Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Sniffing Out Cancer 112

Posted by Hemos from the find-it-and-destroy-it dept.
Makarand writes "Researchers at the Univeristy of Rome are developing an electronic nose that can sniff out cancer by sampling people's breath. The instrument uses sensors that respond to the presence of chemical compounds in the patient's breath. For example, lung cancer patients exhale alkanes and benzene derivatives which the electronic nose will try to detect. The sensors are quartz crystal sensors coated with a substance that binds to a range of organic chemicals. If certain molecules in the breath bind to this surface coating they change the natural vibration frequency of the crystal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sniffing Out Cancer More

Sniffing Out Cancer

Comments Filter:

  • I can even do this. (Score:5, Funny)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:12PM (#5914803) Homepage Journal
    "can sniff out cancer by sampling people's breath."

    Yeah, it is called cigarette smoke, and we've known it is a carcinogen for 40 years now. I do have trouble identifying which stench is the benzyne, and which is the nicotine though ;-)

    • Re:I can even do this. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rolo Tomasi ( 538414 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @07:15PM (#5915184) Homepage Journal
      You mean benzpyrene. 3,4-benzpyrene looks like a base, chemically, and gets built into the DNA of the cells it comes into contact with. Basically, it's like writing random data on your hard drive. Each cigarette smoked causes about 20,000 mutations, but most of the time they are corrected by error correction mechanisms in the DNA replication process.

      • Re:I can even do this. (Score:2, Informative)

        by jakobk ( 553240 )
        This is wrong. Benzpyrene bears no chemical resemblance to a base. It simply consists of five benzene rings with a "bay area" which is responsible for its carcinogenity.
    • But, legally, if you refuse to take this new breathalyzer test, can they still give you cancer....?

      :-)

  • Only detects it, doesn't cure it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Samir Gupta ( 623651 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:14PM (#5914813) Homepage
    I think this will just pave the way for more social and economic discrimination for cancer patients (eg, insurance, housing, etc).

    • Re:Only detects it, doesn't cure it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lylum ( 659581 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:17PM (#5914831)
      Possible... but detection is the first step to the cure.
      It would just be as much scoial and economic discrimination if the patients would die because their cancer was detected too late. And the earlier it is detected, the higher are the chances for it to be cured.

    • Re:Only detects it, doesn't cure it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sTavvy ( 669239 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:20PM (#5914862)
      while your subject is true. if this method works properly, and effectivly, then the ability to detect cancer by sampling someones breath would be a much easier method to detect. having had family members that have had cancer (bowel, breast) it would be much better for them, if cancer could be detected by this, instead of say, a colonoscopy (spelling!). i wouldn't mind betting that if this procedure gets picked up that it is just used for the check up phase of treatment. i.e after chemo (spelling again!), or radiotherapy or whatever. simply getting your breath checked by your local GP would be much better than having to go in for a blood test etc. still, makes you wonder if the results could be skewed, depending on what had been eated before the test!! Steve
      • I'd have to agree that easier detection would almost certainly increase screening rates. According to the American Gastroenterology Association [gastro.org], only 30% of people who should be screened for colon cancer actually get the screening.

        As someone with two second-degree relatives with colon cancer, this is something that's personally very important. I'd rather blow on the cancer detector than get medieval with the colonoscope.

    • Discrimination (Score:2, Informative)

      by OneArmedMan ( 606657 )
      Discrimination against someone that gets a natural cancer ( is there such a thing ? ) is one thing, but discrimination against someone who drinks like a fish and smokes a pack a day is something else entirely

      • Discrimination against someone that gets a natural cancer ( is there such a thing ? ) is one thing, but discrimination against someone who drinks like a fish and smokes a pack a day is something else entirely

        I don't know where to even begin with this. First of all, the dichotomy between "natural" vs. "unnatural" cancer is bizarre and incorrect. There are literally thousands of factors that influence whether someone gets cancer or not, from heredity to environmental factors to lifestyle. Should the non

        • Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TGK ( 262438 )
          At the same time, lets be reasonable.

