Slashdot Mirror


A Breathalyzer For Cancer

Tiger4 writes "Cancer researchers in the UK have come up with a way to sniff for lung cancer on the breath. 'From the results, the researchers identified 42 "volatile organic compounds" (VOCs) present in the breath of 83% of cancer patients but fewer than 83% of healthy volunteers. Four of the most reliable were used to develop a nine-sensor array made from tiny gold particles coated with reactive chemicals sensitive to the compounds.' Other sources have picked up the story as well. Obviously, this would be a big breakthrough for rapid screening, and early detection significantly improves outcomes."

3 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Early detection doesn't always improve outcomes by RonBurk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Non-oncs generally don't understand that a whole lot of cancer is "clinically irrelevant". That is, it would never go on to kill you. Thus, as early detection gets better in most areas, you detect a greater percentage of cancer that was never going to hurt the patient. However, once you see the cancer, you are duty-bound to slash/burn/poison (Susan Love's famous chapters) to cure it. Statistically speaking, you know you are actually harming some patients, but it is a dilemma -- you hurt all the patients in order to serve a greater good for some percentage of them. A good example is the growing backlash against general PSA screening. Even just a biopsy for prostate cancer can't be 100% risk-free, but the treatment is really risky, assuming you're not enthusiastic about being impotent and/or incontinent for the rest of your life.

    So don't get too excited about increased early detection of cancer. Currently, it is usually a double-edged sword that brings suffering to some percentage of patients who would have avoided it before the new test existed. An exciting development would be a detection test for distinguishing cancer that's just sitting there from cancer that's on the move and likely to kill.

  2. Re:Makes sense by foobsr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the scientific method that they must have employed

    Quote from FA: "Moreover, in a break from the convention in medical innovation, the researchers claim that full clinical trials may not be necessary to take this new technology to a stage where it is hospital-ready. They believe instead that they could prove the device's accuracy using a series of "artificial mixtures" of particulates that could simulate cancerous and healthy breath. "

    In short: We are only in it for the money.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  3. Re:Makes sense by uwnav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they weren't in it for the money. This would never have been made!

    Since when did research/production/innovation with the goal of making money become a bad thing? It's like it's become a taboo.. making money, it's for the exchange of goods and services!

    Pay them in jelly-beans! everyone loves jelly-beans! awww look! they're doing it for jellllyyy beeaaanns