Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Robot To Destroy Breast Cancer Cells

Posted by timothy on from the tunnelling-tumor-terminating-terrapin dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at the University of Maryland are developing a robot able to detect and destroy breast cancer cells in a single session. After a tumor is located on an MRI, the robot will perform a biopsy of the breast while the patient is inside the scanner. 'If the biopsy displays cancerous cells, the robot will then insert a probe into the breast until it reaches the tumor. The probe will then burn the cancer cells until they are destroyed.' This looks great, but the researchers have only built a prototype. After they refine this robot, they'll need to go through clinical trials and obtain FDA approval. So this is not a robot that will appear on the medical market before several years."

81 comments

  1. WOW! A Roland Story! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    It had been a while. I was beginning to worry something bad had happened to him...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:WOW! A Roland Story! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Now it appears he has heard of the lapriscope and has most likely expanded it into as unlikely a story as the earlier ones where he misunderstands an impressive, useful and pretty impressive bit of technology. I suppose patients are pretty well named if you've got to wait for the cells taken in the biopsy to grow before the operation is finished.

      A tool to help a GP instead of a specialist would be fantastic, by why go furthur and pretend it has to be a robot?

    2. Re:WOW! A Roland Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I was beginning to hope something bad had happened to him...

      Fixed that for ya...

    3. Re:WOW! A Roland Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cells biopsied are examined histologically, they're not cultured.

      It seems the idea is to identify abnormal cells using standard visualising techniques, then use this to guide the 'robot' to the area where it can collect a sample for biopsy and blast the rest at the same time.

      My wife is going to have a mastectomy in a few weeks time so a story like this would have been great a decade ago. Likewise, the story detailing the discovery of the baldness genes would have been useful to me a decade ago.

  2. Robot will destroy all cells. by Chicago+Wolves · · Score: 1

    First breast cancer cells, next, the world.

    1. Re:Robot will destroy all cells. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It's a little scary.

      I for one don't want robots roaming around my wife's breasts (or mine).

      Besides, if sci-fi has taught us anything, it's that that "cures for cancer" turn us into zombies.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Robot will destroy all cells. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I can picture a malfunction and it blowing the tits right off someone. The ultimate horror story. Now that I think about it, I hope they get the bugs worked out before they build one for prostate cancer.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    3. Re:Robot will destroy all cells. by Telecommando · · Score: 1

      There's nothing to worry about unless your name is Sarah Connor.

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
    4. Re:Robot will destroy all cells. by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      Logan's Run...

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  3. Bender? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    They found you a job?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Bender? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Robocop.

    2. Re:Bender? by alex4u2nv · · Score: 1

      Nice one! In other news, here in College Park, MD -- the Halloween store is out of robotic costumes.

      --
      -Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
  4. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why do all the robots get to cop a feel?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots and Gok Wan too.

  5. Re:Bah by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe, but the ladies do need Penicillin afterwards...

  6. Thank god I'm a man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...unless this thing also seeks and destroys prostate cancers!

    *gulp*

    1. Re:Thank god I'm a man by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps this isn't a good time to mention it, but you should know that men can get breast cancer, too. Obviously it's not as common. Male breast cancers account for 1% of all breast cancers.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:Thank god I'm a man by Legion_SB · · Score: 1

      "Man" might be pushing it.

      --
      'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
  7. Money Shot by snoggeramus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I suppose the robot injection to kill the tumor/cancer will be regarded as the money shot?

    1. Re:Money Shot by Bai+jie · · Score: 1

      Considering how expensive new medical technology is, yes I do believe it will be.

  8. I'm curious, why does it take so long? by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If something is promising, can't the process be accelerated (not rushed)? Get a team together to build a better prototype, at the same time have another team build some bio models to test the tool on. That part might take three to five months. While they are doing that, a third team could start lining potentials up for clinical trial. Another eight or so months doing daily trials and refinements. Basically, my ignorance of the field doesn't allow me to understand why it takes more than a year to get something promising into practice (if it ends up actually working).

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the trick is to do it outside the USA, where FDA need not apply. The catch then being that the money isn't there to develop it....

      Guess it depends if the goal is to a) get it out there and help people, or b) get paid to R&D shit (and oogle womens breasts, in this instance).

