Slashdot Mirror


Breathalyzer That Detects Lung Cancer Early From a Single Breath Wins $100K Entrepreneurship Competition (mit.edu)

Lung cancer "breathalyzer," developed by a team of MIT and Harvard University students, has won $100K Entrepreneurship Competition. The breathalyzer connects to a smartphone and is able to detect lung cancer early from a single breath, reports MIT News. From the report: Astraeus Technologies has developed a postage-stamp-sized device, called the L CARD, that detects certain gases indicative of lung cancer. When someone blows onto the device, a connected mobile app turns a smartphone screen red if those gases are present and green if they aren't. "The L CARD reacts and sends instantaneous information to the physician that further attention is required," Joseph Azzarelli, an MIT PhD student in chemistry said while a ripple of excitement spread through the crowd. Lung cancer is the deadliest type of cancer in the United States, causing more deaths than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined, according to the World Health Organization.

12 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. colon cancer, you say? by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if it can detect cancer with other, err, bodily gas flows...

  2. Re:Is able to detect? Cause? Prevent? by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The key word here is "early". Apparently the device can detect lung cancer early on. The earlier you know sb has cancer, the better you can treat them.

  3. Re:Better idea by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes. It's called freedom. Freedom also allows you to do what other people consider to be stupid or immoral. Like, oh, for instance:

    drink
    eat pork
    eat beef
    eat any animal
    eat anything produced by an animal
    have sex before marriage
    have sex with someone of the same gender
    marry someone outside of your religion
    renounce your religion
    have an abortion
    take contraceptives
    and many other things

    If you have the right to abort a fetus you have the right to decide whether or not to consume tobacco, wear seat belts and every other aspect that ownership of ones body implies.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  4. Re:Better idea by EvilSS · · Score: 3

    Because banning addictive substances works 100% of the time with 0 adverse effects.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  5. The biomarker gasses are... by doug141 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...discussed at length here:
    http://www.nature.com/articles...

  6. False positives vs. false negatives by tolleyl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the problems with such devices is that they don't report the percentage of false positives. This is a much bigger problem than false negatives, since there are more people who are negative (don't have lung cancer) than positive (have lung cancer). It's generally considered very bad to tell someone that they have cancer and then later say "Sorry, but we made a mistake." Though that's good news for them, they get upset that you told them the false bad news first. However, early diagnosis of lung cancer is an important area and if they made progress toward that then I applaud them.

    1. Re:False positives vs. false negatives by Calibax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A false positive is much less of a problem than a false negative. One can cause some loss of sleep, the other can result in a failure to get early treatment and subsequent death.

      If a positive result if presented to the patient as an indication that they should have further tests then the level of anxiety generated by the result can be managed.

    2. Re:False positives vs. false negatives by uncqual · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A false positive can result in additional testing such as CT scans, PET scans, and/or biopsies which were unneeded and expose the patient to risks such as increased risk of actually getting cancer due to increased exposure to radiation or infection or other complications from surgery/anesthesia.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  7. Because the math is apparently not that easy by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I understand correctly what I'm reading about the biomarker gasses, it's not just the absence or presence of a gas or gasses, but the quantities, and the profile of those quantities in normal vs. diseased lungs. So, they're hooking it up to a pattern classifier. In the prototype stage you need a computer with a fair amount of power --- fortunately these days a smart phone will do. Down the road I imagine they could hook it up to a FPGA or six and eventually engineer it down to one chip, but that's a lot more engineering and likely years down the road.

  8. Probably... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually... since the tech behind it is based on these sensors and since dogs can already be trained to detect bacteria and prostate cancer by smell, while bladder cancer can be detected by smell as well...
    The answer is probably yes.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  9. Re:Call me when it does prostrate cancer by Calibax · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had a colonoscopy when I turned 50. It discovered a stage 3 adenocarcinoma in the ascending colon. Without a colonoscopy these are generally not found until the colon is blocked or it ruptures - either way the cancer has usually metastasized by this point and the live expectancy is of the order of 18 months to two years.

    The day after the colonoscopy a cat scan confirmed the result (not that there was a doubt) and a week later the tumor was removed. The surgery was followed by 6 months of chemotherapy. That was 12 years ago.

    A colonoscopy saved my life. It might save yours also. Man up and get it taken care of.

  10. Re:Better idea by tsotha · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cigarettes are not the only cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer existed before cigarettes, and will exist even if we ban them. Offhand I can think of a half dozen celebrities and people I know who never smoked but died of lung cancer.

    Anything that can damage your DNA can cause cancer - radiation, various kinds of chemicals, viruses, or just errors in replication. All these things can cause cancer in the lungs. While it's true tobacco drastically increases your odds of lung cancer, you still have about a 14/1000 chance of developing lung cancer even if you've never smoked a cigarette and aren't exposed to statistically significant amounts of secondhand smoke, i.e. you don't live with a smoker or tend bar at a smoke-filled pub.

    So yes, you need early detection.