A Breathalyzer For Cancer 123
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."
Oscar (cat) (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a cat that seems to be able to tell when someone is about to die. [wikipedia.org]
Sensitivity and specificity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me introduce you to my friend Reverend Bayes [hmc.edu].
Re:Early detection doesn't always improve outcomes (Score:5, 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.
Re:Early detection doesn't always improve outcomes (Score:3, Interesting)
Great point, but like your point, you point totally misses the point. Detecting cancer in Phase 1 means you will almost certainly live. Detecting in Phase 3 means you're dead. False positives in Phase 1 are not a big worry as you point points out.Grow a pair of nuts and raise, live without fear, and ed-u-ma-cate yo sef about reality.
***Like most overly critical (and totally correct) slashdot.org points this one illustrates that "perfect is the enemy of the good".
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
they may only be detecting those individuals who smoke vs those who dont.
About a quarter of Israelis smoke overall. About 11% of those - with a strong correlation toward heavy smokers - will eventually get cancer. About ten percent of those will continue to smoke. If that were the case, given 40 diagnosed patients and 56 healthy ones, their results would be statistically identical between groups. The results were not. Therefore, I'm guessing that your guess is simply some unreasoning dislike for tobacco users rather than a reasoned critique of the methodology. In fact, assuming the data aren't fudged, it's statistically much more likely that you, a nonsmoker (I assume), will get lung cancer than that their technique only identifies smokers.