Slashdot Mirror
Extremely Accurate Nanotech Cancer Test Developed
Sylvestre writes "Medical News Today reports that Harvard researchers have developed an accurate test for cancer using nanotechnology. From the article: 'Harvard University researchers have found that molecular markers indicating the presence of cancer in the body are readily detected in blood scanned by special arrays of silicon nanowires -- even when these cancer markers constitute only one hundred-billionth of the protein present in a drop of blood. In addition to this exceptional accuracy and sensitivity, the minuscule devices also promise to pinpoint the exact type of cancer present with a speed not currently available to clinicians.'"
How long before they make nanites that can find cancerous cells and destroy them with extreme prejudice?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
FTFA: "The work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Cancer Institute."
Of course it is funded by DARPA, the army would love to have medical advancements like that on the battlefield. When a necklace every soldier wears instantly tells the med-tech that the wound the wearer is suffering has punctured a lung or spleen or something like that.
I can also envision this kind of technology being incorporated in care-giving robots for the elderly and infirm. If you have a 'tri-corder' like medical diagnosis kit that can fit on a robot, the robot then would know what to tell the 911 operator when it called, other than "help, they've fallen and can't get up" and that makes this type of nanotech VERY cool. Talk about search and rescue... a robot finds bodies in the rubble, slaps a triage-analysis bandage on their skin and can then tell rescue workers what kind of medical treatments are necessary.... Well, I hope that is what comes of this stuff. That magic little microphone looking thing that Dr McCoy always waved around was damned cool!!
I suppose one of the real drawbacks is that drug screenings for employment might be used to cancel insurance and work contracts etc. based on ineligiblity due to pre-existing conditions and bad things like that. (uhhhh thinking of bad scifi movies now)
Still, its cool.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Micro-cancers may spontaneously occur (and perhaps regress) frequently; no one really knows. However, most cancers presumably started as micro-cancers. I fear this test will pick-up "cancers" of questionable significance. What impact will such a test have on healthcare costs, if a battery of additional diagnostic tests are used to work-up a "positive" screening test?
You are absolutely correct. If this can detect even the smallest cluster of cancer cells, it can be caught years before it would be detected using current methods. When cancerous clusters are very small, they are fairly easy to kill off. Therefore, this technology has the potential to be the mythical "cure for cancer" that we've been searching for for years.
(Going on the theory that your body will always have a few cancerous cells - or at least some molecular mimicry of cancer markers - which the body's immune system can deal with so that tumors never develop.)
I suggest you read Slashdot
Too bad when people go to be checked for cancer, they usually suffer from the symptoms. The cancer at that stage is already big, and often spread around multiple organs..
Indeed, and yet one can't help but wonder if this wouldn't be integrable to nanochips implanted in one's body to check one's body's evolution in real time.
Some cancers are hard to detect and evolve extremely fast, once the first symptoms show themselves is already too late for the man to have any chance of survival. Having the ability to track cancer's birth and evolution in real time would prove extremely valuable to both patients and medical organisms...
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Well, apendicitis and cancer are hardly "insanely rare disorders". Uncommon compared to cramps or flu maybe, but common enough for most people to have family members or friends suffer from them.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Kidding aside, let's not jump to assumptions. I'm sure with will be costly right at first, but what makes you think it's inherently expensive? You have to compare with the alternatives; it might well be cheaper than whatever they're doing now. And with the ability to diagnose cancer so much earlier and more accurately, the long-term treatment might well be much cheaper - oh, and you'll be a lot less likely to die.
Currently, testing for tumor markers is not all that slow--it only takes a couple of hours if you have your blood drawn at the same location that runs the tests. However, each marker you want to test for requires that another vial of blood be taken and costs around $100. Getting the results back in 5 minutes is relatively unimportant, but being able to test for say 50 tumor markers with only 1 blood sample and one low price would be really valuable even if it took *longer* than current methods. That way, you would just check for all the most common markers for your gender/race every time you went in for a physical. Or if you were in an at-risk category, maybe more often.
It would not exactly be the "cure" for cancer, but this in conjunction with current treatments (i.e., radiation therapy), we could pretty much eliminate the threat of cancer altogether. Assuming individuals test themselves regularly (every 6 months perhaps).
My sig beat up your sig.
That would be pretty cool; but a better way would be for the beef industry to be restricted from feeding ruminants (i.e. dead cattle) to cattle.
This is because the most "effective" infection vector (or whatever the term is) is for an infected (dead) cow to be fed to a healthy cow.
(And yes, this is common feeding practive.)
Eliminate animal cannibalism and much of the danger of BSE is eliminated; this should of course be accompanied by specific testing, but it's important to prevent outbreaks from becoming epidemics.
Unf. this would cost the beef industry somewhat more money (as they wouldn't get free feed from dead cows), and they are resisting it very strongly.