excised tissue is tested against different combinations of chemotherapy drugs to see which the tumor(s) will respond to best. In addition, a biopsy can help determine what specific type of cancer cells are present; knowing that a patient has lymphoma says very little about rate of growth, type of treatment indicated, etc. There are several types of lymphomas, both Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkins. Even knowing the difference between those two categories is helpful as non-Hodgkin's can be treated with monoclonal antibodies whereas Hodgkin's cannot.
This device, if it lives up to the hype, can still help.
First of all, we've had a lot of failed biopsies because they took tissue from areas that were benign and had to go back for more tissue in different areas. If the device could determine *where* the cancer is, it would make a biopsy more effective the first time around and prevent a lot of needless suffering and expense.
Secondly, many patients go through a staging surgery to determine the progression of the disease after the initial diagnosis. In lymphomas, the stages are ranked as I-IV, with an additional A or B tag. Simply knowing the cancer is both above and below the diaphragm in multiple sites will tell you that the patient is stage IV. The A/B tags represent whether there is organ involvement (B) or none (A).
Additionally, remission is often diagnosed through the results of CT and PET scans, which are not entirely conclusive but much less traumatic than surgery for additional biopsies, especially considering the effects of chemotherapy on the immune system and the healing ability of the body.
Hope this helps clear it up; anyone in the know please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this...
Porphyrin phototherapy is the injection of toxins that are activated by light, called porpyhrins, into a tumor. Porpyhrins are extraordinarily "bad for you" in many circumstances, and when the light hits these particular porphyrins they destroy all the tissue in which they are present. The nice thing is that then they're gone, unlike the toxins in chemotherapy, which often wander off and poison the wrong thing. Thing is, though, a porphyrin combined with iron is called a heme, with which one builds hemoglobin, which is on the whole "very good for you," in the sense that air is very good for you. But then oxygen can eat through glass. It's all too complex for a scorecard approach.
Pretty much everything involved in treating cancer is "bad for you."
Yeah, but this is just detection, not treatment.
I've never even seen proof of high-intensity microwaves causing cancer, at least at intensities not high enough to cook someone. The frequency of the radiation is what matters most - cancer risk scales far more dramatically with frequency (exponential) than intensity (nearly linear).
Otherwise, a ton of microwave transmitter operators would have extra heads by now.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
cuz dogs can tell by smell! :E