Slashdot Mirror


Swiping Out Cancer

mhackarbie writes "Just read this article over on Wired about a cheap hand scanner which might be able to spot cancer tumors. It took only few seconds of reflection before I decided this could be the killer biotech app which is needed for the dot-bio boom everyone keeps predicting someday." We've mentioned this gizmo before.

128 comments

  1. Can you say... by craenor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tricorder? ...I knew you could.

    1. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't that the radio thing? Like a cell phone only not as stylish?

    2. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Right-clicking a dos executable in WinXP lets you set memory settings(extended/expanded)great for old games.

      gnarly, man

    3. Re:Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm.. you could do that in Win98 ..couldn't you???

  2. imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    30 something MILF's flocking to bestbuy to try these on their boobies.... orr.. imagine.. a young man with a mullet getting caught with one of thse scanners inside his pants... oh the possibilities

    1. Re:imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol mod parent up... but wouldnt the guy with the mullet be using it on his skull? :P

    2. Re:imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctor, using the scanner on Mullet guy:

      hmm, what's this cancerous growth in your pants?

      ...looks a lot like a small tumor...

      ...'fraid we'll have to operate...

      Hold, still, it'll be quick, just a flick with the scalpel...

  3. What... by dysprosia · · Score: 2, Funny

    no flatbed cancer-scanners? I'm sure there'll be a market for them! ;)

    1. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, last week I used a flatbed scanner to image an irritation on my back. The motor couldn't move the imager upward when the scanner was oriented in that direction, but placing the scanner on its side worked. A nice umpteen-dpi image..of a white head blemish.

  4. This is not biotech by stm2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It won't be a biotech "killer app" since biotech companies are working on genomic and proteomic application. By definition, biotech involves altering DNA on organism (usually bacteria) and selling a protein or procedure derivated from it.
    This device seems promising, but can't be called biotechnology.

    --
    DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    1. Re:This is not biotech by robslimo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bullpuckey.

      Bio, a prefix meaning life/living organisms
      tech, short for technology.

      OK, we've got a handheld scanner that can be used to enhance/lengthen/improve a persons life. Seems like an application of techology to life/living organisms.

      Biotech it is.

    2. Re:This is not biotech by Lershac · · Score: 2, Funny

      For someone so hung up on the meaning of words... Just what does "derivated" mean?

      TROLL

      --
      Chuck
    3. Re:This is not biotech by stm2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hello Rob,

      I understand what you mean with bio=live tech=technology, so this would we biotech. But according to most biotech official definition, biotech is another thing.
      Look here:
      According to dupont (a industry leader)
      "is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to enhance or protect an organism"
      According to the Biotechnology Industry Association:
      "The use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products."
      This last is more broader, but it fundamentals is to use a biological process. IF the handheld scanner basic would be based on a bio function, ok, but it is electronic. It is used to monitor a bio process, but the device is based on an electronic principle.
      Look at the biotech companies websites (lot of them trades in NASDAQ), and look for their products, they don't offer what most slashdot reader call biotech.
      Trying to explian what biotech is to an slashdot reader is as hard as trying to explain to my biotech coworkers that hacking is not something evil :)

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    4. Re:This is not biotech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand, but I'll take elementary word derivation over Dupont any day :-)

    5. Re:This is not biotech by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      It's like derived, only more so.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    6. Re:This is not biotech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like derived, only more so.

      Oh I see, sort of like burninated?

  5. I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Insurance companies as well.

    Go to your job interview, pee in this cup, swipe this in your mouth.

    In one simple step eliminate drug users, and possible insurance deadweights... Joy!

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by xtal · · Score: 4, Insightful



      Insurance companies as well.

      Go to your job interview, pee in this cup, swipe this in your mouth.

      In one simple step eliminate drug users, and possible insurance deadweights... Joy!


      Those who subject to drug tests have nobody to blame but themselves for their proliferation to other industries like insurance. If nobody submits to a test, or a signifigant fraction of the exceptional workers refuse, a competitive advantage exists for those companies who do not test.

      The process of pre-employment drug testing is rare (and, I think, illegal) in Canada, and our country has not fallen apart as a result. I have no information to assume there is any difference in levels of drug addiction between Canada and the USA.

      Drug testing is easily remedied outside the courts if it truely bothers you. It seems most people are content to piss in a cup for a job. To each their own.

      --
      ..don't panic
    2. Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by Pastis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [OffTopic]
      You should read the latest Eric Schlosser book, "Refeer Madness: Sex Drugs and Cheap Labour". He mentions differences between Canada drug strategies and USA ones, at least regarding marijunana.
      [/OffTopic]

    3. Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not necessarily illegal, maybe it depends on who you are. I had an inteview with CSIS (canadian CIA) once. One of the first 5 questions they asked me was wheter or not I had done any illegal drugs in the past year. I don't think they would have done any tests per say, but part of the recruiting process included a polygraph, which they would have probably asked the same question, and discovered if I had been lying. It's amazing, here i was interviewing for a job with computers, and they weren't concerned at all whether I was a hacker/cracker(i'm not, but they didn't ask), but were worried about very occasional marijuana use. Just doesn't make much sense to me.

