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.
Tricorder? ...I knew you could.
no flatbed cancer-scanners? I'm sure there'll be a market for them! ;)
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
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!
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
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!
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.
We now advertise dupes directly in the story to save your inevitable searches!
Another slashdot timesaver * teeth glint *
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.
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
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
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
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.
Here's a post about something a fair amount of /.ers will not be familiar with: BREASTS ;^)
;) 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.
:)
;)
:o
/. )
(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
(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
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
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.
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.
"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.
A quick scan and you could rest assured that your phone wasn't giving you cancer.
Until it does, that is.
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.
"dot-bio boom"?! There's an over-simplified buzzword raped straight from CNN.
_nfotxn
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
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
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.
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.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
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