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Money. Cutting edge medical research and technology is /not/ cheap, even when things are good. And now with all this talk of recessions and depressions, well...

    3. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Are you saying that the money to do this doesn't exist outside the US? That's complete and utter BS, not to mention very arrogant. Besides, if you intend to eventually sell a device like this in the US, you must still follow FDA rules and regulations during product development, clinical trials, etc; regardless if you are actually developing it inside the US or not. Not doing so would almost automatically exclude you from selling it in the US.

      In regards to the comments on speeding it up, obviously you do not work in the medical device manufacturing field. It takes time to develop and prove new technologies that could impact the health of patients, in either a positive or negative way. You must prove that your device does work, not simply that it doesn't not work (intended double negative there).

      Especially since the US legal system does not really discourage frivolous and unfounded lawsuits, you must carefully follow a lot of rules and regulations during product development, long before your device is even allowed to be used with living patients. Rushing a product to market too early could result in going out of business if the technology behind it is not thoroughly proven and documented. Clinical trials alone can take several years, depending on what kind of device you are talking about, how unproven the technology is, etc.

    4. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      If linux on the desktop is promising, can't the process be accelerated (not rushed)?

      Sure it can. But do you want to pay to make it happen?

    5. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you get "lined up" for clinical trials?

      This technique goes after tumors. It is great in that it is less invasive and will probably save more breasts if it works. But women with an existing tumor are already being treated through surgery and chemo and are definitely NOT going to wait for a clinical trial and risk metastization.

      Women for whom existing treatments are not effective are already "too far gone" for this new technique to work.

    6. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a reason why it takes so long; the tests need to be complete. You can never be too sure the implications of something like this without it being subject to the best review we can provide.

      The prospect of such a great idea does not qualify using humans as Guinea Pigs until we realize that this might actually do more damage then good.

      I think this is a great step forward, and I think this is one technology we need to keep our eye on.

    7. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You getting a little bit confused by a scam that is getting played on the mainly American medical market. As an example, when the cervical cancer vaccine was developed and fuly tested in Australia with Australian taxpayers money you still ended up with it being a lot more expensive in the USA with the usual excuse of R&D and FCC compliance costs. Guess what, US consumers pay more for it than anybody else in earth because in that case you are paying for what in that extreme case is completely mythical extra costs (certification for the US market was done with Australian money). Compliance costs are nowhere near what is often claimed and in terms of actual expenditure it's going to be cheaper to develop stuff where there is infrastructure.

      The FDA is often depicted as a bogeyman stopping progress instead of an instrument of government there to make it harder to kill babies with poisoned milk. All developed countries have the equivalent, and while some may do a lot better I really think the FDA is a long way from being the obstacle it is claimed to be - but that's looking at it from the other side of an ocean.

    8. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by wisty · · Score: 1

      Also, the FDA is able to rush out treatments for "compassionate" reasons, so they can treat some patients during the testing phases. This first happened with AZT (the first HIV med). The fact is, this robot just speeds up the treatment a bit, it's not some holy grail to cure cancer. It might help in the long run, but rushing out a buggy beta just isn't worth it.

    9. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a new conspiracy theory to spread around. Aids was created by the pharmaceutical giants as a deadly disease that would spread like wildfire which they could make money off of. They created it in Africa first since it could be a cheap test bed to create drugs to treat the system as a chronic condition rather than an outright cure. It makes more money for the pharmaceutical companies to treat it as a chronic condition than to cure it. Make the people have to pay for the rest of their life or die a horrible death. They use Africa as the test bed since it is nothing but one big third world and "who cares how many die" before they get to the best money making treatment. They introduce it to America to put pressure on the biggest economy to pay for their research and ultimately be the ones they leech the money from since Africans can't pay as much. All win for the pharmaceutical companies. And once they are through with Africa, who cares?

    10. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah I see, so it's just yet another tax on the stupid.

      They think it's Capitalism of course, and thus automatically better than what the commie aussies are doing.

    11. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by CarneAzada · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is, why publish a story about it now, if it won't be in existence for years to come? Someone with cancer right this minute could be reading the story as I type this, imagine how they must feel.

