Slashdot Mirror
Man Saves Wife's Sight By 3D Printing Her Tumor
An anonymous reader writes: Michael Balzer, a former software engineer and Air Force technical instructor, found himself unsatisfied with a doctor's diagnosis of a small tumor behind his wife's left eye. Balzer had recently become proficient at creating 3D models, so he asked the doctor for the raw medical imaging data and took a look himself. In addition to correcting a later misdiagnosis, Balzer 3D printed models of his wife's cranium and helped neurosurgeons plan a procedure to remove the tumor, instead of waiting to see how it developed, like previous doctors had recommended. During the procedure, surgeons found the tumor was beginning to entangle her optic nerve, and even a six-month wait would have had dire consequences for her eyesight.
Medical researchers like Dr. Michael Patton believe this sort of prototyping will become "the new normal" in a very short time. He says, "What you can now do through 3D printing is like what you're able to do in the software world: Rapid iteration, fail fast, get something to market quickly. You can print the prototypes, and then you can print out model organs on which to test the products. You can potentially obviate the need for some animal studies, and you can do this proof of concept before extensive patient trials are conducted.
Medical researchers like Dr. Michael Patton believe this sort of prototyping will become "the new normal" in a very short time. He says, "What you can now do through 3D printing is like what you're able to do in the software world: Rapid iteration, fail fast, get something to market quickly. You can print the prototypes, and then you can print out model organs on which to test the products. You can potentially obviate the need for some animal studies, and you can do this proof of concept before extensive patient trials are conducted.
Most medical imaging equipment will dump out a DICOM file, which, IIRC, can be translated into the more typical 3D formats. So pretty much everybody that gets a CT or MRI could get the data. Then you just have to set up the printer.
I could see this as a growth industry for hospitals (hey, we need the money) - instead of getting some miserable little CD with your image, you get a plastic skeleton (or plastic squishy part). Coffee table discussion item or new D&D figurine?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I think it is safe to say that 3D modeling had saved her sight. Doctors could have looked at the digital model and proceeded as well.
I'm not a vet student, but I did spend a night helping one study the sinuses of a large animal (they split in to large animal (farm) and small animal (pet) specialties) and some of the learning materials are a little difficult to wrap your brain around, in particular how the sinuses (voids in the skull) exist inside the skull, how they connect (or don't) and simply where they are. The brain has enough trouble understanding negative spaces, even more trouble trying to conceptualize the winding, twisting 3D negative spaces you can't ever directly view without cutting apart a skull to do so. Even then doing so only gives you half the picture, and in negative space.
There are some videos online showing the sinuses in "positive 3D space" but it's still only a reference (Everyone is different) so I would imagine having a 3D positive space model of a tumor you've never seen and can't see without cutting open someone's head would be incredibly helpful, especially since you can't just buy off the shelf reference material for human tumors like you can bovine sinuses.
moox. for a new generation.
Is ist just me or is anyone else actually concerned that a have-a-go engineer can apparently quite easily achieve significantly bettr results than a team of so-called expert doctors in their own field?
It sounds to me like the actual 3d printing was less important than the 3d model. I'm not sure what the first doctor's problem was. Usually an MRI gives you a detailed model that you can look at from multiple angles. You don't just measure the size from one point of view. That doesn't even make sense.
This sets a high bar for other husbands trying to convince their wives that the house needs that shinny new 3D printer :)
I'm glad her tumor was not inside her eye.... I've lost most of the vision in my right eye after radiation treatment for a tumor inside the eye. My Ocular Oncologist did extensive drawings of my retina and the tumor. I'm not sure MRI technology could have mapped it out well enough to make a reliable model. I also had to deal with the fun of having an ultrasound probe run over the surface of my eye to get a better idea of the size of the tumor. That was 4 years ago, and luckily, the ocular melanoma had not metastasized.
