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.'"

35 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. RTFA by (eternal_software) · · Score: 4, Informative

    These tests are performed on a drop of blood. They don't enter the body!

    "A nanowire array can test a mere pinprick of blood in just minutes, providing a nearly instantaneous scan for many different cancer markers."

  2. Re:Is this technology carcinogenic? by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

    They take a blood sample from the patient, and then use the nanowires to test it.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. Over the counter? by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder when we'll be able to buy over the counter cancer tests? We're pretty much there for HIV.

    We're already a society of hypochondriacs. Imagine if you could test yourself at home for every devestating disease there is.

    Of course, I'm getting a ahead of myself. Early detection is the best defense. If this is as good as they say it is, it could save a LOT of lives.

    1. Re:Over the counter? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wouldn't easy, reliable testing be good for hypochondriacs? Then they'd be able to tell, conclusively, that they're not sick!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Over the counter? by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 2, Informative

      The nature of the hypochondriac is that no diagnosis is ever good enough.

      "Well, maybe I administered the test wrong...I'll just go back to the store and get a few more so I can try again...then I'll call my doctor..."

    3. Re:Over the counter? by Manchot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Over the counter? by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Hypochondria is a problem thanks to the Internet. There was that article a while ago on Slashdot about how doctors and hospitals don't see people thinking they have cramps or the flu, they get people who think they have appendicitis, cancer, and fatal familial insomnia and other insanely rare disorders. I know I have a bit of this (watch special about rare/deadly disease, start interpreting little things as "do I have this?").

      That said, if these tests were really that accurate and could be done at home, that might help. People who are hypochondriacs could test their blood and find out they DON'T have cancer. After using such a definitive test a couple of times they might very well "get the picture" that their next headache is a headache and not a brain tumor.

      On the other hand, if these things are sold to the public and have much of a false positive rate, that would be a BIG problem.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    5. Re:Over the counter? by masklinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:Over the counter? by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it started even before the internet. I blame the "cleanliness" industry for telling us that EVERYTHING WE EVER TOUCH has to be completely sanitized or the evil germs will get us. In addition to making us completely paranoid, it's hindered the development of our immune systems.

      George Carlin said it the best in his "fear of germs" tirade.

    7. Re:Over the counter? by mwilli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    8. Re:Over the counter? by Maliuta · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Assuming individuals test themselves regularly (every 6 months perhaps)."

      This is exactly the issue, if people test themselves. I was diagnosed with Accute Lymphoblastic Lukaemia (ALL) in Jan 2003, I hold the record for the highest circulating Lukaemic count in an adult in Queensland(Australia) - I could have been diagnosed sooner had I been tested, the issue is that I didn't think I needed to see a doctor for testing. While tests like this are excelent in providing difinitive results for early detection in a short period of time people need to use them to reduce the risk of people almost dieing(like I did) from various cancers.

      Something else worth mentioning is that we currently have no cure for cancers, we in the cancer community can only hope for "long term remission". While remission may last for the rest of your life, in fact you may die from other natural causes, this does not mean you are cured. I, for example, will live with the risk of relapse for the rest of my life. Despite recieving heaps of chemo and a bone marrow transplant.

  4. A nanotech cure can't be far behind by Travoltus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:A nanotech cure can't be far behind by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, where do all the waste products go after the cells are exploded or rendered sterile? Out via #1 and #2?

  5. Other uses? by pin_gween · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wonder if they can adapt this to be an accurate test for prion related disease like BSE (mad cow disiease). If it could be used for both humans AND other animals, the food supply could become safer.

    --
    Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life

    Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
    1. Re:Other uses? by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wonder if they can adapt this to be an accurate test for prion related disease like BSE (mad cow disiease). If it could be used for both humans AND other animals, the food supply could become safer.

      Personally, I have no plans to eat humans, whether they have BSE or not ;)

      --
      Be relentless!
    2. Re:Other uses? by jdbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Other uses? by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 2

      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.

      Source?

      I don't know of any countries that still permit this.

      -a

  6. But! But! by jcr · · Score: 3, Funny

    God promised that the cure for cancer would be discovered at Oral Roberts University! Oral even said so!

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. This is COOL technology by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is COOL technology by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given that this tests blood samples outside of the body, I would expect military uses to be more along the lines of detecting exposure to chemical/biological/radioactive agents, rather than detecting battle wounds.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. How much? by grogdamighty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While the advance of medical technology has invariably led to better health and longer lives, I have to imagine that this technology will be cost-prohibitive enough to either lack practicality or to be available to the rich.

    --
    My other sig is funny.
    1. Re:How much? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have to imagine that this technology will be cost-prohibitive
      A few nanometers of silicon doesn't sound very expensive to me!

      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.

  9. Sensitivity & Specificity by mictho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Sensitivity & Specificity by nanoakron · · Score: 2, Informative

      A very good point.

      Go look up 'lead time bias' and breast cancer treatments. The biggest shock is that we're now detecting far more breast cancers than ever before, yet the death rate (or 5-year survival) has barely changed.

      This raises a couple of possibilities:
      1 - We're just detecting cancers earlier, and our current treatments do nothing for those with the disease. I.e. people are living longer with the cancer not because the treatment is better but because they're diagnosed earlier.

      2 - We're still failing to catch the really bad cancers out there. The ones that develop really quickly and we can't do anything about. These are chipping away at our 5 year survival rates.