          When you blow your liver apart from drinking too much you fundamentaly rank lower on the transplant list than the 8 year old girl down the hall suffering from a bizarre liver failure.

          I'm not saying that hospitals should turn away lung cancer patients who smoked a lot or something like that. I'm not sure I'm ok with my tax dollars going to bail them out of their highly self destructive habit though.

          Of course, in a system where you don't want some disgruntled govt beur

          • When you blow your liver apart from drinking too much you fundamentaly rank lower on the transplant list than the 8 year old girl down the hall suffering from a bizarre liver failure.

            Why? Because the girl's life is somehow more valuable than the alcoholic's? Because the alcoholic is somehow more deserving of his fate than the girl? Because she deserves the liver more? I don't think I'm qualified to make decisions about whose life is more worth saving, or whose is in some sense more deserving of lifesa

            • I didn't say you fundamentaly should I said you fundamentaly do.

              I don't know if it's good or not that we consider an 8 year old girl a "better candiate" for a liver transplant than a life-long alcoholic. Nonetheless, we do.

              Steping outside the role of medicine now....

              Does the government have the moral right to refuse the pony up for transplants or other expensive medical procedures required by a condition a patient brought upon themselves? This is idle curiosity, I hold no terribly strong opinion either

            • Re:Discrimination (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Absolutely the little girl deserves her liver transplant more.

              The alky made CHOICES which led to his condition. The girl didnt.

              From your post I would guess you think people who make bad choices should not be held accountable for them. Im not saying you are one, but that is the very root of modern liberalism.(Modern, not 50-60s era)

              • I'll bite. . .

                The alky made CHOICES which led to his condition. The girl didnt.

                That's simplistic. The alcoholic might have an unknown predisposition to liver failure that was exacerbated by his drinking. In that case, the liver failure isn't a direct consequence of the drinking, it's a consequence of a genetic predisposition. Or perhaps he's predisposed to alcoholism; then you might say that his alcoholism is the consequnce of a predisposition that the guy didn't choose. But I think we'd both agree

                • On that basis, we shouldn't prosecute people for drunk driving because they might be really bad drivers even when they're sober!!

                  Graham
            • I've discussed this question with a hospital ethicist - the 8 year old would almost always get the liver. But, for practical purposes the question is mostly hypothetical.

              The decision is usually made based on the simple reason that in the case of the alcoholic, there is generally a lot more wrong with them than just the liver, replacing the liver will extend their lives but not dramatically. You're talking two years or so at the most.

              The little girl would get a lot more use out of the liver.

              There is ano
    • Actually I submitted a story just yesterday about a research team that developed a virus that eliminates brain cancer [sciencedaily.com] in mice. Unfortunately I didn't mention Microsoft, Linux, or DRM in the story, so it got rejected.
    • As I said elsewhere [slashdot.org] in response to another comment [slashdot.org], we shouldn't try to stop such technology just because it can be used for nefarious purposes. If we did, we'd be as bad and pessimisstic as the RIAA.

      Early detection of cancer can lead to cures. Why would we want to keep that possibility out of the hands of cancer patients and those at risk for cancer?

      We need to be vigilant that such technology is used for only private medical testing.

  • What gasses... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thews ( 666437 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:14PM (#5914818)
    would they sample to check for colon cancer?

  • Science put to good use? Wierd. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OwnerOfWhinyCat ( 654476 ) * on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:15PM (#5914821)
    Cheap tests are what HMOs love. If this test could be run for $5 a patient, they could add it to twice-yearly checkup for people over 55 and catch tumors when they are small and more cheaply removed. I kinda shrug when they invent new million dollar procedures for helping with a disease as they won't be in widespread use for many years, but cheap accurate tests like these could be saving thousands of lives a year, in just a few years. This seems very cool.

