Ultrasound Technique Provides a New Radiation Free Way To Visualize Tumors 35
FirephoxRising writes "Traditionally ultrasound has seen limited use in cancer treatment due to clarity and resolution issues. But researchers at the UNC School of Medicine have overcome this limitation by combining ultrasound with a contrast agent composed of tiny bubbles that pair with an antibody that many cancer cells produce at higher levels than do normal cells. 'The SFRP2-moleculary targeted contrast agent showed specific visualization of the tumor vasculature,' said Klauber-DeMore. 'In contrast, there was no visualization of normal blood vessels. This suggests that the contrast agent may help distinguish malignant from benign masses found on imaging.'"
Re:'Radiation Free' (Score:5, Interesting)
With tumors surely more traditional X-rays could only help matters (radiotherapy-lite)
Lol....nice try. External beam radiation therapy (XRT) ....varies depending on the type and stage of cancer being treated. For curative cases, the typical dose for a solid epithelial tumor ranges from 60 to 80 Gy, while lymphomas are treated with 20 to 40 Gy. [wikipedia.org] Whereas a CT scan (the cardiac one being the highest dosing) tops out at 40-100 mGy or 2-3 orders of magnitude less.
In reference to the article, it is an interesting concept. Will need some work to improve its general applicability. By this the SFRP2 is only specific for colorectal and myelomas [genecards.org], so the technique is very limited. Also, please note that ultrasound is horrible to use around bowel, especially colon...the gas in the colon very effectively blocks the sound waves and you get very poor/incomplete images. Besides, colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening and has the advantage of being therapeutic or allowing tissue biopsies which can seal the diagnosis. Granted most need at least some sedation, but at 10 year intervals for most, this is a pretty acceptable tradeoff.
The only other question I have is the applicability....again, even if they can increase the scope of the detection, a full scan of the body for mets would be very unsatisfactory using ultrasound....now if we start talking about sarcomas, renal cell, breast cancer, yeah, I could see this working out. Lung, brain, ENT cancers, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the real story here is likely finding a good target (SFRP2), more so than the microbubbles. Finding a specific enough target always seems to be the limiting factor in immunotherapy, nanoparticle-based drug delivery, GNP-based radiothermal therapy, etc.
Now if they could find a good target for more cancers (I definitely agree on breast as a good target--elastography ultrasound is already a big topic of interest there), it could have a nice impact on treatment options. Since you can't really image to
Re: (Score:2)
Since you can't really image too frequently by MRI, CT, etc. due to exposure limits,
There are exposure limits to MRI? Why? I can see it being too costly to do frequently, but I don't see how it could affect the patient.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that "surely" in the sense of "I know absolutely nothing about the subject"?
In case you hadn't noticed, radiation can also cause cancer! That alone should have clued you in to the fact that it's a little more complicated than your first-grade understanding of medicine.
Still, you keep brushing your teeth with radium toothpaste if you think it'll help you live longer.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a strong dose dependence and delivering the dose to the right place involved. The imaging X-rays will tend to irradiate all the wrong tissues and with just enough radiation to make the cancer worse. It would be bad if radiation from imaging turned a benign tumor malignant.
The technique in TFA is also a very specific imaging. Unlike a typical contrast dye, this will specifically highlight the cancer.
As TFA points out, ultrasound is much cheaper and more portable as well. The former benefits everyone
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
This guy is mad
That happens sometimes when your horse loses interest in you....
Only one side effect (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Only one side effect (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately the ultrasonics cause a Karman vortex street, which has been known to induce panic, particularly in snow hikers.
No, no, NO!
Infrasound causes Karman vortices, ultrasound causes spontaneous combustion and pregnancy. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Tiny Bubbles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only for ass cancer.
Not news. At all, really. (Score:3)
Microbubbles have been used both experimentally and commercially as a contrast-enhancing agent in ultrasound imaging for at least twenty years.
Coupling affinity probes (like antibodies) to microbubbles in order to increase their specificity has been done for more than a decade. Extensive work has been done in tissue and animal models. (The study in the Slashdot story is just another mouse study.)
Unlike the study promoted here, there are a number of published reports - as well as clinical trials - involving use of these probe-coupled microbubbles in real human beings to study real people with real diseases. (See for example this 2012 review [snmjournals.org].) It's nice that UNC is studying this stuff and it's good to see the number of targets for this technique being increased...but breathless press releases aside, this particular study isn't really cutting-edge.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh definitely! This still leaves the ultrasound creating bubbles, cooking tissue, emitters being inserted in nasty places... and the resolution is nothing compared to a PET scan for detection.
Okay, it's pretty obvious that you don't know how the technology works either.
The sensitivity of PET scanning may be better under some circumstances and for some organs and tissues; it's early days for affinity-tagged microbubble contrast in ultrasound, whereas PET is an older, more mature technology. PET is also quite good for scanning large volumes. On the other hand, its spatial resolution is crap compared to virtually any other imaging modality (save for its poor cousin SPECT)--including run-of-the-mill ultrasound. PET scanning requires exposure to a goodly bit of ionizing radiation; ultrasound is one of the few imaging modalities that does not.
Under anything like normal conditions (with or without microbubble contrast), ultrasound imaging does not create bubbles or cause significant heating of tissue. The microbubbles discussed here are exogenous and introduced intravenously (for most types of studies); once in the body they tend to break down within a few tens of minutes. The microbubbles are typically tens of microns in size and are carried harmlessly through the circulatory system. Gas from burst bubbles escapes readily through the lungs.
You use PET scanning to look for distant metastases throughout the body, and a positive PET signal indicates the need for further investigation rather than representing a firm diagnosis by itself. Ultrasound with affinity-tagged microbubbles is used to interrogate a (suspected) primary tumour and the immediately surrounding tissue; it's a different clinical problem entirely.
As a side bonus, ultrasound is probably hands-down the cheapest imaging modality available to clinicians--which means that instruments are plentiful and fast access is readily available even to patients who don't happen to live near a major hospital's radiology department.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several ultrasound machine makers that create very good images, and not necessarily the most expensive machines either. One key advantage also is that even with less resolution you get real time images. Ultrasound is very safe, and even then is still regulated with very strict power controls. There is no "cooked tissue".
Something, anything... (Score:2)
Yes, we've come a long way in cancer treatment, and some ways in cancer detection. Problem is that there are some cancers that start very small, and move faster than the annual physical. The bean counters are standing in the way of the ultrasounds that can in fact see small tumors sooner than CT. The rationale is that (2) it costs a lot to screen false positives and (2) it makes people worry more. I have news for you - after losing two immediate family members way too soon to cancers that were only dis
did the scanner find a hyphen? No, it didn't (Score:2)
Ultrasound Technique Provides a New Radiation
Free Way To Visualize Tumors
Very interesting.
Diagnostic Tools Cancer (Score:2)
I am so sick and tired of reading about diagnostic tools for cancer being treated as an advancement.
For half a century patients have been able to get pretty pictures of their tumors and they end up dying anyway.
The one thing many of these new "advancements" seem to have is adding on to the bill, but not really treating to the patient.
Who cares about 3D pictures of tumors, after 50+ years of cancer diagnostic pics address the problem already.
also can be used for the surgury itself (Score:2)
ultra sound ablative surgery: ex. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov] .
Essentially you zap with low power to see where you are aiming, then high power to vibrate/boil the tissue you wish to destroy. The beauty of it is compared to most radiotherapy (proton might be better but is relatively rare and expensive) the distribution of normal to target dose is much better.