    4. Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding a new contract in this economy by refusing to submit to a drug test.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    5. Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by multimed · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look up the economics term "externality." Whether you do or do not submit to a drug test does not directly have an impact on whether companies test--it only directly affects whether you get the job or not. Yes if enough other people refuse at some point companies would stop doing it but each individual has to make the decision for themselves first & others second. It's easy to be flippant about this but in an terrible job market, if the question is whether to pee in a cup & feed one's family or protest on principle and go hungry the decision is pretty obvious. And at least in American, many of the jobs that require drug testing are in manufacturing which tend to employ people who have few other options.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    6. Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. by xtal · · Score: 1

      It's easy to be flippant about this but in an terrible job market, if the question is whether to pee in a cup & feed one's family or protest on principle and go hungry the decision is pretty obvious

      Everyones principles have a price. My point is that if privacy and principles mattered, the problem would be self-solving.

      --
      ..don't panic
  6. Erm by TCM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it just me or does anyone else find using the words killer biotech app a bit.. unlucky? Keep that thing away from me!

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  7. The key is if it's better than current detection by Alkarismi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who has seen, at first hand, the horrors of undetected cancer, this could just the ticket.
    My Father died from cancer last year. He had a secondary tumor removed a year before, but the specialists who saw him could apparently not detect a primary. It was clear to us that there was one (he was degenerating), but current detection techniques, apparently, couldn't find it. An autopsy was conducted when he died, at which point extensive cancer was located.
    Part of the cure for cancer must surely be early, and accurate, detection. Let's hope this is part of it!

  8. Discovery Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Discovery Channel had a show not too long ago about trained dogs being able to -smell- cancer on test subjects.
    Not only would it not require development or be at the hands of some biotech CEO, but dogs have been shown to lower blood pressure in people.

    Think of it: Handheld Schnauzer.

    You could probably train basset hounds too, just so that PVP would have more material.

    1. Re:Discovery Channel by SkewlD00d · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I remember that... it was very impressive. I believe that a dog has superior computational power and discrimination abilities that could easily be more accurate and reliable than some piece of technology. How much/hard would it cost to train a dog to do this? Imagine... if we have specialized dogs for certain functions... eventually will have purpose-bred species of animals/plants for very specific tasks (*cough* babel-fish :). Also, I remember something about a UV camera system for dermatologists. Btw, have you ever looked at your skin in a mirror w/ a black-light (CCUV flourescent), you can see differences in tissues in you skin not visible in white light.

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    2. Re:Discovery Channel by bigpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem with dogs that are trained to sniff anything, be it drugs, bombs or cancer vs some man made technology is the inconsistency between dogs and dog trainers. Although, they may be more sensitive than any man-made device, they also have bad days and can get sick without their handlers noticing. Better to have a device that while not necesarily more reliable or sensitive, might be more easily tested for variations in performance. In other words, are dogs really going to be accurately tested every day to make sure their performance isn't slipping? But maybe a device can be tested more easily and regularly to ensure quality.

      So, why are dogs so heavily relied upon at airports and for other security. Because simply put, security doesn't need to be 100%, it is largely the deterrent that the dogs provide that provides the actual security. Knowing that these dogs are being used will deter the less serious drug smugler or terrorist from the attempt. But with something like cancer screaning you really have to have a high degree of certainty and invariability in order for it to be useful.

      So the reason dogs wouldn't be used is that they just add to the cost of diagnosis, but can't rule out cancer to a high enough degree, making additional more invasive diagnostic procedures needed anyway.

      If this electronic device can be 99.9% accurate at determining that a person doesn't have cancer when used properly, then you can then focus resources on those remaining. Which is better for those that are shown to be clear of cancer. But it also changes the economics for those devices that require greater capital expenditures, they are only economical when used on larger numbers of people, but if this screaning reduces those numbers of false positives, then a fewer number of truly sick people will be left paying for the more expensive machines. So either the number of expensive diagnostic machines will need to be reduced, the price will have to come down, or the cancer sick individuals will be charged more money.

    3. Re:Discovery Channel by operagost · · Score: 1

      Think of it: Handheld Schnauzer.

      LOL- although I once had a Schnauzer and I can tell you they're bred to be watchdogs and aren't very friendly to strangers, at least not for the first 10 minutes or so. The growling and barking wouldn't lower my blood pressure much!
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Discovery Channel by KiDas · · Score: 1

      Or how about a pitbull... then you can have the tumor taken out at the same time.

      --

      A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity
  9. Progress by Duds · · Score: 3, Funny

    We now advertise dupes directly in the story to save your inevitable searches!

    Another slashdot timesaver * teeth glint *

    1. Re:Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a dupe, it's a different article about the same thing.

  10. Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact the thing gives off microwaves probably means that it wont be for normal consumer use. The advantage is that it can be so every doctors office can have one or more. Because of its size. But I can see some person so worried about cancer who scans themselves all the time until the microwaves give him cancer.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phones use microwaves. The real question is how much energy the device sends out in these microwaves.

