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.

Comments

Can you say...

[craenor]

Tricorder? ...I knew you could.

I'm sure it will do wonders for..

[3.5 stripes]

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!

Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for..

[xtal]

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.

Erm

[TCM]

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

The key is if it's better than current detection

[Alkarismi]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Discovery Channel

[SkewlD00d]

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.

Re:Discovery Channel

[bigpat]

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.

Progress

[Duds]

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

Another slashdot timesaver * teeth glint *

Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious?

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious?

[G. W. Bush Junior]

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?

Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious?

[Idarubicin]

"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.)

How about cancer-sniffing dogs?

[blakespot]

It seems you don't need electronics to detect cancer, just man's best friend. Interesting stuff.

blakespot

Re:This is not biotech

[robslimo]

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.

cancer

[Pompatus]

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.

Not convinced

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Not convinced

[nordicfrost]

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?

Re:Not convinced

[HeyLaughingBoy]

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.

Fantastic! This will come in eh...'handy' for:

[madmarcel]

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 /. )

Sad

[pubjames]

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.

But it hasn't been peer reviewed!

[PelagicArgosy]

"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.

Wouldn't it be great if...

[mikeophile]

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.

That's easy where I'm from.

[k0de]

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.

Misinformation.

[Marc2k]

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.

But what we really need...

[Snafoo]

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?

Re:Article smells of hype

[CompCons]

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.

Re:Good, but not the killer app

[mhackarbie]

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