Dogs Sniff Out Bladder Cancer From Urine

hookedup writes "Volunteers from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People found dogs can be trained to sniff out a tell-tale scent of bladder cancer from urine. As a group, the 6 dogs used in the test correctly flagged the positive sample 22 times out of 54, for a success rate of 41 per cent. By chance alone, the expected success rate would be 14 per cent"

Can this be used for other cancers?

[mind21_98]

The article mentions one case where they were able to find kidney cancer. Could this be used for other cancers as well, or is it restricted to cancers of the urinary tract? Although the detection rate seems low, it is fairly promising.

Re:Can this be used for other cancers?

[Maxite]

Dog's have already detected people with skin cancers, and have been shown to be able to detect lung cancers as well. I wouldn't be surprised if dogs are shown to be able to detect the very slightly different smells a person would give off if they are about to have a heart attack or stroke.

Re:Can this be used for other cancers?

[TheLink]

If something has even the faintest smell, it's almost certain that dogs can smell it. I think the main trouble is describing to the dogs exactly what you want the dogs to find and getting good ways of letting the dogs tell you.

There are dogs who can tell when people are about to have an epileptic fit or seizure, sometimes even 15 minutes before. They'll give a signal so that the people can go find a nice safe place to lie down or whatever, and prepare themselves for the seizure. Dogs can also find land mines based from air samples taken from various zones and put into test tubes. Dogs can also find bodies under many feet of _flowing_ river water. They have been trained to find skin, lung and other cancers.

I think it's mainly a communication problem (plus some dogs also do get bored, and a relationship thingy - you're not dealing with machines).

It's like having someone born without a sense of smell trying to get someone with a sense of smell to say whether a food is prepared using wine or not. And both don't speak the same language. All you can say to the person is "yes" you got it right. And "no" you don't. And this is based on the results of a machine (made by people without a sense of smell) which is not necessarily 100% reliable either. There's plenty of scope for misunderstanding. For example: the person could think you're trying to identify food with _alcohol_. Or food with grape juice. Or maybe it turns out that the samples have some other correlation (e.g. most of the positive test samples had people who ate/drank something the same within 24 hours before they peed).

Note also that the dogs found someone with kidney cancer. So the dogs could also be right that it does smell like cancer - the people may indeed have cancers or precursors to cancers _elsewhere_ in the body. If the samples are from older folk, that might be true. Many people probably have cancers somewhere, it's just their immune systems keep them suppressed or had a lapse and are now busy getting rid of them.

And not all the dogs have similar skills nor have similar understanding of what you want. So a star performer who gets it, would probably do orders of magnitudes better.

They're trying to make a machine that does it. Maybe it won't be that difficult. But it could be hard if it's like detecting something _qualitative_ and not _quantitative_. Example: you're trying to find a sample that smells _mainly_ like a particular person but has traces of something that smells like that person just slightly different in a "bad" way. e.g. a sample that smells like Bob plus a faint smell like Bob going bad (whatever "bad" means).

e.g. it's like detecting which sheets of paper have one or two off-colour spots on them. And all the sheets are differently coloured. If you only have a machine that only detects the average colours you don't have a chance.

Seen it before, it looked promising...

[tiger99]

I saw a dog on TV in the UK maybe 15 years ago which could sniff out cancers with a high success rate. Medical professionals were involved. It may be that most cancers have something in common that the dog could smell. It just seemed to be able to sniff anyone, and go to the part of the body where the cancer was. Thinking about that, if there was something in common, the cure for most types might also have something in common. If only they knew exactly what the dog was smelling, or indeed what in the dog's

Oh no!!!!

[MagicDude]

Oh my God!! My dog sniffed my crotch this morning!!! I have to go see a doctor right away!

Obligatory Simpsons reference

[Yeechang Lee]

(Chief Wiggum lets a police dog sniff Homer's underwear. It runs off whimpering.)

Wiggum: Eh, it's a shame. He had one day left until retirement!

--5F18 [snpp.com], "Natural Born Kissers"

Well..

[darkmeridian]

If we can find out what allows the dogs to differentiate the samples, assuming the answer isn't "cancer cells", perhaps we can test for those chemicals, uh, chemically and perhaps up the efficiency/accuracy, etc.?

This is a dumb story

[PrvtBurrito]

There are lots, and lots of ways of detecting differences between mixtures and solutions. If dogs can tell, a mass spec, lc, gc, or even NMR should be able to tell the difference, as well. Unless they showed that cancers are more detectable with dogs than normal scientific instruments, this is not only silly, but a waste of bandwidth...

Re:This is a dumb story

[Lars T.]

The point is - the dogs are far cheaper.

False Positives

[Shinglor]

s a group, the 6 dogs used in the test correctly flagged the positive sample 22 times out of 54, for a success rate of 41 per cent. By chance alone, the expected success rate would be 14 per cent

So how many false positives were there?

Re:False Positives

[ptaff]

From the original paper in the British Medical Journal [bmjjournals.com], the experiment was to show 7 petri dishes to each of the 6 dogs, one of the dishes containing 'cancered' urine, and repeating this 9 times. So dogs flagged the wrong dish 32 times out of 54, making both a false positive and a false negative every time. I'm no stat wiz, but I feel the "41% success rate" is a bit misleading.

Feel ready to own one or many Tux Stickers [ptaff.ca]?

Pick me!

[BladeMelbourne]

I would like to be the first human to volunteer to be trained for this task. I can provide references on request.

Well, what did you expect? This is Slashdot ;-)

Re:Pick me!

[idiotfromia]

Where's the +1 Weirdo option when you need it?

What about prostate cancer?

[mOoZik]

Do they stick hamsters up the wazoo?

Old News

[Celt]

This story has been on the BBC News website for almost a week now, must /. be so slow to report the news?

Perhaps this shows diet/cancer relation

[tod_miller]

I am always conscious of 2nd level correlations. Perhaps the dogs found a 'correlation' between urine scent and cancer because of the diet of the person. Indeed the dogs may have been inaccurate and only chosen those with a diet with a high disposition for bladder cancer.

Of course, this means those who were marked positively should be careful. Perhaps try and find any other common traits ammongst those who were selected, perhaps the sex / age of the people correlates to bladder cancer and this also was detected somehow by the dogs.

Of coruse, I am sure they thought of all this, I can just imagie health insurance door to door guys fleecing you over with a poodle before giving you a quote.

I am sure some /. would love that! :-)

Re:so the next time I go to the doctor

[Cryect]

Nope, its a 14% chance due to the experiment was done by allowing the dog to sniff 7 petri dishes with one having urine with cancer on it. This was then done 54 times. Now the bigger issue with all of this is the false postive rate is way too high for a cancer diagonisis

False positives are better than false negatives

[adb]

...at least at this stage. Presumably the positives will be sent into a lab for further, more expensive testing, so nobody's going to be falsely told they have cancer. False negatives would be much worse, since some cancers would be missed. Anyway, it seems likely that careful selection and training of dogs can get much better results.

Scary

[tigersha]

Now I am going to be scared whenever a dog sniffs my butt.