It's amazing how fine, delicate, almost microscopic work can be done these days.
this entire story is nonsense, speaking as a qualified medical physicist in radiotherapy with decades of experience. First of all, for him to make a 3D model of a tumour, he is having to decide based on CT and/or MRI data what is or isnt the tumour, which by the way you might have noticed is the same information from the CT and/or MR scan that qualified radiologists and oncologists look at, and using treatment diagnosis and planning software (including auto segmentation techniques). So unless this guy suddenly read a book one night and became a fucking oncologist, he didnt pick out SHIT from a CT data set that a qualified oncologist "missed". Nor did he tell surgeons "how to get at" the tumour in a way that implies that was the holdup, like he figured it out while people who work with this for decades didnt get it.
ah now wait a minute, halfway down the article
"So although the first doctors told them to wait, Balzer and Scott sent the MRI results to a handful of neurologists around the country. Nearly all of them agreed that Scott needed surgery."
correct. OTHER QUALIFIED DOCTORS diagnosed the issue. Not some fucking clown with a 3D printer.
"The tumor had grown substantially, which indicated a far more grave condition than was initially diagnosed. But back at home, Balzer used Photoshop to layer the new DICOM files on top of the old images, and realized that the tumor hadn’t grown at all — the radiologist had just measured from a different point on the image."
this makes no sense at all and has either been misreported, or he went to a pretend hospital staffed by retards. NO INFORMATiON WHATSOEVER came to light from a 3D printed model of the SAME FUCKING DATA thats in the image. If someone measured wrong on a scan thats an error, just go back and review the images, or send them off again for a 2nd opinion rather than waste your time printing a fucking useless model
he sent a 3d model /image round when instead all he had to do was send the SOURCE DICOM files to these other doctors, which would have resulted in the exact same solution.
Fuck, every single time you see a story in your own field and realise its utter bullshit, you realise that ALL stories must be fucking bullshit, its just that you cant check up on stuff youre not involved with so easily
Doctors make no profit out of difficult diagnoses. They have a business to run. They're a mill. Get 'em in. Get 'em out. If it looks like something even slightly nonstandard, shove them off to another specialist so that they can bear the cost, and liability. That neurologist isn't going to bother to read the journals, or keep up with technology, or make any extra effort at all. He's got 25 other people to see today and he's already running late and there's a hiring meeting in 20 minutes because the single good support employee his practice has is threatening to quit, and there's another meeting with the lawyer this afternoon about the tumors he missed because he was just too rushed that day.
Socialized medicine has its own problems, but at least you can get a doctor focused on medicine.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
For about 20 years I have felt that the solution to spiraling costs in medicine is to enable collaborative or "open source" type research. There is no doubt that the free market, where true competition takes place, can compete to produce medicine very cheaply if allowed to, but the basic research needed does take real effort and the resulting patents, though needed under the current system, end up being very expensive for the end user. The natural remedy crowd has long rightly claimed that there are many natural remedies available that can never get the funding needed to pass FDA approval because there is no profit in doing so. Likewise the information revolution has made even development of high tech remedies within the reach average individuals and communities. I call on us all to consider how the approval process could be adapted to keep safeguards in place, yet enable collaborative open source medicine to be researched and produced. If people are motivated to help out Wikipedia out of simple community altruism, consider how motivated people would be to help cure diseased afflicting loved ones! I think there is also a valuable place for government and university funded labs to perform much of the basic research needed.
So you think neurologists should be spending a lot of time keeping up to the State of the Art in all new technologies? I would rather they were good neurologists, and waited for people with advanced new technology to offer it to them - as happened in this case. The only difference from what I would expect to be the normal process is that an end user rather than a manufacturer looking for a market came up with the idea. But I do not think skilled medial staff should spend their time surfing the technology scene for possibly good ideas.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Home doctoring, the new normal...