    2. Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has it even been shown that microwaves cause cancer? To the best of my knowledge there's no conclusive evidence. The reasoning behind it is shaky as well: "We all know that sticking your head in a microwave oven is bad for you... right?" Microwaves induce movement of water molecules (when its in liquid form). so does your stove... why should we fear this without any hard scientific evidence that it is dangerous?

      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    3. Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative
      "We all know that sticking your head in a microwave oven is bad for you... right?" Microwaves induce movement of water molecules (when its in liquid form). so does your stove... why should we fear this without any hard scientific evidence that it is dangerous?

      This isn't because microwaves cause cancer--there still is no consistent corpus of evidence to support that hypothesis and there may never be--but rather because they cause heating. There are proteins within our bodies' cells that begin to denature at around forty degrees celsius. At or above this temperature (which actually isn't particularly warm), the proportion of exposed cells that die is a function of temperature and exposure time. (See, for example, James R. Lepock, "Protein Denaturation During Heat Shock" in Advances in Molecular and Cell Biology, Volume 19, pages 223-259, for an excellent survey of current thought on the mechanisms at work.)

      So microwaves are dangerous because they cause heating. Not only that, they can cause deep heating in localized hotspots. In other words, you may actually do damage to the brain, eyes, and other organs very quickly without having to burn through the layers on the surface first. (This is what makes microwaves more threatening than the stovetop. The heating elements don't burn unless you come into close contact, and they can't burn deeply without lengthy exposure.)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    4. Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest study on cell-phone radiation does indeed indicate that they do cause cancer. What more scientific evidence do you want? Or would you prefer to just ignore it?

  11. How about cancer-sniffing dogs? by blakespot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It seems you don't need electronics to detect cancer, just man's best friend. Interesting stuff.


    blakespot

    --
    -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
    iPod Hacks.com
    1. Re:How about cancer-sniffing dogs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Id rather have a handheld device scan my sack and some dog sniff it.

  12. No Mention of False Negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I really hope this thing work really really well, but the article just danced around the issue of false negatives. Anybody have any idea how many there were in the study at hand?

  13. Now they can use millions of the CueCat scanners by leoaugust · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am glad somebody found out what to do with these scanners.

    Hopefully now all those millions of CueCat http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20001012.html scanners can be put to some use ....

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
  14. cancer by Pompatus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is something that interestes me. My father died of cancer at the age of 56 and my mother survived it at the age of 44. I think I might have a high hereditary risk. The idea of cheaper detection methods is important. The cheaper it is to detect, the more frequently the tests will take place. Hopefully, this could become part of a yearly checkup.

    For the record, neither of my parents were smokers. I think I might know how I am going to die.

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
  15. Not convinced by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, it would of course be great if this actually worked, but I have to say I am very sceptical.

    I find it difficult to believe that the system it uses will actually produce accurate results. The human body surely has lots of tissues in different structures and densities, and also of course there are lots of different types of cancer. Most importantly, you want to get cancers when they are small - tiny even. I find it hard to believe that this scanner could do that. If you've ever seen a small cancerous mole, for instance, you will understand.

    When we're dealing with stuff like cancer, 95% (say) accuracy isn't enough. False positives result in a lot of stress for people until they have proper tests. False negatives of course have even worse consequences.

    Complex problems don't have easy solutions. Cancer is complex.

    1. Re:Not convinced by nordicfrost · · Score: 4, Insightful
      False positives result in a lot of stress for people until they have proper tests. False negatives of course have even worse consequences.


      I have seen the hardships of a cancer patient, my mother, up close. After the operation was over and she was decleared cancer free, the nightmare began. The semi-annual check-ups. The false positive rate for these check-ups is amazinf. She has been checked 10 times the last 5 years and 8 out of ten times she was called back for confirmation of non-existense of cancer with all the fear you could imagnine. How can this device be any worse?

    2. Re:Not convinced by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 4, Informative
      When we're dealing with stuff like cancer, 95% (say) accuracy isn't enough.

      For many blood tests, 95% accuracy is considered excellent and essentially means it's 100% accurate for all practical purposes. hCG (pregnancy test) comes to mind. I doubt current single tests for cancer are any better.
      Hmmm... a quick googling reveals that current breast cancer methods are around 80% and a new PSA (prostate) test clocks in at 98% best case.
      I'd say 95% is pretty damn good.
    3. Re:Not convinced by stm2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      95% is excellent as you say. But pregnancy test, has more than 99% accuracy, since it is based on an monoclonal antibody mediated reaction.

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    4. Re:Not convinced by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of people get cancer, in fact everybody, but you're body normaly prevents it from growing and destroying your body, that's why younger people are less likely to get cancer then older people, they have a much higher resistance.

