Breathalyzer That Detects Lung Cancer Early From a Single Breath Wins $100K Entrepreneurship Competition (mit.edu) 85
Lung cancer "breathalyzer," developed by a team of MIT and Harvard University students, has won $100K Entrepreneurship Competition. The breathalyzer connects to a smartphone and is able to detect lung cancer early from a single breath, reports MIT News. From the report: Astraeus Technologies has developed a postage-stamp-sized device, called the L CARD, that detects certain gases indicative of lung cancer. When someone blows onto the device, a connected mobile app turns a smartphone screen red if those gases are present and green if they aren't. "The L CARD reacts and sends instantaneous information to the physician that further attention is required," Joseph Azzarelli, an MIT PhD student in chemistry said while a ripple of excitement spread through the crowd. Lung cancer is the deadliest type of cancer in the United States, causing more deaths than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined, according to the World Health Organization.
Is able to detect? Cause? Prevent? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Is able to detect? Cause? Prevent? (Score:5, Interesting)
The key word here is "early". Apparently the device can detect lung cancer early on. The earlier you know sb has cancer, the better you can treat them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get that part, though. Fewer slaves means that the remaining ones get more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The key question is: how early? Is it 'early enough'?
If it's early enough often enough they deserve a lot more than a measly 100K.
Lung cancer is almost always deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Though "medical media" people repeat this, it's not true as a general rule. On thing that came out of the Obamacare debates, when people spent a lot of time comparing the US health care system (which is very test heavy) to others throughout the world (particularly in Europe), is that for many cancers the fact that you survive longer after a cancer is detected is purely a statistical artifact of the early detection. For example, let's say you have a cancer that will kill you in five years. Dr A has a test
Re: (Score:1)
or the earlier that you can get blacked listed or moved into a high risk pool under GOP care.
colon cancer, you say? (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if it can detect cancer with other, err, bodily gas flows...
Probably... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually... since the tech behind it [medstro.com] is based on these sensors [nfcworld.com] and since dogs can already be trained to detect bacteria [medicalnewstoday.com] and prostate cancer [medicalnewstoday.com] by smell, while bladder cancer [medicalnewstoday.com] can be detected by smell as well...
The answer is probably yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
drink
eat pork
eat beef
eat any animal
eat anything produced by an animal
have sex before marriage
have sex with someone of the same gender
marry someone outside of your religion
renounce your religion
have an abortion
take contraceptives
and many other things
If you have the right to abort a fetus you have the right to decide whether or not to consume tobacco, wear seat be
Re: (Score:2)
Some say conception. Some say birth. Some say some point in between that. Roe v Wade said 3 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking of America's for-profit healthcare system combined with "we demand you give him the best" snowflakes. THAT affects others more than a bit of odor at the bus station.
Re:Better idea (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Because banning addictive substances works 100% of the time with 0 adverse effects.*
* (Actual real-world observations may differ.)
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarette smoke is not the only cause of lung cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban alcohol, non-marital sex and undesirable thoughts at the same time! That has the same excellent justification as your demand.
Re:Better idea (Score:4, Informative)
Cigarettes are not the only cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer existed before cigarettes, and will exist even if we ban them. Offhand I can think of a half dozen celebrities and people I know who never smoked but died of lung cancer.
Anything that can damage your DNA can cause cancer - radiation, various kinds of chemicals, viruses, or just errors in replication. All these things can cause cancer in the lungs. While it's true tobacco drastically increases your odds of lung cancer, you still have about a 14/1000 chance of developing lung cancer even if you've never smoked a cigarette and aren't exposed to statistically significant amounts of secondhand smoke, i.e. you don't live with a smoker or tend bar at a smoke-filled pub.
So yes, you need early detection.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody should be dictating what an adult is allowed to willingly put in his or her body.
When said willful self-damage causes increased rates of death and illness, which has to be treated by tax-funded services, it is only right for the tax payers to have some say in the matter.
I'm not saying an outright ban is the solution, because it absolutely isn't, but the taxes on self-damage products such as tobacco and alcohol should match or slightly exceed the increased burden placed on public services as a consequence of their use. That plus smoking bans inside workplaces and other places like public
And of course (Score:1)
it will cost $10,000.00 to breathe into it. They do that, you know. And insurance will not cover it. They do that, you know.
Re: And of course (Score:1)
Normally insurance companies are happy to pay for preventive measures because it costs them less money overall. For something as prevalent as lung cancer, which costs insurance companies lots of money to pay for the treatment of patients, there will be every reason for them to want to drive the costs down. I would be very surprised if they don't get the cost down to being very inexpensive. [www.gnaa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
It will cost $100,000 if you have insurance in which case your cost will be $10,000 otherwise they will charge you $15,000 if you don't have insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
coming to a Walgreen's near you (Score:3)
Thanks, officer. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The biomarker gasses are... (Score:5, Informative)
...discussed at length here:
http://www.nature.com/articles... [nature.com]
False positives vs. false negatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False positives vs. false negatives (Score:5, Insightful)
A false positive is much less of a problem than a false negative. One can cause some loss of sleep, the other can result in a failure to get early treatment and subsequent death.
If a positive result if presented to the patient as an indication that they should have further tests then the level of anxiety generated by the result can be managed.
Re:False positives vs. false negatives (Score:4, Insightful)
A false positive can result in additional testing such as CT scans, PET scans, and/or biopsies which were unneeded and expose the patient to risks such as increased risk of actually getting cancer due to increased exposure to radiation or infection or other complications from surgery/anesthesia.
Re: (Score:3)
I would still prefer the false positive - yes there's a chance that subsequent testing may cause a cancer (possible but very unlikely) and the false negative causes treatment to be delayed.
My first wife died of lung cancer. Her doctor diagnosed her initial symptoms as bronchitis and it was four months before the quack decided to send her to the hospital with pneumonia. Then the cancer was discovered and she died 16 months later. The type of lung cancer she had was unusual (non-small cell carcinoma) and i
Re: (Score:2)
Corollary (Score:2)
Why the smartphone? (Score:3)
Sounds like the thing just gives a binary yes/no reading. So why bother with the NFC and phone? Why not just have a red/green LED on the device itself?
Because the math is apparently not that easy (Score:4, Informative)
We will see (Score:3)
Call me when it does prostrate cancer (Score:1)
Re:Call me when it does prostrate cancer (Score:5, Informative)
I had a colonoscopy when I turned 50. It discovered a stage 3 adenocarcinoma in the ascending colon. Without a colonoscopy these are generally not found until the colon is blocked or it ruptures - either way the cancer has usually metastasized by this point and the live expectancy is of the order of 18 months to two years.
The day after the colonoscopy a cat scan confirmed the result (not that there was a doubt) and a week later the tumor was removed. The surgery was followed by 6 months of chemotherapy. That was 12 years ago.
A colonoscopy saved my life. It might save yours also. Man up and get it taken care of.
Re: (Score:3)
This. A colonoscopy has a bigger statistical impact on your longevity than any other screening test.
Re: Call me when it does prostrate cancer (Score:2)
How about a dog?
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/190633.php
good luck (Score:3)
I'm a scientist and have worked in the sensor field for a long time. I have had students I've trained attempt this (commercial breath detection of cancer) with promising initial results. It's pretty easy to do the demo these guys are doing. It's very hard to do this with real people. The gap between cool academic demo and manufactured product is huge. The gap between product and FDA cleared diagnostic is even larger.
Nice! (Score:2)
And now we just need a toilet that can detect colon, stomach and prostate cancer and we're good to go.
Pay attention, Theranos (Score:2)
Theranos needs to start over by hiring these students.
Early detection from a single breath (Score:2)