    It seems likely it comes at a cost though. The accuracy of chemical detection they are talking about would make for some damnably accurate breath and air analysis tools. I certainly hope we resolve our most recent bout of prohibition in the states before Breathalyzers that can detect days old residue in the lungs are on the hip of every officer in the state.
    • Just wait until they patent the idea.....
      • Actually, only the electronic nose part is new. I recall someone had managed to train a dog to detect skin cancer by scent, it was freakishly accurate.

        And if someone patents the "electronic nose" that detects this particular thing, isn't that what patents are all about? Its not like he'd be trying to patent one click shopping, hyperlinks, or swinging sideways.

        What if he patents it, mass produces it so every doctor can have one for free if they give him $5 for every test they run with it, making him a B

    • A good nurse can tell by the smell (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mondorescue ( 652638 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:22PM (#5914873)
      My grandmother did this for 20+ years. As head matron of a major metropolitan hospital, she learned that patients suffering from certain ailments exuded certain odors through their pores and often their breath too. My girlfriend, a nurse, told me something similar. The skin is one of the body's organs for expelling toxins, so it's no surprise that we can tell what toxins are in a person's body, for example, by sniffing them.

    • Or maybe not... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:26PM (#5914901) Homepage Journal
      Because the United States becomes more and more dystopian every day, let's look at another possibility. At your pre-employment screening, you have a mandatory breathalyzer test to see if you've been drinking. Unbeknownst to you, your breath is also analyzed for the presence of indications of cancer. If you have any, the company decides that you might very well be too expensive and drive up their insurance costs, so you don't get hired.

      Pre-employment "drug" tests have been used to screen women for pregnancy, so I have no doubt that a cancer-detecting breathalyzer will be used to screen for other expensive conditions (or at least certify them as "pre-existing" and thus not covered by the company).

      • Re:Or maybe not... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )
        I tell 'em right as the pen hits the paper on the contract.

        "I've had cancer twice, three times if you count the relapse in '82 and I need to go to physical therapy at least once a week and I take an extra day off for Christmas vacation day or not and I'll expect to be paid for it."

        I've never had a problem.

      • Re:Or maybe not... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ndogg ( 158021 )
        That's a little hypocritical, now isn't it?

        We constantly complain about the RIAA not being able to see the benefits of new audio and file-sharing technology, and only being pessimistic about it.

        Why, when something like this can be used for good (i.e. early detection of cancer, and drunk drivers), must we prevent such a technology just because it can be used for privacy invasion?

        We need to be on the watch for such wrong uses, but we need to allow the technology to be (as in existence) as well.

  • Electronic nose could sniff out lung cancer (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:16PM (#5914823)
    Electronic nose could sniff out lung cancer

    TARA WOMERSLEY HEALTH CORRESPONDENT

    A REVOLUTIONARY electronic "nose" can detect lung cancer simply by sniffing people's breath, scientists claim.

    The invention, known as an e-nose, could have major implications for the early diagnosis of the commonest cause of cancer deaths .

    The device has been developed at the University of Rome, and, while still in its early stages, has successfully detected every lung cancer patient it was used on during a trial.

    Like a real nose, the electronic version uses an array of sensors that are not designed to detect any one chemical. Instead they respond to the overall profile of compounds in a sample. Such sensors are already used in the food industry to spot subtle off smells and tastes.

    A variety of conditions can lead to specific compounds turning up in the breath. This can include aliphatic acids in the breath of people with liver cirrhosis, and dimethylamine or trimethylamine in the breath of those with failing kidneys.

    Lung cancer patients exhale a cocktail of alkanes and benzene derivatives, although the reason for this is unclear.

    According to a report in New Scientist magazine, which looked at the efficacy of the "nose", quartz crystal sensors were used which were each coated with a varying substance that binds to a different range of organic chemicals. The crystals' natural vibration frequency is related to their weight, so this changes as molecules from the sample stick to their coated surface, says the report.