      So I think this scanner will find all the cancers in your body, but it's up to the doctor to determine the evil/growing cancer, and of course make the appropriate decision

    5. Re:Not convinced by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1

      You're right: my bad. I was thinking of the excerpt from the (efficacy?) documentation that said that specific test was 95% accurate for a pregnancy 48 hours old. Forgot that accuracy went up with time.

    6. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I am much more concerned about false *positive* rates as missing a reoccurence could be very serious. I say this as one dealing with cancer as well-- my young son had a malignant brain tumor and we go through the test jitters (yes they are disturbing but I want to know if it's come back).

    7. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interpretation of tests results is a big factor with cancer... for example, my son has malignant (cancer) brain tumor removed. MRIs after the fact are not cut and dried as to what is tumor and what is say bleeding, radiation damage, etc. Proper interpretation definitely has a strong art aspect to it. I welcome any test that helps with cancer detection but there does not appear to be a simple yes or no answer that a machine can come up with. According to the article about the product in question, it is just a preliminary test-- all the standard tests would be required as well for people that test positive with the new device.

    8. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can this device be any worse? Because it can do this to millions of healthy people, not just to cancer survivors. Mammograms and Pap smears have specificity (proportion of healthy people declared healthy) around 90%, which is barely acceptable for population screening. This device only manages 82% in preclinical testing (which is usually optimistic)

    9. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to my child who has spent a long time fighting cancer. The body doesn't fight it off without help. My child was very strong and healthy prior to the tumor...

  16. You don't want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't want to know where they have to "swipe" that 1 ft long wand in order to detect prostate cancer. Bend over and smile...

  17. Would this work? by mikeophile · · Score: 1
    It's great this device can be made relatively cheaply in the baton configuration.

    It seems that the technique can be expanded upon though.

    Perhaps something akin to the x-ray backscatter imagers reported earlier on Slashdot.

  18. Fantastic! This will come in eh...'handy' for: by madmarcel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a post about something a fair amount of /.ers will not be familiar with: BREASTS
    (we're talking hands-on experience guys, looking does not count ;^)

    What have (wonderful wonderful) female breasts got to do with a handheld cancer-scanner?

    Well...do you know how they check women's breasts for tumors currently? No? Well...

    It involved placing a single breast in a vice-like device, which is then TIGHTENED.
    (And yes, the device is made out of COLD metal ;) It is apparently also a fairly inaccurate method of detecting breast-cancer, but that is another story :o Then repeat process for the other breast.

    (I don't have this from first-hand experience, I am not a woman :)

    Now imagine if you could do the same with a little baton...

    "I wave my magic-stick and...voila!"
    (For godsake, don't take that out of context ;)

    Testicle-cancer in men is (also) often diagnosed too late. I do not know how they confirm that you have it (AFTER the physical examination) but I hope to god it does not involve a vice-like device :o
    Again, bring on the handheld scanner...

    BTW some poster mentioned that micro-wave radiation is dangerous...nope, not as far as I can establish...(read up on the HERF gun previously mentioned on /. )

    1. Re:Fantastic! This will come in eh...'handy' for: by erf · · Score: 1

      The wonderful Molly Ivins compared a mammogram to laying on a cement floor, placing a sheet of plywood on your chest, and having a large friend walk over it.

    2. Re:Fantastic! This will come in eh...'handy' for: by Michael+Dorfman · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Testicle-cancer in men is (also) often diagnosed too late. I do not know how they confirm that you have it (AFTER the physical examination) but I
      > hope to god it does not involve a vice-like device :o

      A vice-like device? You should be so lucky.
      Confirmation involves a knife.

    3. Re:Fantastic! This will come in eh...'handy' for: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It involved placing a single breast in a vice-like device, which is then TIGHTENED.
      (And yes, the device is made out of COLD metal ;) ...

      (I don't have this from first-hand experience, I am not a woman :)


      Obviously whoever designed that device wasn't a woman either.

  19. Good, but not the killer app by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It took only few seconds of reflection before I decided this could be the killer biotech app which is needed for the dot-bio boom everyone keeps predicting someday

    Sorry, I don't see it. It doesn't lead anywhere - it isn't the first of a class of devices. Obviously, if it works (lots of qualifiers in the article) it is an extremely good gadget. Many patients will benefit, and the inventors may well become justifiably rich. But apart from a sequence of improving models, all doing the same thing but steadily better, where does it lead to? It detects cancers - full stop. It detects them by detecting the nature of cncerous growth. So it won't do anything about anything else.

    I don't want to knock it. $30,000 is cheap enough for every doctors surgery, and therefore for routine use any time there is a worry. If it is simple enough and safe enough, I could see them going into gyms etc, so you have a cancer check along with your fitness check. Even an optional sevice in airport departure loinges to while away those boring hours. (Hey - integrate it with the bomb scanners - get a free cancer check as the price of being scanned for explosives. Paranoia in a worthwhile cause).