He’s also become more focused on education, and hosts a podcast called All Things 3D, on which he often invites doctors to speak. Recently, he organized a free seminar on 3D in medicine. “My big message now is that this stuff is out there, and a lot of it is free,” he says. “The first thing is getting the word out that your hands aren’t tied. Your buddy’s got a 3D printer? Use it.”
The medical industry is horrified. I could hear the CEOs of healthcare industry barking to their minions: "It is Free? as in beer?, what the hell? This is a situation that must be rectified. Got all the buzz words, 3D printing, rapid prototyping, minimally invasive, micro robotic, if it costs less than 1 million dollars to treat this condition, we are leaving money on the table. People get to work. Do not have come back till you have patents all the way to moon and back. We will not rest until we close every loophole that allows that cancer called open source. Must. not. rest. till. open. source. is stopped dead in its tracks".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"Imaging printer technologist" that can charge me $1000/hr to generate 3d models of my tumors.. I don't think most doctors or hospitals will let you DIY.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"Once his relief subsided, Balzer was furious and more determined than ever to stay in control of ScottÃ(TM)s treatment. ÃoeI thought, Ãwhy donÃ(TM)t we take it to the next level?Ã(TM)Ã Balzer says. ÃoeLetÃ(TM)s see what kind of tools are available so that I can take the DICOMs, which are 2D slices, and convert them into a 3D model.Ã That decision changed everything."
So he made it "radiologist-proof" by making a physical representation of the mass that isn't subject to scaling errors or misinterpretation. A doctor or tech making a mistake like that tends to freak a person out and make them not trust doctors.
While it's cool that this guy took the job on himself, and ended up getting much better results, this story seems to be, at least in part, "How at least one radiologist fucked it up, and the guy who luckily second guessed him."
Yeah, I think it's a reinforcement of the idea that while you might not be a professional, you generally have a lot more invested in it(it's YOUR health) than the professionals, and you have a lot more time you can spend on your specific problem than any given specialist.
I'm not saying not to listen to your doctors or take their advice. I'm saying that double checking everything is probably in your best interest.
I don't read AC A human right
Uh yes, that's part of being a doctor is keeping up to date with shit. Technology especially.
I drove past a store front in Silicon Valley that offered to print a 3D model of an unborn child from ultrasound scans. Alrighty...
You raised my hopes then dashed them quite expertly, sir!
-TT
About two years ago I was at a presentation by a surgeon who used 3d imaging to produce a 3d model of a partially missing bone and a complete symmetric bone. He mirrored the model of the symmetric bone to approximate the part of the missing bone. The part was printed on 3d printer and used to prepare a mold for the appropriate alloy for the implant.
According to the article, the tumor was "95%" removed. It also sounds like morcellation instead of excision. I'm glad that they got it before entanglement with the optic nerve, but they need to follow up carefully. Morcellation of some tumors can lead to metasticies.
No, I think neurologists should be spending a lot of time collecting adequate data on each patient and scrutinizing it with adequate rigor so as to catch mistakes like "oh oops that measurement was wrong, we should operate right away before you go blind, instead of waiting until next year". No "State of the Art in all new technologies" was required here; just a little more attention, patience, and humanity, and a little less shoving people through the queue like parts on an assembly line. I've worked minimum-wage factory jobs which had more stringent inspection procedures than this.
Nothing new about this, not a thing. In CAD/CAM/CAE fields this technology has existed for many years. Oh, about three decades and, although a bit fuzzy, I think I saw human bone replication towards the end of the last century. The original technique used laser cured photo sensitive resins and later used laser sinterring with plastics. The latter technique is how printed metal object are currently created using powdered metal alloys. Very cool stuff.
> I see somebody feels professionally threatened... ...will be offered by garage hobby doctors at cut-throat prices! Ask your 3D printing neighbor for details.
Is that what your comment wants to say? You are not even funny.
