Cancer Cells Detected Using $400 Digital Camera 90
fergus07 writes "Researchers have detected oral cancer cells using a fiber-optic cable and an off-the-shelf Olympus E-330 camera worth $400. The work by Rice University biomedical engineers and researchers from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center could improve access to diagnostic imaging tools in many parts of the world where these expensive resources are scarce. In the tests, a common fluorescent dye was used to make cell nuclei glow brightly and images were taken using the tip of the fiber-optic bundle attached to the camera. The distorted nuclei, which indicate cancerous and pre-cancerous cells, could then be distinguished on the camera's LCD monitor."
stats (Score:3, Insightful)
A divining rod can detect water, too. What matters is the false positive and false negative rate.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that it's better to have more than one case to back up your findings, I think it's a little different in that these are medical professionals that are looking at cells, using an imaging device, like any other used to do the task.
It's a little more like saying a $400 surveying tool can detect water when operated by a well engineer. What matters is the folse positive and false negative rate.
All in all, it's kind of a cool story, but I have to wonder - what inspired them to even try this? Could i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The E-330 is an outdated four-thirds design. The four-thirds sensor is somewhat smaller than Canons APS-C-sized sensors and even more so than the regular APS-C-sized sensors used by Nikon, Sony, Pentax and so on.
Smaller sensor should in general mean lower price.
And it's as small as DSLR-sensors go.
Of course you could most likely do it with any DSLR camera. But the example was most likely made to say "any cheap DSLR camera", not especially the E-330 (though it do have live view, something most of them do hav
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Correction: Of course the SENSOR input is never shown in an optical viewfinder, the mirror reflects the image/light up to the optical viewfinder.
But yeah, with live view the mirror stays up, the sensor fetches the light and it shows up on the display instead.
(mirror-less cameras use electronic view finders instead.)
Re: (Score:1)
Not always. Some have an optical view finder just like the analog mirror-less cameras had.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, stupid of me, but I meant the mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, though even then it would have been possible to make it rangefinder style.
And pellicle mirror cameras would be something inbetween.
FDA approval (Score:3, Insightful)
By the time the FDA approves this device for diagnostic use, it will be a $10,000 camera ann it will need to be operated by a licensed radiologist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This exact method is already used [vizilite.com] by multiple [leddental.com] companies [trimira.net], and probably does cost about $10k. There is only UV light involved, so no radiology.
The point of this device, is that the same technique can be done with a few hundred dollars of equipment in developing nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Key word people: in developing nations.
These nations don't have the FDA. They also generally don't have access to the $10k equipment either. They take what they can get.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's less of a safety issue (although that's certainly part of it), and more of an Intellectual Property and user interface thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And my point is that such is backwards thinking. It's like saying that gasoline engines will make electric cars noisier and produce more polution.
Re:stats (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You must have aced all your college statistics courses...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My ADE 651 bomb detector [wikipedia.org] works on the same principle. Just this morning, I determined that the suspicious package on my left contains a dangerous explosive device, whereas the very similar package on my right is perfectly saf
[No Carrier]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a screening, and a visual inspection tool. It lets the doctor see abnormal tissue. It's therefor more likely to have a false positive (like nearly all screenings are intended to have).
Fortunately, with oral lesions, a biopsy is simple and relatively safe (particularly compared to breast or testicular tissue), so the only downside of an unnecessary biopsy is cost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if I believe in water divination, but my grandparents had a diviner come out and tell them where to put their well. He picked a spot and told them how deep they would need to go to find water. They did put their well in the location he selected, and he was about 3 feet off in his prediction on the depth. No idea on how close a random guess would compare though, so not enough data for me to draw any real conclusions f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual link to the actual article. [plosone.org]
Could we please stop submitting blurbs like this, at least without the real articles. TFA in this case was two pictures, or else there was more behind a registration wall, and the -actual journal article- was on plosone, a completely free and open online publication, you don't even have to give them your e-mail address. I understand many of us don't like paywalls, but even when there is one, a link to it would be nice for the details, and again, this one didn't have a
Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... better get on this to make sure that this technology can't be used in the U.S. otherwise costs might go down. Similar to how we can't import drugs: medically, if it's cheap, it's dangerous.