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    1. Re:Good, but not the killer app by mhackarbie · · Score: 3, Interesting
      There are several reasons why I believe that it has potential as a killer application in biotech. Because it is an external hardware device, it bypasses a lot of testing and regulatory issues that are such a problem for drug development. Also, to improve the diagnostic problem, I think devices like this will ultimately be used in the home, and will generate lots of data over long periods of time. This will provide a lot of opportunity for software developers to create applications which can analyze the data, present it to the user in a useful way, and integrate it with other medical data. I believe that statistical analysis of tissue scan data of millions of people over a period of years or decades might enable a much more effective diagnosis.

      Getting a personal computer into the home was a critical step in the evolution of computer technology, because it brought millions of people into the development cycle. I think the same thing will be true for the evolution of medical technology.

      mhack

      --
      Building a better ribosome since 1997
  20. Sad by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, people are rather interested in themselves, not in charity.

    Speak for yourself.

    In the USA over the last few decades a rather sad mindset has developed amongst certain people. That is that selfishness is normal, natural even. People use this to justify their selfish behavour, or that of the organisations they work for. It is very sad.

    Cancer can act as a metaphor for this type of thinking. Our human bodies are made up of millions of individual cells co-operating and working together. A cancer occurs when a cell becomes defective and no longer lives in harmony with the others.

    1. Re:Sad by mirko · · Score: 1

      Why ?
      I just observe a fact.
      There was a time when I thought people would be interested in marvels such as this one (I did not say it was not a nice thing) but after careful observation, I realized most of them rather prefer what won't frighten them.

      Now, as I mentioned previously, this device would not sell that much, it's like a blood pressure device : one is enough for all the neighbourhood.

      [note to the parent's parent moderator] So, how's that a troll if this is just my observation on which bio app would seriously sell millions ?

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charity, n.:
      A thing that begins at home and usually stays there.

  21. The best thing about it by hendrix69 · · Score: 1

    is that it actually gives you cancer while you scan for cancer. You can't lose!

    --
    The power of Christ compiles you!
  22. Does that mean.. by Mr2cents · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't have to quit smoking?

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  23. But it hasn't been peer reviewed! by PelagicArgosy · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Experts will remain cautious until a study on TRIMprob's abilities has been examined in a peer-reviewed medical journal."

    and from the earlier BBC article:
    "The results have yet to be accepted for publication in a major medical journal - and the device will not find favour in hospitals elsewhere until they are."

    This is the key point - without peer review, there's no way of verifying the claims of a company that is obviously in marketing mode.

    Searching Medline for "Tissue Resonance InterferoMeter Probe" or "TRIMprob" turned up ZERO matches. Without good evidence, there is no reason to take this seriously as other than marketing fluff.

    1. Re:But it hasn't been peer reviewed! by erf · · Score: 1

      If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

  24. dot-bio boom by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    Is this dot-bio boom has something in common with me going boom after another on-line pharmacy spam?

    --
    :wq
  25. Wouldn't it be great if... by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny
    this technology was incorporated into cell phones?

    A quick scan and you could rest assured that your phone wasn't giving you cancer.

    Until it does, that is.

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be great if... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1


      <AOL_VOICE>You've got cancer!</AOL_VOICE>

      Call me old-fashioned, but I think I'd still want to hear it from my doctor.

  26. hesitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have some hesitation to use this latest technology as examination process http://www.wired.com/news/images/0,2334,59434-7999 ,00.html does not appear to be as pleasant as it should be.

    1. Re:hesitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be happier if it was ribbed and vibrated?

  27. Re:cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The smoking cancer risk is greatly exagerrated.

    1 out of 100 non-smokers will die from lung cancer.

    8 out of 100 smokers will die from lung cancer.

    16 out of 100 SARS infections will result in death.

    We all have been told how much the SARS risk was out of proportion. So there you go, better to smoke than contract SARS.

    -Obviously there are other greater risks associated with smoking mainly increased risk of respiratory disease and heart disease.

    Its only when all these seperate risk factors are lumped together that smoking becomes the big killer.

  28. cut the patient into slices for deeper cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for cancer metastases hiding deeper inside the body, you can still cut the patient into slices and scan those. actually, if you cut em really thin, any normal optical (image) hand scanner will do.

  29. That's easy where I'm from. by k0de · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree, and not just for cancer. I live in Canada and though health care is virtually free, not being able to 'buy the best advice' leaves me doubting every diagnosis, and in many cases rightfully so.

    This type of device, if extended for other types of detection, could be exactly what 'Dr. Dad' needs to ensure the family is in general good heath without having to rely on the shady advice of under skilled or under paid health care staff.

    --
    I'm wrong and so are you.
    1. Re:That's easy where I'm from. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I understand what you're hoping for (in fact my family and I tend to home-based healthcare rather than medical community). Unfortunately, a simple black box for all cancers is not likely. Unfortunately I know this all too well because I have a son diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Not all cancers are alike and there is a definitely an art to reading results of tests. We have several fantastic doctors and they do not always agree on the extent that the tumor has been removed based on MRIs. The device in the article (did you RTA?) is not highly specific (where is the cancer/what type etc) and the false negative (VERY important) as well as false positive (anxiety causing but not usually life threatening) rates are not yet known. Those *should* be critical factors determing the use of this product...

