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: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: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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
The article in New Scientist has some more details, but still no information on false positives.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
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.
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.