    Because of this a complex gas sample such as human breath will create a unique profile of vibrations from a range of crystals.

    Scientists tested the e-nose on 60 people at the Forlanini Hospital in Rome, including 35 waiting for an operation to remove a large lung tumour. Each test took just over a minute and the nose successfully pinpointed every cancer patient, according to New Scientist.

    Experts are now looking at ways of boosting the nose's sensitivity to the point where it can detect tumours at an early stage. If successful, this would mean that doctors would no longer have to use an invasive instrument called a bronchoscope to look inside a patient's lungs and, in some cases, remove a tissue sample.

    Carrado Di Natale, the head of the e-nose development team, believes a super-sensitive version of the device might in future be used routinely to screen smokers and other high-risk groups for lung cancer.

    "It would be less accurate than bronchoscopy but it would be so much easier," he said.

    A total of 1,720 women died from lung cancer in Scotland in 2000 compared to 1,116 deaths from breast cancer.

    And while the incidence of lung cancer among men is declining, experts have predicted that it will only start to level off among women between 2010 and 2014.

    In Scotland the survival rate at five years for lung cancer is between 6 per cent and 7 per cent compared to 70 per cent for breast cancer.

    Smoking and passive smoking causes nine out of ten lung cancers. On average 94 people die every day from lung cancer in the UK.

    Richard Sullivan, the head of clinical programmes at Cancer Research UK, said that while smell was important for detecting a disease he was sceptical about the efficiency of the e-nose.

    He said: "Smell is very important for detecting disease and this is an interesting twist. But this study is much too small to mean anything."

    He added that even a highly sensitive nose could only detect surface tumours, and would never replace the blood tests or scans which alert doctors to the onset of secondary cancers.

    Researchers in Cambridgeshire are looking to develop a technique using dogs to detect prostate cancer.

    The 12-month project will involve Alsatians and Labradors which will be trained to spot minute signs of cancer in urine samples. It is hoped that the dogs will be able to detect certain proteins that can be found in the blo

    • Re:Electronic nose could sniff out lung cancer (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @07:33PM (#5915306) Journal
      >The idea that dogs can distinguish between cancerous and non-cancerous tissue first surfaced in the United States in 1989, when a woman said that her border collie-doberman cross had spotted a skin tumour on her leg.

      There may have been more than one such case. I read about a woman whose dog became obsessed with a mole on her back. One day when she was outside sunbathing her normally loving dog bit the area where the mole was. That got her to the doctor, who treated the bite and sent the mole to the pathologist. Melanoma.

      My question is, how did the dog know that the abnormal smell was (A) important, (B) a problem?
  • Now we'll be able to sniff out Bender's alchohol-breath from across the known universe!

    Oh damn, this is just a fancy breathalizer.

  • Use snort!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:22PM (#5914871) Homepage Journal
    Anyone else think of snort when they said "sniff"?

    Here's my cancer.rules
    alert tcp $SMOKING $LUNGS -> $BODY any (msg:"CANCER Lung Cancer"; content:"stink breath"; nocase; flags:A+; classtype:dammit-cancer; sid:6227; rev:1;)
    alert tcp $CHEW $MOUTH -> $BODY any (msg:"CANCER Mouth Cancer"; content:"gross spit"; nocase; flags:A+; classtype:dammit-cancer; sid:6228; rev:1;)
    alert tcp $CELLPHONE $HAND -> $BODY any (msg:"CANCER Brain Tumor"; content:"crashing car"; nocase; flags:A+; classtype:dammit-cancer; sid:6239; rev:1;)
  • an AM radio micro computer fantasy gone profitable.. i remember making radios by hand as a kid and wondering what the fabs of the future would be producing with vibrating crystals and other solid-ish lattice structures..

    now i know

  • Didn't they do this years ago? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by barzok ( 26681 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:32PM (#5914932)
    But it was a little more low-tech. I seem to remember some group of scientists training dogs to do this very thing - don't recall which breed they preferred, but there was definitely one breed that was better than others at it.