  30. Don't worry -- the government will protect us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to the government's complete regulation of the medical industry, you will be protected from ever seeing one of these for ten or twenty years.

  31. Looks a little invasive to me by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    Did anyone take a look at the pictures attached to the article? Personally, I think I'd prefer the old style test... =)

    1. Re:Looks a little invasive to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...then apparently you haven't been tested for testicular cancer. Because that picture isn't very invasive, comparatively. Unless you prefer that from your doctor.

  32. Re:The key is if it's better than current detectio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's rough. My dad passed away in 1997 from cancer and I was only 14, so I know how it feels.

  33. dot everything! by nfotxn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "dot-bio boom"?! There's an over-simplified buzzword raped straight from CNN.

    --

    _nfotxn

  34. Re:The key is if it's better than current detectio by Alkarismi · · Score: 1

    Dude, I'm sorry - I was 38 when it happened to me and it still felt like I was waaaay too young to lose my dad - I can't imagine what it would be like at 14...
    Best regards,
    Mark

  35. OK, so what next.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We found cancer, so what about fixing it. being helpless is the worst thing. Catch it early but what if its untreatable?

  36. Misinformation. by Marc2k · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're only making things worse. You misquoted (perhaps intentionally) to further your definition in hopes that no one would find the Dupont site. The actual line you're quoting, sans elipsis, states, "Transgenics (often referred to as biotechnology) is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to enhance or protect an organism."

    They are clearly talking about the field of transgenics, which is what you called 'biotechnology', they were merely stating that it is often called biotechnology, but with the implication that biotech refers to a much larger spectrum.

    Even further, if you would have followed the link to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)'s glossary, you would have found that they describe biotechnology as, "Biotechnology -
    The use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products." under which the product in question would surely fall.

    --
    --- What
    1. Re:Misinformation. by rulethirty · · Score: 1

      This is the correct definition I have encountered as well. I think the general public has labled biotech from the former definition although it is not accepted by the professionals in the feild, it seems to work for 99% of everyone else. On a side note, I'm sure it doesn't take much pointing out that this article was very poorly written... Just what is a "killer biotech app" anyway!?

    2. Re:Misinformation. by robslimo · · Score: 1

      Just what is a "killer biotech app" anyway!?

      Hmmm. Let's take 'killer' in its original sense, mix in some bio-tech...

      I don't think I want to be anywhere nearby when the next 'killer biotech' product is released

    3. Re:Misinformation. by stm2 · · Score: 1

      I did cut out the first parte because I thought it was confusing. If you like the Biotechnology Industry Organization definition, the tumor handheld scanner still is NOT biotech. Why? Because the product doesn't use a bio process to work. It is just an electronic device, it just process a kind of biological signal (honestly I don't know wich signal). It is like an computerized axial tomography (CAT), but smaller and specialized on a special function. For you and most /. reader, tomography devices are biotech, since has a bio application and are high technology devices. But CAT are not biotech for any scientistic working on the field.
      Biotech most time involves transgenic (thats why Dupont mix them). You should ALTER (or transform as people on the field say) a biological system in order to call something biotech.
      As I said before, go to any biotech company web site and look for their products (or services).

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    4. Re:Misinformation. by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      "For you and most /. reader" Hey, thanks for the petty classification.

      Regardless, it all comes down to how you view 'use a bio process to work'. As I'm sure you've read, the instrument relies on the disordered state of cancerous cells, which resonate to a certain frequency. Is that using a 'bio process to work'? Debatable, but I'd say so. You also seem to be missing the point of their definition, which not only describes exactly the type of products which you described, but also products which work the other way (i.e. products derived from biological processes). Nowhere in their terse [but lucid] definition do I see the necessity of changing the biological state of a living being.

      Also, to your 'go to any biotech company web site' statement, does that mean that's all the field encompasses? I'm not trying to tell you that some (or hell most, I'm not going to pretend I know) companies don't use the term Biotechnology instead of some other, more accurate term, or even that companies/products exist out there that fall under the scope of Biotech, but not inside of transgenics. As an analogy perhaps more relevant to Slashdot, think of the field of computing: many models of computation exist out there, but outside of a few universities, computers of the Von Neumann type, and x86-compatible in particular make up the vast majority of everything produced today. Does that mean that computing doesn't also encompass other models like the data flow model? It does not.

      --
      --- What
    5. Re:Misinformation. by 17028 · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious why you are arguing a point on something you seem to have little knowledge about. Is a stethoscope also biotechnology? Is all medical equipment biotechnology? Read up some, my friend.

    6. Re:Misinformation. by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      Hah. Alright, I concede. I do still heartily disagree with the original poster that his definition of biotechnology is flawed in its scope. Is the actual object in question biotechnology? No, in truth, you're both right on that count. However, you must concur that simply because a product does not alter the biological state of a being does not preclude it from being 'biotechnology'. That was the point which I felt was more solid, but it is quite moot and far off from the original point of 'is this biotech?' by itself. To be frank, you called my bullshit.