    12. Re:I'm curious, why does it take so long? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      US consumers pay more for these drugs because they can pay more and the drug-sellers know it and set their prices accordingly. (The idea is that these very high profits will lure more companies to do research and develop more and better drugs and that 20 years from now, when the patents all expire, we'll have more cool cheap drugs than we would if no one could charge that much.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  9. A robot to destroy breasts?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Noooooooo. Nooo. No.

  10. how would this possibly work? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If surgeons can't stick a probe into a breast cancer tumor and just burn it today then why could they in a year or two? Often times there has to be a masectomy because...well because you can't just stick a probe in and burn it or remove it any other way really. If a robot can supposedly do it, why can't aren't all surgeons using this method right now? Probably just another Roland screw up in the story.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:how would this possibly work? by RDW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      'If surgeons can't stick a probe into a breast cancer tumor and just burn it today then why could they in a year or two? Often times there has to be a masectomy because...well because you can't just stick a probe in and burn it or remove it any other way really. If a robot can supposedly do it, why can't aren't all surgeons using this method right now?'

      Because it takes large clinical trials to establish if this method is as effective as (e.g.) excising the lump by surgery ('lumpectomy') followed by radiation treatment, just as it previously took a large trial to show that lumpectomy could be as effective as mastectomy in many situations. The 'burning' technique used here (RFA) is one of several experimental therapies being studied for clinical effectiveness, as described in this (now slightly dated) article:

      http://www.cancernews.com/articles/breastcancertherapies.htm

      And no, a robot isn't required for RFA (the system being built at the University of Maryland is really a surgeon-controlled remote manipulator with haptic feedback and live MRI imaging).

    2. Re:how would this possibly work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This probably will go nowhere and cost investors a bundle of cash. With standard surgical excision, a pathologist in the O.R. examines the tissue to see if the tumor(s) were cleanly excised. With an ablative approach like this, you'll never know if the entire tumor was killed. And the surrounding tissue may be so damaged that tumors arising later in the vicinity might be indistinguishable from scar tissue.

      The standard of medical care is also not to wait "3 months" after a mammogram before undergoing surgery. Surgery usually is performed within days of the mammogram--depending on the patient's willingness of course.

  11. Robot? use computer to control it? by Mgccl · · Score: 1

    I volunteer as human pilot. can't trust computer these days.

    1. Re:Robot? use computer to control it? by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      My thoughts as well until I realized that breast cancer occurs more frequently in old saggy breasts than in young supple ones...

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
  12. Breast destroying robots?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently us slashdot users don't already have it hard enough trying to find a potential mate.

    1. Re:Breast destroying robots?! by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Don't worry you can always beat off to plastic women with fake boobs from the porn you get off bittorrent, like the rest of us slashdotters.

    2. Re:Breast destroying robots?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, not all of them have fake boobs. Only the ones that advertise them as "big" usually.

  13. Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We welcome our new breast cancer killing overlords and pledge to assist with breasts in any way we are able.

  14. Well that's fabulous, but in the meantime... by CarneAzada · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Curcumin,a spice found in turmeric, can help shut down a protein that plays a key role in the spread of cancers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-365491/How-curry-help-cancer-bay.html

    1. Re:Well that's fabulous, but in the meantime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Daily Mail says it, it must be true!

    2. Re:Well that's fabulous, but in the meantime... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you prefer some slightly more credible sources:

      http://www.mdanderson.org/departments/newsroom/display.cfm?id=40C16848-750C-4143-A7382A752ED6E734&method=displayFull&pn=9cd50d60-76be-11d4-aec300508bdcce3a

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18462866

      http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/drugdictionary.aspx?CdrID=43115

      It's a compound that MD Anderson has been doing a bunch with - and a whole stack of clinical trials.

      It does have some issues - it seems to affect mitosis on healthy cells http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13711465

    3. Re:Well that's fabulous, but in the meantime... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      If the Daily Mail says it, it must be true!