Yes but the trendy growth area [naturalnews.com] for Big Pharma these days is the use of common diseases that are usually just a nuisance to scare everyone into vaccination. Consider the language used here, concerning the individual decision to accept or reject a vaccination for common influenza:
"Now no one should say 'Should I or shouldn't I?'" said CDC flu specialist Anthony Fiore.
That's absolutely dripping with "we know what's good for you". Was that statement the result of a new medical breakthrough or discovery
Re: (Score:2)
As you mentioned in your own post, vaccines are not very profitable for pharma companies, which is why 95% of the flu vaccine manufacturers have gotten out of the business. And calling flu "the common flu" as if it's no more serious than a cold is disingenuous when it's one of the most deadly diseases in the world. Yes, it's "a personal choice" whether to vaccinate, just like drinking and driving (which kills far fewer people annually than flu) is a personal choice. At some point, though, people unwillin
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like a very large spike in demand for your product to make that product more profitable. Bonus points if it's driven by fear and not by dispassionate inquiry.
Here I was thinking the most
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What about them? You think countries without government health care are any better off?
Re: (Score:1)
Insurance is a perpetual machine with payoffs at the political level
Car mechanic is a perpetual machine with payoffs at the insurance level
Pharmaceuticals is a perpetual machine with payoffs at the political level
Medical is a perpetual machine with payoffs at the pharmaceutical level
Oil is a perpetual machine with payoffs at the political level
The car industry is a perpetual machine with payoffs at the oil industry level
need we say more....
Yay! (Score:2, Funny)
Mod parent insightful (Score:2)
No, it's Funny... (Score:2)
Equipment costs are small relative to the personnel and facility costs. Besides, whether you use a $400 camera or a $2,000 "custom" (i.e OTS, integrated) CCD in a $50,000 detection machine where most of the money is in something other than hardware (i.e.: R&D, liability, marketing, OH&P), the net cost to consumers in any first world country will be the same.
You didn't really think that this is going to have a $400 pricetag at your local doctor's office, did you? Worse yet, are you going to find a pr
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that saves money is good. You save money on equipment you have more money to spend on doctors to do it. You can do more scans. I thought that was obvious.
Saving 300 dollars is an easy choice if you have 300 dollars! That's almost a months wages where I live! And I live in the first world!
What about
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that saves money is good. You save money on equipment you have more money to spend on doctors to do it. You can do more scans. I thought that was obvious.
Great to know, but can I afford to treat it? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Great to know, but can I afford to treat it? Knowing I have cancer but being unable to afford treatment just seems like torture.
Afford to treat it? Huh? You get sick, you go to a hospital or clinic. They treat it. You walk out. I (or any of my family or friends) have never been charged for any kind of treatment. Are you talking about buying special drugs or something?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that early detection will make treatment less expensive.
That said, if you want to take that gamble, be my guest. This screening has been available for a while (my dentist performs it during yearly exams), so this change doesn't really change much.
Yeah right (Score:1)
Based on portability, performance and cost, you could make a case for using them both to lower health care costs in developed countries...
Not in the US. And it never will until medical costs and fees become transparent to the consumer; people start taking care of themselves (eat and drink less, stop smoking, and get some exercise) and stop the cost is no object mentality when people are dieing. We're supposed to die. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for another few days (if at all), drugged out of their mind is just a waste of resources.
As one doctor said to me once, sometimes medicine does too much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep someone alive for another few days (if at all), drugged out of their mind is just a waste of resources.
Perhaps for /you/ it is, but what about that person? What about that person's family? See thats the nice thing about freedom is that you shouldn't have to pay for what I want and I don't dictate what you want. Of course our government fucked us over long ago removing any true economic freedom....