      --
      --- What
    7. Re:Misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A common short hand is BioMed for Biomedical Electronics. BioTech has now developed a common usage for more "wet" technology.

    8. Re:Misinformation. by 17028 · · Score: 1

      I'm evil like that.

  37. Re:cancer by sbryant · · Score: 1

    For the record, neither of my parents were smokers. I think I might know how I am going to die.

    Smoking is apparently the number two cause of cancer; the number one is diet. Eat more fresh vegetables and fruit, and less processed foods full of chemicals, and less meat! Vitamin supplements don't fill the gap. Make sure you know the origin of what you're eating, and when it was harvested etc. Oranges, for example, can be stored for a few years before appearing on the shelves.

    -- Steve

  38. dig out your CueCat by bSMfh · · Score: 1

    and make the following modifications.... history

  39. The killer biotech app is already there by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is the day my karma will drop below freezing.

    It's called predictor.

    Maybe not exactly your übercool application of choice. But it is definitively the killer biotech application.

    So there's no CPU in it.


    This line is here 'cause sensible people usually skip silly sigs.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  40. But what we really need... by Snafoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is something like this for STD's. Oh come on, admit it --- condoms suck, and not in that fun way. Wouldn't you rather just tricoder her nether-regions?

    --
    - undoware.ca
    1. Re:But what we really need... by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Is something like this for STD's. Oh come on, admit it --- condoms suck, and not in that fun way. Wouldn't you rather just tricoder her nether-regions?

      Cute, and it might be handy for detecting otherwise hard-to-see lesions. Of course, you're still screwed--and not in that fun way--when it comes to AIDS. Detecting the virus or associated antibodies is going to require some wet chemistry--again, not the fun kind--for the foreseeable future.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:But what we really need... by chefbimbo · · Score: 1

      If I were to sell such a device, I certainly would NOT advertise it on slashdot.

  41. Article smells of hype by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article opens with comments about "40 minute MRI and CAT scans", and "the narrow tube of the MRI scanner". It proceeds to state that an MRI costs "$1000 of the patient's money". While the first two were maybe true a decade ago, the days of even a 20 minute MRI scan are long gone. The medical imaging business is half about diagnostic quality, and half about patient throughput.

    By speeding up the scans as they've been doing since day one, they get more patients through during a day, allowing the scanners to be more profitable, and for the costs to go down. The $3,000,000 figure is awfully high for even a high-end MRI scanner these days.

    This might very well be an interesting, promising device. But, making it look as if it's really good, by presenting deceptive information about the current options, is a huge red flag as far as I'm concerned.

    If it's really a useful device, present it as it is - don't lie about the other technologies. If it's that superior, the marketplace will find it and respond accordingly.

    1. Re:Article smells of hype by CompCons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Check out this company....they have a way of detecting breast cancer that no one is using...works better than Mammogramms or Sonograms and it's cheaper than all of them. I think it's time we started paying attention to the new technology instead of just assuming that the old stuff works fine. Alot of people are dying of cancer and the numbers are only rising.

    2. Re:Article smells of hype by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is good new technology out there. My point is, lying about the current technology isn't the right way to promote something new. If the product is good, time will prove it out. If it's not, then one conclusion about their methods is that the only way they can look good, is to lie about the other technologies.

  42. Henceforth, anyone who says bullpuckey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shall be beaten about the head, neck, chest, breast, body, arms and legs until rendered unconscious.

    After being stricken unconscious, the individual shall then be raped by a pack of wild hyenas, giraffes and one marmaluke.

    Furthermore the use of the word, if you can call it that, "bullpuckey" will label you as a loser.

    That is all.

    Sincerely,

    Society for the eradication of dorks who use the term "bullpuckey"

    1. Re:Henceforth, anyone who says bullpuckey by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Mod +1, Non-Bullpuckey.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  43. Re:cancer by xThinkx · · Score: 0

    1 out of 100 non-smokers will die from lung cancer. 8 out of 100 smokers will die from lung cancer.

    So, you're saying that smoking multiplies your risk of dying from cancer by EIGHT? Obviously it makes sense to willingly participate in an activity which increases your chance of a slow, painful death by such a factor. Oh yeah, there's also the slight downsides of mouth and throat cancer, or if you prefer to ignore cancer all-out, you can consider emphysema, stroke, or heart-attack.

    Since SARS may be one of the most difficult diseases to conquer that human kind has ever encountered, off course you'd be better off without it YOU IDIOT! But smoking doesn't decrease the risk of acquiring SARS, in fact, since it's PROVEN that smoking generally weakens your immune system, it would therefore increase the risk of catching the disease. Twisting words and statistics like you have done may lead to some unfortunate young ./ reader trying smoking for the first time. So I suggest you watch your tar-covered, brown-toothed, disgusting mouth.

