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.

19 of 128 comments (clear)

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

    Tricorder? ...I knew you could.

  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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!

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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