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You are certainly free to pay out of your own pocket for extreme care, no one in the US or any other nominally free country (no matter what political side you are on) has said otherwise. It's a question of should *I* have to pay for your insistence that you be granted the freedom to spend a disgusting amount of money to extend one life by a trivial amount of time, especially when others are dying much younger, for want of much less expensive care...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to offer plans for health maintenance (used regularly) vs health insurance (used in extenuating circumstances) but it got too confusing and redundant. The bottom line is that if you want to be healthy in the long run you need all those regular little "tiny little things" like check ups and teeth cleanings. This is what keeps the need for the other kind of insurance relatively low.
But then the slippery slope takes over and as soon as people see insurance as "whatever they want for free" they cou
Re: (Score:2)
As for the "free market", medicine has gotten way too complicated and expensive for people to need to vet every decision their doctor makes. Do you think doctors would magically just start being more honest and effective if their were less regulation? Just like bankers take the opportunity of deregulation to be more open and efficient and respectful of the consumer? Regulate in transparency and let people see what they are getting. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping fear mongering crooks from taking over that industry, too.
Yes, because otherwise they would lose business. If you had to jump through hoops, you would just go to a different doctor which was more friendly and helpful. As for bankers, we don't have deregulation, we just had multiple sets of regulations, some were better others were worse, we haven't had deregulation in the financial sector in our lifetimes. And the main problem with the banking system is because we have fiat currency, we have things that don't make sense in a "hard money" system like fractional r
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance will only be cheap when it can target people who can be demonstrably responsible for their health. Proving that, though, is a tall order indeed.
Safeway has done a pretty good job cutting costs using that method [wsj.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure - provided THEY can actually PAY for the treatment; then yes. By all means.
Cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Soo... a $400 camera and a $10,000 fiber optic cable?
Re: (Score:1)
More like $2500 in lab-grade mounts and fiber, judging by the photo in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, go to monoprice and get the $5 fiber optic cable, instead of the $10,000 Monster Cable fiber optic cable.
IIAP(athology resident) (Score:2, Interesting)
... or rather, was, until I discovered how boring staring down a microscope every day actually was, jumped ship, and rejoined the land of the living. What working as a pathology resident did teach me, however, is just how fucking complicated cancer diagnosis is and how incredibly smart pathologists are. These guys have 5 straight years of pushing pushing glass and reading textbooks, and often have a completely encyclopedic knowledge of disease and cell morphology. Absolutely useless in the real world, and o
not exactly $400... (Score:1, Interesting)
Profit margin too small (Score:1)
Um, who cares? (Score:2)
We are taking about medical procedures and Cancer. Use the damn $20k camera.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about having low cost equipment out in the wilds of anywhere. It's a lot cheaper to detect cancer in sub-saharan Africa and send one person into the city to get the real test vs the entire village.
Actually, it's cheaper to just let them die without anything, but that's not the point.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? From what I can see in the article, the camera itself doesn't look like it matters very much, as long as it has some minimum resolution. The new method seems to be the fiber connection and termination.
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all ever dealt with hospital procurement? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How else do you plan to pay for Clinical Trials and a room full of legal paper?
Affordable Third World Cancer Detection (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Detect also the other zodiac signs?
The Big Problem (Score:1)
The problem with this is that it does not detect cancer cells but anomalies that may be cancer cells. All the dentist can do is refer one to an oral surgeon who will just look at the tongue and ask if one has bitten it accidentally in the last few days. They are not going to do a biopsy on something they can not see and they are not trained to interpret the photos.
CHDK (Score:2)
The article mentions an olympus camera, but I don't see any reason in principle why other camera makers couldn't also be used. If they could put this function into CHDK, it'd be pretty awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
$400 Camera? (Score:1)
But how could they use the camera? (Score:1)