    --
    Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
    "
  44. issue of false-positives by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The case of "MRIs on demand" shows the problem of ambiguous medical tests. There are firms all around the country that will perform and interpret a thorac MRI for as little as $500. Typically they find find dozens of "anomalies", that are probably harmless. However, it may cost thousands to track these down, including in some cases biopsies. Especially since the people who voluntarily solicit these MRIs are worry-worts in the first place. Medical economists suggest that test with lots of false-positives are economically counterproductive in an already expensive medical system.

  45. Put it right beside my toothbrush in the bathroom by thepacketmaster · · Score: 1

    This would be great if it could become inexpensive enough for anyone to have. Just do a quick scan of yourself in the morning, along with brushing your teeth. "Oh good, no cancer today!"

    --

    --

    Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

  46. Petition for Cancer Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please sign and/or circulate this petition if you believe in it: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mercedes/

    The Tobacco settlement with the states ($246 billion over 25 years) went to the states, which are pissing it away on everything except cancer research. What the petition advocates is for the Tobacco Industry to fund *its own* carefully focused effort to find a cure for cancer, i.e., eliminate the government middlemen. I bet that if the Tobacco Industry spent 10 billion/year over 5 years, it would find a cure for cancer in 5 years. They could do this by starting a Celera like corporation.

  47. Re:Put it right beside my toothbrush in the bathro by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

    this sounds interesting, however, it will be nice when the day comes -- with the announcement that you can get your own personal scanner that detects, AND eliminates Cancer....just like the tool that Dr Crusher uses in STNG....

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  48. Re:cancer by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
    My father died of cancer at the age of 56 and my mother survived it at the age of 44. I think I might have a high hereditary risk.

    Um, yes? (Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, though some of my research work has involved medical physics with oncology applications.)

    Your parents may be unfortunate victims of statistics, but if there is any other family history of cancer then you might be strongly inclined to consult a genetic counsellor. Your family physician should be able to refer you.

    Many cancers now have excellent long-term survival rates--partly because of some tremendous advances in treatment made over the last decade or two, but often because early detection has improved. Consultation with your family physician and appropriate specialists should help you decide on an appropriate monitoring regimen.

    Oh--and get a reasonable amount of exercise, and eat sensibly. This will do wonders for just about anybody's present and future health.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  49. Re:cancer by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny
    Oranges, for example, can be stored for a few years before appearing on the shelves.
    ah yes, that dreaded biological weapon, Aged Orange.
    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  50. If this has already been posted... by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 0

    why post it again?

  51. "These ARE the tumors you're... by indros13 · · Score: 1

    ...looking for."
    *waves TRIMprob*
    It's about time that the medical community looks for less invasive ways to detect and treat disease. If there is one disadvantage of modern medicine, it's that it requires more probes, pokes, and pat downs to diagnose illness. Sometimes I'd rather be sick...
    That being said, this wand is great for being able to let you know NOW whether or not you have a tumor. That in itself is worth the advance.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  52. Great job, but here is by 2names · · Score: 1
    my question:

    Why are you wasting your time correcting a person who uses the phrase "more broader?"

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  53. You are about to be eaten by a grue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad I could help clear that up. :)

  54. Precision and recall by blahedo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Different forms of medical devices have different requirements for precision---that's the percent of things they report that are correct---and recall---that's the percent of things they are supposed to find, that they do find. Before this could replace an MRI as a primary diagnostic tool, it would need to have 100% recall. Precision is less important, because if you do get a false positive, you can go in for further testing (which is not to diminish the stress and fear induced by false positives).

    In the article the experts comment that it can't replace MRIs yet with the reported accuracy rate, which is true. What it *can* do is become a routine part of a physical. Once the wand is bought, it sounds like using it is essentially free (well, they have to occasionally replace the batteries!), so there's no reason not to just use it all over the place. And what *that* does is make it more likely that we'll detect tumours early, before we would have any reason to suspect a problem otherwise.

    On the problem of false positives, btw---a lot of that can be mitigated by a good doctor. When a false positive is possible, the doctor needs to explain that, exaggerating its possibility, to reduce the stress in the meantime. My mom went through that once; it turned out that she was just unusually athletic and the more muscular tissue set off the sensor! But those three days sucked. Had the doctor said, "look, this is probably nothing, we just need to run another test", it's not nearly as bad.

    --
    ``This, too, shall pass.'' ---Eastern proverb
  55. *HALF* of all fatal road accidents... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...in Australia involve a drunk driver. Bear in mind that roughly 8-fold as many people are maimed for life in road accidents as are killed outright.

    If scanning is what it takes to ensure that my food, medicine etc (airliner's wing spars, name it) are not made by people who are (1) stoned; and/or (2) stupid/wilful enough to delibrately impair themselves for kicks, then so be it.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  56. Re:cancer by Deflagro · · Score: 1

    I liked that, if I had MOD points, this is where they would go.

    --
    Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
  57. And beside the 'tussin! by Vorgo · · Score: 1

    *scans self. detects cancer*
    "Doh! My cancer is acting up again!"
    *reaches for Robitussin Extra Strength Cancer cure*

    --
    A new feature is just a bug waiting to happen. And vice versa.