      So will a rapid home cancer test kit help? Who knows as of yet. Problems are going to be addressing the above issues, as well as letting people know that there are such things as:

      - 'sensitivity' - a 'false positive' rate (as well as false negatives of course - a far worse thing)
      - and also a 'the test is positive but it's because of ingrowing toenails and not cancer' rate (specificity).

      Could be good...we'll have to wait and see. Personally, I see better applications for being able to detect minute amounts of blood proteins than 'cancer detection'.

      -Nano.

  10. Nano this, nano that by picz+plz · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have a nano cure for thirst. Nano-H2O contains nanoscopic molecules of water that will quench your thirst. Best of all, it's for sale now!

  11. Concern: by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Doesn't such sensitivity increase the number of false-positives?

    (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
  12. Cool, but useful? Not so sure... by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is really cool technology, and if you read the actual Nat Biotech article, they've improved the sensitivity by a couple orders of magnitude using some kind of lableing process (ie gold)...

    However, using this as a method of detecting cancer might not be so useful. The presence of various markers in the blood is probably normal. What you want to know, is whether or not these markers are present on cells when they should be absent. They claim to be able to detect PICOgrams/mL of a specific protein in the blood. Unfortunately, all males have PSA in their blood and it's the amount that's important, not its presence. That's just for prostate cancer. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that we don't know enough about most cancers for us to know what to detect to be useful.

    I can definitely see this as a useful tool for detecting hazardous chemicals and biologicals agents and scientists are always looking for more sensitive instruments. I think that's why the article appeared in Nature Biotechnology and not Nature. Still way impressive, though.

  13. Well.. by Francis85 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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..

  14. Re:Is this technology carcinogenic? by masklinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  15. Nano Overload... by LEX+LETHAL · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh great! Not only has my Nano been cursed with a delicate screen that invites scratches, now it seems it's capable of succumbing to cancer as well.

  16. Hypochondria, Internet, and the British Library by rxmd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hypochondria is a problem thanks to the Internet. There was that article a while ago on Slashdot about how doctors and hospitals don't see people thinking they have cramps or the flu, they get people who think they have appendicitis, cancer, and fatal familial insomnia and other insanely rare disorders. I know I have a bit of this (watch special about rare/deadly disease, start interpreting little things as "do I have this?").

    "It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertisement without being impelled to the conclusion that I am suffering from the particular disease therein dealt with in its most virulent form. The diagnosis seems in every case to correspond exactly with all the sensations that I have ever felt.

    I remember going to the British Museum one day to read up the treatment for some slight ailment of which I had a touch--hay fever, I fancy it was. I got down the book, and read all I came to read; and then, in an unthinking moment, I idly turned the leaves, and began to indolently study diseases, generally. I forget which was the first distemper I plunged into--some fearful, devastating scourge, I know--and, before I had glanced half down the list of "premonitory symptoms," it was borne in upon me that I had fairly got it.

    I sat for awhile, frozen with horror; and then, in the listlessness of despair, I again turned over the pages. I came to typhoid fever--read the symptoms--discovered that I had typhoid fever, must have had it for months without knowing it--wondered what else I had got; turned up St. Vitus's Dance--found, as I expected, that I had that too,--began to get interested in my case, and determined to sift it to the bottom, and so started alphabetically--read up ague, and learnt that I was sickening for it, and that the acute stage would commence in about another fortnight. Bright's disease, I was relieved to find, I had only in a modified form, and, so far as that was concerned, I might live for years. Cholera I had, with severe complications; and diphtheria I seemed to have been born with. I plodded conscientiously through the twenty-six letters, and the only malady I could conclude I had not got was housemaid's knee.

    I felt rather hurt about this at first; it seemed somehow to be a sort of slight. Why hadn't I got housemaid's knee? Why this invidious reservation? After a while, however, less grasping feelings prevailed. I reflected that I had every other known malady in the pharmacology, and I grew less selfish, and determined to do without housemaid's knee. Gout, in its most malignant stage, it would appear, had seized me without my being aware of it; and zymosis I had evidently been suffering with from boyhood. There were no more diseases after zymosis, so I concluded there was nothing else the matter with me.

    I sat and pondered. I thought what an interesting case I must be from a medical point of view, what an acquisition I should be to a class! Students would have no need to "walk the hospitals," if they had me. I was a hospital in myself. All they need do would be to walk round me, and, after that, take their diploma.

    Then I wondered how long I had to live. I tried to examine myself. I felt my pulse. I could not at first feel any pulse at all. Then, all of a sudden, it seemed to start off. I pulled out my watch and timed it. I made it a hundred and forty-seven to the minute. I tried to feel my heart. I could not feel my heart. It had stopped beating. I have since been induced to come to the opinion that it must have been there all the time, and must have been beating, but I cannot account for it. I patted myself all over my front, from what I call my waist up to my head, and I went a bit round each side, and a little way up the back. But I could not feel or hear anything. I tried to look at my tongue. I stuck it out as far as ever it would go, and I shut one eye, and tried to examine it with the other. I could only see the tip, and the only thing that I could gain from that was

    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
  17. Sounds like the main improvement is cost by LoveMe2Times · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Thank you. by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was actually curious. :P

  19. Re:Screening semen samples for genetic abnormaliti by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Funny

    30 years later...

    Welcome to Gattaca.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  20. So we all have cancer now? by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    More than likely we all have a few cancerous cells in our bodies right now. The point is that they don't bloom to full-on cancer, they get dispatched by the immune system.

    Will this extremely accurate test be able to tell between unchecked cancer cells and those few cells which the body would take care off naturally? Or are we all going to turn into cancer patients ?