    Sure would make the news easier to take from a dog than some weird machine.

    • I'm not positive, but I believe they did it on a 'wafer' like board with special pits and loads of reactionary agents in those pits.. i believe the air was essentially forced onto and over the pits, and the wafers special properties allowed for transmition of a positive or negative. a portible lab. this is somewhat different in the way the positive signal is sent, and would probably allow for a more spatially compact device, thusly allowing for more tests to be run.

      but i can't remember really..

      pm
    • As far as I can see the only really revolutionary part is the chemical substrate used on the crystals.
      When I was still an undergrad (in 1991) I did a final year project for Dr David Thiel, Griffith University [gu.edu.au] to build a device very similar to this.

      The first version I built and programmed used an MC68HC11E2 microcontroller and two unsealed 10Mhz crystals mounted externally in a ZIF socket, with one crystal coated with chemicals used in gas chromatography. A beat frequency was generated from the two crystals

  • more info on the BBC (Score:3, Informative)

    by cassady_ ( 101893 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:35PM (#5914957)
    There's also a more informative article on the Beeb, here [bbc.co.uk].

    It seems there might be a problem with false positives, but for such a non-invasive screening process, that isn't much of a drawback.

  • Some personal experience (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One of my grandmothers died of lung cancer and I lived with her during her last days. I could smell a light flowery fragrance every time she coughed.

    I am surprised that someone actually thought of using this as test for cancer, although I did suspect a link earlier.

  • Dogs ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:37PM (#5914973)
    Dogs have been able to do this for a long time. Several (under controlled, restricted, scientific circumstances) tests show that they (the dogs) can be taught this - a lot easier and cheaper than trying to build an electronic nose.

    But ... "Hey - it can be done"

  • Probably similar to the computer wine taster (Score:3, Interesting)

    by YllabianBitPipe ( 647462 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:42PM (#5915005)
    I remember a couple of years ago seeing this documentary with a computer wine taster. It would sniff the vapors coming off of a glass of wine and identify the vintage. There are professional winetasters (humans) that do the same thing for a living ... needless to say they had one of these winetasters on the show and the computer was more accurate than him. I'm glad they found a practical application of this idea, since, although the technology was cool in this wine example it seemed rather pointless ... except to piss off the human winetaster.
  • 1) The New Scientist article [newscientist.com] which is the source of this story isn't nearly as upbeat about it.

    Quoth:

    But Richard Sullivan, head of clinical programmes for the charity Cancer Research UK, is sceptical. "Smell is very important for detecting disease and this is an interesting twist," he says. "But this study is much too small to mean anything."

    Sullivan adds that even an extremely sensitive nose could only ever detect tumours on the surface of the lungs, so it could never replace the blood tests or scans needed to alert doctors to the onset of secondary tumours.


    2) Biosensors and Bioelectronics is not a very disciplined journal, AFAIK (those in the field please correct me if I've been misinformed); you find a lot of good work in second tier journals, don't get me wrong, but you also find a lot of crap.

    3) My dad does measurements of breath alkanes; ethane is produced by oxidized fatty acids, so it is a marker for patients with high tissue free radicals (what some people call "oxidative stress" even though there is no reason to think it is harmful, in and of itself.) They are highly variable - diabetics, for example, exhale a lot of them.

    4) "e-nose"? Anyone who'd use that name has to be a sheister.

  • Electronic Nosing (Score:4, Informative)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:48PM (#5915037) Homepage

    This technology has existed for quite a while...

    Pubmed search [nih.gov] will show that already several [nih.gov] applications [nih.gov] for this [nih.gov] exists. [nih.gov]

    As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) [nih.gov] is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

    Davak

  • If this goes down in price enough, people in poorer countries could get tested for cancer! And if this could be adapted for other diseases, all the better!
  • This technology is great..unfortunately I think people are more excited about matrix sequels.