      Seems that approx. 50% of Daily Mail front pages (the ones not about immigrants, obviously) are health-related stories that describe either:-
      (a) How the deadly threat from something everyday is going to kill us all, or
      (b) How some everyday fruit or substance is the latest miracle cure to something or other, stuff like "Beetroot cures AIDS!"... oops, sorry, wrong bunch of f***wits.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Well that's fabulous, but in the meantime... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If it worked so well the Indians in India would have significantly lower rates of cancer compared to the world (after correcting for problems like "dying of a heart attack/diabetes much earlier" = "not getting cancer" ).

      So far that does not appear to be the case.

      http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/india-has-one-of-the-highest-cancer-rates-in-the-world/

      --
    5. Re:Well that's fabulous, but in the meantime... by CarneAzada · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay. I guess I got "pwned".

  15. I've seen this movie by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    I guess by now a number of people would bet that the robot will soon be starring in a sci-fi/horror movie, called something like, "Breast Fest '78".

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  16. Boob jobs.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to see what happens when the machine finds silicone, pops it like a zit, finds a false positive (or a real positive near the implant), then sets the poor woman's chest on fire (or makes it explode)

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:Boob jobs.. by Tailsfan · · Score: 1

      LOL, all this is so funny. Actress:OMG, a robot, in my boob. Who wouldn't wanna control a 'bot in a girl's breast.

    2. Re:Boob jobs.. by No+Xplode · · Score: 1

      They don't need a robot to find silicone, use me instead ;]

  17. Robotic system by RDW · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a better description of the technology from the lab involved here:

    http://rams.umd.edu/html/news.shtml#nihr01

    'The goal of this project is to develop a novel teleoperated robotic system with haptic (sense of touch) feedback capability that will provide accurate feedback to the physician performing Breast biopsy (Bx) and/or Radio-frequency ablation (RFA) under continuous Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Some of the primary challenges of this project include: development of a compact robot manipulator, actuation and sensing that is MRI compatible, efficient use of MRI image sequences to guide the Bx needle and/or RFA probe accurately using adaptive control schemes that incorporate soft-tissue properties as the needle/probe traverses the tissue, and an intuitive user-interface which will provide real-time MRI images and Bx needle/RFA probe tracking with respect to the tumor (target) location.'

    You don't have to wait for any cells to grow to make use of the biopsy (it can be assessed directly), but obviously a pathologist will have to examine the sample under a microscope before a treatment decision is made.

    1. Re:Robotic system by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      As long as there is a doctor and the patient has been informed about what's going on, and then the go ahead is given to the robot by the doctor who obtained consent, yeah. I'm very weary of any kind of automatic surgery device. What if it malfuctions? Imagine an automated lobotomy robot: come here, Mr. Patient, I have diagnosed you with a rare brain disorder!

    2. Re:Robotic system by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      It's not automatic. It's a teleoperation system that can be used on the spot.

  18. ED-209 by jamesh · · Score: 1

    This is probably the most tasteless thought that has ever popped into my head upon reading a slashdot article, but my first thought was an ED-209 style robot that would go around blowing womens breasts off. Sure, it's intention would be to do biopsies and only remove cancerous cells, but it would reason that if breasts were totally destroyed then they couldn't get cancer in the first place, and ED-209 was never the smartest of robots...

  19. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Your BREAST Are Belong To Us!

    1. Re:obligatory by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I read your post and went and tagged it "boobies" just for you.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  20. Aaaaaah... robots. by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

    Is there anything they can't do?

    --
    HAND.
  21. Re:Bah by MrNaz · · Score: 1

    You can't treat post-traumatic stress with penicillin.

    --
    I hate printers.
  22. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You can't treat post-traumatic stress with penicillin.

    Nor did I realize that penicillin is used to treat uncontrollable humiliation-based laughing.

  23. Robocopafeel by nameendingwith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While "roboticcopafeel" does sound like that latest toy that all parents should go out and buy for their children, I suggest "robocopafeel" would be a much better pun. In fact, aren't they making that into the next Robocop movie?

  24. what no Idiocracy tag? by life+atom · · Score: 1

    (Insert tube.)

    --
    /.is against patents. /.is against developer rights. /.is for increased liability.
    1. Re:what no Idiocracy tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Insert tube.)

      Did someone say idiocracy?

      Okay, before you go get an MRI, you'll need to use these probes. One in your mouth, one in your nose, and one up your butt... Oh wait, I think I mixed them up, here put this one in your mouth...