Savage Empire by Jean Lorrah. One important scene in the story is a telepath who can "see" inside of the body makes a 3d model of a tumor by hand in clay and the brain of his ally's father. The ally (a savage lady) then makes the tumor, "not be" telekineticly. As the tumor is removed, he as to remake both models as the brain expands back into the empty space. Patient lives.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
The eyebrow incision for orbital roof lesions has been around for many years. This is not a new procedure. It is disappointing that the tumor was not completely removed. If it is truly growing as fast as implied in the article, she will need another surgery, probably through a different incision to definitively take care of the problem. There is nothing new in the article, and I would have to say, the 3D model in all likelihood had no impact on the surgical planning or results. It is easy to have good results when the difficult part of the tumor is left behind. I have intermittently used 3D models for various cases, for many years. I don't know that they have ever really helped me when it came to actually doing the procedure.
The idea of "open source" software was inspired by academic research. Most health research still runs that way and is published. The pharma stuff is mostly "product development" which is based on some open research somewhere.
Yes, it costs a bit to prove whether something works or not instead of just guessing. Many things in use in medicine were originally from a natural source, but it's the stuff that's been proven to work, as distinct from the sympathetic magic suggested by naturopaths.
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255)
Where? You RAN from trying recently -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & you're FAIRLY given the opportunity to make good on those words of yours - you downmodded (via your many sockpuppets) & ran, lol, after your wise-ass comment on hosts here JUST before that challenge -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... quoted next below:
---
"scans multiple forums repeatedly to troll his crappy HOSTS file " - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday January 04, 2015 @11:58AM (#48730581) from http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
I only post on them where they apply (or confronting naysayers like you). Prove otherwise!
(Oh, that's right - you're NOT BIG ON PROOF, are you? See below next...)
---
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644)
Where did I even *once* claim hosts completely secure a computer? Hosts are, however, the BEST single tool for more speed, security, reliability, & more. Prove otherwise.
Putting words in my mouth I never stated != truth, or a good argument on YOUR part. You RAN from that too!
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255)
You tried to say it's malware/spyware too - guess what:
Answer = The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... per that VERY recent test's results, who also host & RECOMMEND my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... (Malwarebytes' hpHosts)
* You've done better? No... lol!
APK
P.S.=> You fail: "Eat your words, Forrest" & you told others to stalk/harass me by ac posts as YOU YOURSELF do, unceasingly, for years http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
BarbaraHudson stalks me by ac posts & that's quoted in her words http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & her "so-called 'point'" vs. hosts = b.s. (in a 'journal' - not publicly since she KNOWS they're bullshit):
"We don't need to use a hosts file to block ads (adblock does it better)" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @02:09PM
FROM-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
To THAT b.s. I point out how NOT BETTER it is, tearing up 4++gb of RAM & flooring CPU too -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
By default (since advertisers KNOW most folks using "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" won't change that) adblock's PAID OFF NOT TO DO ITS JOB FULLY -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock but it's NOT ABLE TO DO THAT to custom hosts files.
---
* BarbaraHudson's *trying* to tell us that Adblock's vastly inferior abilities + chewing up resources LIKE MAD is "superior" to hosts?? Please... lol!
(Hosts do all of what adblock does, + FAR more - with less!)
APK
P.S.=> Facts above vs. BarbaraHudson's fictions & the FACT BarbaraHudson CANNOT DISPROVE that hosts do more w/ LESS, & far, Far, FAR MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + even anonymity (to an extent) vs. adblock
&
That hosts fix DNS security issues in DNS amplification attacks, DNS being downed, DNS being redirect poisoned etc. - et al as well!
Fact: NO SINGLE SOLUTION does more & w/ less, period/fact, for all those points of mine here BarbaraHudson sockpuppet downmodded & RAN from -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... like the troll & multiple account using sockpuppeteer he/she is... apk
Cool!!!!
Hee hee, think I care? This was more a story about a doctor who made a mistake (gasp), and an idiot who wasted time with a toy instead of getting a second opinion right away.