Dipstick Test For Cancer Under Development

mfh writes "Scientists at Dundee University in Scotland are developing a test for early signs of throat cancer involving a dipstick. A team lead by Dr Ted Hupp will develop the test for early detection of Barrett's oesophagus, which often leads to throat cancer. Dr. Hupp said, "Currently, the diagnostic test for Barrett's oesophagus is for patients to attend an endoscopy clinic, which involves many hours of patient, nurse, and consultant time." Clearly a new, cheaper, effective, and faster test will save many lives."

Re:Spelling correction

[taion]

How very American of you. I suppose you'll insist that foetus, colour, encyclopaedia, manoeuvre, honour, and all other such spellings are incorrect as well?

panel assays

[airuck]

Non- or minimally invasive assays are definitely needed for early detection and customized treatment for the many different types of cancer. I used to work (and still hold shares) for a biotech startup using a mouse retrovirus system as a functional screen for discovering genes related to cancer. The company, Sagres Discovery [sagresdiscovery.com], quickly found over a thousand oncogene targets. A public collaboration using the same technology is being led by Neal Copeland [cancer.gov] at the National Cancer Institute.

I am very encouraged by these efforts and hope that this kind of content can be combined with highly parallel microfluidic tests (lots of tiny reactions) to build comprehensive diagnostic tests .

Re:panel assays

[beeplet]

Since you seem to have some background in the subject, maybe you could help me understand how this "dipstick" tool works? They didn't seem to go into any details in the article.

I can only guess that the dipstick is coated with something that will respond to particular molecules or proteins associated with cancer cells. Would that be plausible? Do throat cancers share some particular pathology that can be detected with a chemical strip test? Or do I totally misunderstand?

I'd be interested to hear from anyo

Re:panel assays

[airuck]

I am NOT an expert in throat cancer, but Dr. Hupp's homepage [dundee.ac.uk] indicates that he is focusing on regulatory proteins associated with tumor formation, which has led to "the discovery of a novel stress-protein response in human oesophageal epithelium".

The "dipstick" test is probably one or more antibodies and an associated color reaction.

Re:panel assays

[Oncogene]

And to put it even simpler: they swab the back of the throat (or perhaps even take a tissue sample), and run quick test for the presence of the protein.

Yet another case where you don't want the stick to turn blue.

Seriously

[LouCifer]

I'd like to see one of these for Colon Cancer. Anyone here have to go through a colonoscopy? They're NOT pleasant.

Prevention is better than cure

[beeplet]

Of course any kind of advance in cancer medicine is a good thing, but when it comes to throat cancer, I can think of better things to spend money on - like anti-smoking programs.

Some facts pulled from eMedicine Health [emedicinehealth.com]:

Tobacco use is by far the most common risk factor for cancers of the mouth and throat. Both smoking and "smokeless" tobacco (snuff and chewing tobacco) increase the risk of developing cancer in the mouth or throat.

Smokers are about 6 times more likely to have cancer of the oropharynx than people who don't smoke. All forms of smoking are linked to these cancers, including cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer anywhere in the oropharynx as well as in the lungs, the bladder, and many other organs in the body. Pipe smoking is particularly linked with lesions of the lips, where the pipe comes in contact with the tissue.

Smokeless tobacco is linked with cancers of the cheeks, gums, and inner surface of the lips. The risk of these cancers is as much as 50 times higher in people who use smokeless tobacco than in those who do not. Cancers caused by smokeless tobacco use often begin as leukoplakia or erythroplakia.

It's horrible that so many people are finally starting to live the effects of being longtime smokers... and yet many people who end up with throat cancer or emphysema are still unable to quit. There's nothing wrong with treating throat cancer in a smoker, of course, but in the larger perspective, I see it as too little too late.

Re:Prevention is better than cure

[linzeal]

I know a lot of people are going to whine but why is something like tobacco legal in the first place? We are in the 21st century inhaling smoke to get intoxicated, driving in cars that burn oil-based fuels, and speaking of cars where is my flying one? We need to get our collective shit together.

Re:Prevention is better than cure

[Bela_Phi]

My understanding is that - although smoking is a risk factor for the condition [aafp.org] - Barrett's esophagus is most frequently associated with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) [gicare.com].

So really, Barrett's is not among the "effects of being [a] longtime smoker," but rather a condition that many people with GERD develop that is associated with a greatly increased risk [jhu.edu] of developing throat cancer later. So lowering the number of people who smoke really wouldn't decrease the need for this test.

Smoker

[mfh]

> It's horrible that so many people are finally starting to live the effects of being longtime smokers... and yet many people who end up with throat cancer or emphysema are still unable to quit.

I was a smoker for about ten years, and I quit for over a couple years. What I found was that it was harder for me to breathe once I was quit than now that I've started smoking again. My sinuses are now back in order, and working great now that I have started smoking again.

I think the problem with smoking is that once you start there is pretty much no hope for you, today. When you quit you are more likely to suffer from allergies and ailments than when you smoke. Plus there is the whole mood factor. When I was smoke-free, I was cranky all the time, and almost depressed.

So essentially we're looking at quality of life vs. length of life. I'll take quality thank you very much! :-)

What we need to do is find a way to counteract the adverse effects of smoking, and stop pandering to health-nuts who think smoking is bad and must be stopped. I am a careful smoker who doesn't smoke around others, but that doesn't mean I should have fewer rights than someone who doesn't smoke. What it means is that the health industry should look at how to deal with the countless smokers out there without forcing them to quit. Once you do that, it will be much better to cure the whole problem. There is no help for someone who has quit smoking, at least in Ontario. No doctor wants to hear you complain about how stuffed up you are because you quit. They think it's your fault and pretty much do very little to make being smoke-free of any use at all.

I just feel better and healthier, smoking. Take away the adverse problems from quitting and living smoke-free, and I'll be first in line. The damage is already done to my system, and science can't fix it, yet.

Re:Smoker

[beeplet]

You bring up interesting points. I myself don't advocate extreme anti-smoking measures, like banning smoking in all public buildings. As long as restaurants have anti-smoking sections, I'm happy. Most people who smoke do know about the potential health risks, but don't stop for the same reasons as you - smoking does have a pleasurable effect. That's why it's addictive.

I just want to ask you something, though. When you say you feel healthier now that you've started smoking again, do you mean healthier than just after you quit, or healthier than before you ever started? The former sounds plausible though the latter doesn't. Real withdrawl from tobacco has a lot of consequences which are hard to cope with. Changes in appetite, anxiety level, mood, immune system, etc., etc. I don't smoke but both my parents used to and quit. My mother said it took her years to get over the desire for a cigarette - but she still thinks it's the best choice she could have made for herself.

What we need to do is find a way to counteract the adverse effects of smoking.

Here I disagree - I think we need to focus more on helping people quit. I know several people who have tried multiple times to quit and always ended up smoking more than ever, for the same reasons you talked about. And there's only so much you can do to prevent damage when you're breathing in tar and ash all day long.

Mod Parent Down

[mfh]

Nice Troll comment. If you're going to contradict someone, the least you could do is back it up with some kind of supporting statements, theories, logic or even some common sense (if you have to scrape the barrel). All you did was contradict everything I wrote! What a waste of time.

Only marginally related to cancer

[hung_himself]

The test that they plan to develop is *not* a test for throat cancer but rather for a condition that makes people more likely develop throat cancer.

However, to be fair, "Barrett's oesophagus" *is* much harder to spell than cancer...

Biological computer kills cancer cells

[alien24]

BioChips, Bioelectronics cures cancer, AIDS. http://www.geocities.com/mathematician99/ Biological computer kills cancer cells http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15602