  • Dogs can sniff [bbc.co.uk] skin cancer as melanomas.
  • "natural vibration" "frequency" "crystal" Maybe it can heal my chakras, too.

  • The mouth is a strange place ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fygment ( 444210 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @08:51PM (#5915699)
    ... I remember interviewing a gent who was developing saliva testing techniques for the same purpose. His contention was that the digestive system affects and is affected by all the other systems in the body. The advantage is that it is also in contact with the external environment. As such it is a bellwether of interaction with the external environment (chemicals in air show up in saliva) and internal environment (breath, blood). A Google on "diagnosis using saliva" turns up some interesting stuff.

    I'm not sure that sampling the breath is easier than sampling saliva but this site has a nice intro (http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/research/blanchard/ww w/465/textbook/otherprojects/senses_97/olfaction.h tml)
    with a competitors technique here:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6588
  • Added to the police breathalyser tests, I can just see it now...

    "Thank you Sir, you're under the legal limit, but might I suggest you go see your doctor!"

    Or better still the cop could issue YOU with a defect notice instead of your car.

    Windows encountered a "problem" while running SigGenerator...

  • Old story resurfacing... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pruneau ( 208454 ) <pruneau@@@gmail...com> on Thursday May 08, 2003 @09:11PM (#5915789) Journal
    I did my Ph.D. in just that field: gas detection by means of arrays of sensor.

    Ok, it was 9 years ago, but the subject of it changed from possibilities of sensors array processing to trying to cope with the fact that those sensors were exhibiting horrible sensibility drift over time.

    Because the main problem with those sensors is that they are using a chemical compounds that binds the gas molecule. To simplify, the weight of the bound gas molecules increases the load of the crystal, thus affecting its frequency response.

    The main problem of such a system is that the binding tends to have permanent effects, thus altering durably the sensor response over time, up until it becomes unusable or exhibit too different a behavior for its signal to be processed efficiently.

    What usually happens is that a misinformed journalist just happens to hear about that "famous new electronic nose"...

    But up to now, such noses failed to find any industrial applications, just because of the sensivity drift. I clearly remember reading some literature from that Di Natale guy 9 years ago, making the same bold claims.

    If someone from the italian team reads /., I will be greatly interested by there take on the drift matter.

  • During a recent visit to my doctor, he was telling me there are little machines now that need only one sample of blood to diagnose over 20 genetic conditions. They're in testing phases right now, although, if I recall some hospitals in the US and Canada are probably using them in "clinical trials". Can someone here find a link?

    Chemicals reacting to certain stands in DNA can apparently diagnose you in under 30 seconds for diabetes, MS and a whole bunch of other things. Impressive!

    Next time I make a visit t
  • ... alkanes and benzene derivatives which the electronic nose will try to detect

    All part of an elaborate plot by the insurance industry to deny coverage to those of us who just happen to enjoy drinking gasoline.

  • Sounds like a great idea to me. I'm currently volunteering to help with a study that does something similar to detect traces of NO in the air expelled from the lungs that, at higher levels, indicate that a patient may be suffering from athsma.


    I do, however, agree with those that have voiced concern about discrimination, especially in the employment world, in regard to both devices (cancer much more so, of course.)

  • The idea of a cancer smell is one of the most depressing concepts I can think of right now.

    It would be cool if they started making police involve this test when they test drunk-drivers though.

    Police-Cop: The breathlyser test shows that you are over the legal limit. I am for going to be doing the arresting of you now. Also, you have cancer!
    Driver: Hooray!

  • you farted in front of that electronic nose? Would it detect any kind of stomach cancer or would it suggest you to stop eating tasty food?
  • How hard would you need to breathe for colon cancer?

    Gives a whole new meaning to the doctor holding your testes and saying "cough".

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close