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."

16 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Sensitivity and specificity? by yali · · Score: 4, Interesting

    83% of cancer patients but fewer than 83% of healthy volunteers

    Let me introduce you to my friend Reverend Bayes.

    1. Re:Sensitivity and specificity? by graft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah... that was my first reaction. With a false-positive rate that high, this is useless as a diagnostic tool.

    2. Re:Sensitivity and specificity? by DeadDecoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends on how quick and cheap this test is. If it's really cheap, then it would be useful in validating more accurate (and inherently more expensive) tests that would be used for initial detection or risk assessment. As a hospital manager would you rather run 83 cheap tests and 17 expensive ones to confirm or 100 expensive tests; again it depends on the cost. On the other hand, I'd be more worried about the false negatives. Not being diagnosed with cancer, when you have it, and getting early treatment is much worse than getting an extra test, at least from the patient's perspective.

    3. Re:Sensitivity and specificity? by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would run whichever test had the highest profit margin.

    4. Re:Sensitivity and specificity? by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not how it works. Assuming 83% is the accuracy for both positives and negatives, and given a group of 100 people, 10 of whom have lung cancer, we would expect on average:
      2 patients with cancer will not be detected.
      17 cancer-free patients will be told they may have cancer.

      If our patients have no increased risk for cancer, then our group of 17 false-positives are suddenly scared into receiving further (possibly expensive) further testing. Our two patients whose cancer was not detected ignore futher testing until it is too late.

      Basically, this technique is mostly useless for general screening. Of course, widespread screening generally is a bad idea, due to false positives, so the best bet is always to stick with those with higher risks only. I could see this method gaining use in developing nations where an expensive test is not possible, as the false-negative rate is still smaller than the current rate of undiagnosed cancer. However, dealing with the false-positives is still a bitch.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  2. Hrm.. by derfy · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, next time you get pulled over:

    "Sir, were you aware of how fast your cancer was progressing?"

  3. 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.

    1. Re:Early detection doesn't always improve outcomes by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wish my Cancer had been detected earlier (Hairy Cell Leukaemia). Certainly before my immune system had been virtually trashed. Then the Chemo killed it completely but that is the nature of Chemo.

      There are many cancers that creep up on you slowly and almost unrecognised until they hit a critical mass. Any early detection of this type of cancer would be most welcomed by the people who have the misfortune to suffer from them.

      Just my $0.02 worth.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  4. Re:Oscar (cat) by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a cat that seems to be able to tell when someone is about to die.

    I'm sorry sir... but according to your latest cat scan, your death is imminent.

  5. 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)
  6. Re:Oscar (cat) by mach1980 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Makes me remember Bono's famous statement on stage -"Every time I clap my hands - a child dies". Followed by someone in the audience screaming -"Then stop clapping you sick f*ck!".

    --
    Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
  7. Re:Oscar (cat) by PiSkyHi · · Score: 5, Funny

    That cat is a genius - they still haven't found where he conceals the weapon.

  8. Re:Oscar (cat) by s09 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I see. Cats found a way to measure when we certainly die, though we keep saying we can't (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)..

  9. Re:Oscar (cat) by Fusen · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't know we are allowed to quote House episodes as scientific fact nowadays :P

  10. 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

  11. P.R. Alert. Misleading Slashdot summary. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    P.R. Alert: This Slashdot story is a public relations release. The misleading Slashdot summary says, "Other sources have picked up the story...". In reality, they are inserting press releases everywhere they can, and the kind of work being done is not new.

    It was proven long ago that dogs can smell chemicals associated with cancer. For example, see this 2006 article in National Geographic News, Dogs Smell Cancer in Patients' Breath, Study Shows. That's part of what started the present interest in making a machine to detect cancer.

    This February 2007 article is more interesting: Compact lung-cancer breath test may be possible. Quote: "The test uses 36 chemical dots that react to telltale compounds in a person's breath. The dots change colour when exposed to compounds that signify the presence of lung cancer."

    This February 2007 article gives more information about how it is done: US Scientists Prototype Breath Test For Lung Cancer

    Even Oprah's magazine had article in June 2009 about dogs sniffing cancer and making machines to imitate dogs: Sniffing Out Cancer. Quote: "The researchers are collaborating with scientists at the University of Maine, who are trying to mimic the dogs' cancer-sniffing abilities with laboratory machines." Another quote: "So far, the Pine Street Foundation dogs have done 25,000 scent trials for ovarian cancer."

    Slashdot: Not quite as current as Oprah? Old news for nerds who were playing video games and wouldn't know the difference?

    Many researchers are doing similar work. For example, see the February 2008 article, The Cancer Breathalyzer. Quote: "Dr Yousef ... believes that the breath test will provide a more convenient and rapid method for diagnosing serious diseases than blood or urine analysis, and will require minimal medical intervention."

    Other researchers are studying the possibility of using blood tests to detect cancer. See the December 2007 article, Study points to possibility of blood test to detect lung cancer.

    Here is a November 2005 research paper that surveys some of the issues of early detection of cancer: The Progress and Promise of Molecular Imaging Probes in Oncologic Drug Development.