  25. Cut 'em off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure of the cost/benefit of this contraption for the vast majority of women.
    If a woman is so young that an expensive MRI is needed to see through her dense breast tissue, then get a mastectomy if she's already developed breast cancer. Don't do a bitty procedure now and wait for an occult tumor to grow and metastasize. The incisions and ablations from this robot are likely to impede accurate future detection, as well. If a woman is an early bloomer, just get the boob(s) removed.
    If a woman is older, with less dense tissue, an MRI isn't needed.

  26. insufficient MRI resolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't think MRI has sufficient spatial resolution to do this kind of thing? Breast tumor staging begins at approximately 1 mm tumor diameter. I had thought that the spatial resolution limit of a 3 Tesla MRI machine was near 1 mm, assuming a good pulse sequence and contrasty subject material.

    The real challenge with breast cancer is making sure it is encapsulated, and that you can surgically remove EVERY malignant cell...I am skeptical that this is possible within the current spatial resolution limits...

  27. Alien anal probe by BurningTyger · · Score: 1

    So all these alien anal probing is really just alien robot practicing removal of colorectal cancer!

  28. Why just breast cancer? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

    This sounds like something that, if it works, would apply to many forms of cancer. Is it just because breast cancer research is popular in funding circles or is there something specific to breast cancer to limit the applicability of the technique to breast cancer tumours?

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    1. Re:Why just breast cancer? by bogwoppit · · Score: 1

      I would guess it's because breast tissue is comparatively accessible, making it easier to biopsy and operate on with new technology such as this.

    2. Re:Why just breast cancer? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      This sounds like something that, if it works, would apply to many forms of cancer. Is it just because breast cancer research is popular in funding circles or is there something specific to breast cancer to limit the applicability of the technique to breast cancer tumours?

      Yes: Breast cancer occurs in tissue that is easily accessible from the outside and that is not vital for the patient.

      This means you can stick a needle in it and try to thermally destroy the cancer. The same technique could not be applied, to say, brain tumors or bone/pancreas/colon/liver/kidney/lung/esophagal/stomach/bladder cancers, since they are either not easily accessible by probe or will react very badly if the tumor is destroyed too aggressively (i.e. with too much loss of healthy tissue), or will require additional surgery after the tumor has been removed since you can't simply wait for the "hole" to fix itself.

    3. Re:Why just breast cancer? by RDW · · Score: 1

      The RFA ('burning') technique is in fact already being applied to certain types of cancer in the kidney, liver and lung:

      http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=23208

      It can actually be less invasive than standard surgery.

      MRI-guided surgical manipulators of one kind or another are also being developed for other applications (e.g., the lab working on the breast cancer system also has funding to develop a brain surgery device).

    4. Re:Why just breast cancer? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Mmmm according to another poster it has been applied to some of the cancers you say it cannot be applied to.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  29. Just look at by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    The adoption of the DaVinci surgical robot. Right now they're all human controlled but I can see a point in the near term future where AI could be used in such robots.

    All the pieces are or will soon be in place. We've got the advance scanning technology, and the robotics.

    The same thing is happening with cars. They've gotten pretty advanced, some are even truly drive by wire. GPS is also evolving too. The biggest issue is coordinating maps with the lat/long coordinates.

    And the DARPA Grand Challenges, the first one wasn't so successful but the Urban Challenge was fantastic.

    So you have to ask, how long before the technology for an autonomous vehicle can be adapted to the consumer market. I'd say less than five years.

    So an autonomous surgical robot isn't such a far stretch either.

  30. This reminds of a scene from by NoLoSo · · Score: 1

    Logan's Run.

  31. Please put down your breasts... by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

    ... you have 20 seconds to comply.

  32. Not just breast cancer by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

    That's what I would have thought. It's good to hear that it is also being tried on other types of cancer.

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  33. using virus shells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My girlfriend was talking to me about emerging MRI technologies which I felt ermm... "outgeeked" and barely understood what she was talking about. But from my understanding, these robots would have to be virus shells that carry the information to kill the cancer? I'm only assuming that because you can't have any kind of metal in or near an MRI scanner.