portable breast scanner

[dragon]

good news for the ladies.

Just in time for the end of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a University of Manchester professor has developed a portable, radio frequency-based scanner that is able to show the presence of breast tumors, both malignant and benign, in real time.

The portable unit, which packs all the necessary electronic components into a package the size of a lunchbox, allows for quick, painless breast cancer exams outside of clinical settings, which should make them available to more women more often, particularly in the developing world. Not only is the system fast and less intrusive than conventional X-ray mammography, but it also could cut down on unnecessary doses of radiation from the mammography process and could allow women at high risk to monitor themselves regularly at home.



VideoAside from the X-ray doses, mammography has other potential drawbacks. For one, while it is very effective in diagnosing women over 50, it can be far less conclusive in younger women, in which 20 percent of breast cancer cases occur. Further, mammography is not a real-time procedure, so clinical staff could be more prone to miss a problem area. With the new system, patients simply lay down and insert their breasts into the scanning cup – no need for that special gel used in mammography, as the radio frequency method works with oil, milk, even water – and the scanner starts producing 30 images per second that are projected onto a screen. Clinicians can then thoroughly observe a potentially problematic area in real time until they are sure there isn’t a problem.

The radio frequencies behave differently in the presence of different tissues, so the operator can tell a lot about the underlying tissues from the scan. For instance, a tumor or abnormality will show up red on the screen. Malignant and benign tumors register different frequencies and appear different on the screen as well, allowing clinicians to make a rough diagnosis on the spot and determine if something needs closer, more invasive inspection.

Check the video below to see the technology in action. The red spot in the center indicates a trouble spot that requires further examination.

link

[Zixinus]

And can even run from a netbook. Neat.

You know, people can be so creative in order to save breasts.

[Broomstick]

Further, mammography is not a real-time procedure, so clinical staff could be more prone to miss a problem area.

Huh? After my last mammo the tech could review the images on the screen immediately (for quality and proper angle of view). However, a DOCTOR needs to interpret the results. Someone who is actually trained in reading and interpreting the images. So even if you get an instant picture that's not the end of the screening.

Unless they're claiming that their system is 100% accurate in diagnosing - which I very much doubt.

With the new system, patients simply lay down and insert their breasts into the scanning cup – no need for that special gel used in mammography, as the radio frequency method works with oil, milk, even water

What? What gel? This has GOT to be poor journalism on the part of someone who has never had a mammo. No "gel" is used in mammography. Gel IS used in ultrasound.

Getting basic shit like this wrong tends to make me doubt the whole damn report.

and the scanner starts producing 30 images per second that are projected onto a screen. Clinicians can then thoroughly observe a potentially problematic area in real time until they are sure there isn’t a problem.

Ah. I see. A doctor DOES have to be on hand. Well, that's NOT going to help in areas deficient in medical personnel or where people lack access due to poverty.

Absolutely, a portable imaging system is a good thing - but it's not going to solve all problems.

[quote[The radio frequencies behave differently in the presence of different tissues, so the operator can tell a lot about the underlying tissues from the scan. For instance, a tumor or abnormality will show up red on the screen.[/quote]
Charming. What is the rate of false positives with with device? What is the rate of false negatives?

[Shinjai]

Sounds like a moderately significant development in breast cancer screening. As Broomstick stated, I too am curious about the false postive/false negative rates this device produces. If it has a low enough false negative rate, it could be used such that only images with red areas are then referred on to clinicians.

I wonder if they plan to pair this device with a transmitter of some sort so that clinicians can review the images from elsewhere? Or a memory system with basic data entry of patient names/details to store images for later retrieval and review? If so and it at least produces results that allow for a similar sensitivity and specificity for diagnostic purposes similar to existing mammograms, the greater portability alone would make it easier to screen more women so that those that need further investigation such as biopsy are identified and referred on. If the per-unit cost is low enough it could potentially be a front line tool for general practitioners in local clinics.

I am a bit worried about the self monitoring comment though. Unless the device is VERY reliable in identifying abnormalities, it could easily give false assurance to women using it, especially if it isn't being operated correctly. On the other hand, if it is relatively easy to use correctly, coupled with data transmission capability, it could be quite useful for women who are at high risk due to age/family history to be monitored by a clinician in the comfort of their own home.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This isn't the first time someone's tried to use electrical or RF impedance to differentiate tissues. Mind you, the breathlessness of the reporting, and the source (Popular Science . . . really?) make me question the accuracy of the reporting.

These systems haven't shown themselves to be that good at differentiating the difference between the dense, but healthy, tissues frequently found in the breasts of younger women versus something that might actually be an area of legitimate concern. Basically the same things that sometimes flummox mammograms. I have to question what data analysis the computer is performing in order to mark something as "suspicious," since there's a distinct tradeoff between minimizing false positives and generating false negatives.

Of course, you can get around that through taking lots and lots of images and feeding them all into whatever data reduction and statistical tools you're using to determine whether a given region is suspicious or not. Only people tend to forget that RF radiation . . . is radiation too. It may not be ionizing radiation, but it still is affecting the tissue in some way; and I'd be curious to know if they've done studies quantifying the safety of (essentially) microwaving a woman's breasts versus smashing them into the X-ray machine.

Basically, these alternative imaging tools are useful in determining which patients need conventional mammograms. The self-monitoring portion of the story is complete BS, since you need a physician to correctly interpret the results.

[PainRack]

Huh? After my last mammo the tech could review the images on the screen immediately (for quality and proper angle of view). However, a DOCTOR needs to interpret the results. Someone who is actually trained in reading and interpreting the images. So even if you get an instant picture that's not the end of the screening.

Unless they're claiming that their system is 100% accurate in diagnosing - which I very much doubt.

Assuming its similar to ultrasound, what this means is that you get a real-time, moving picture which you can adjust immediately to see from a different angle. For a mamogram, you need to reprep the patient and etc to get the new x-ray.

Charming. What is the rate of false positives with with device? What is the rate of false negatives?

Probably lousy.
As GrandMasterTerwynn said, this isn't the first time such stuff been done and ultrasound isn't used to detect lumps frontline for the main reason that the picture is relatively "small".
You use an ultrasound to determine whether the lump picked up on a mammogram is suspicious or to guide FNA.

Although let's be fair. When only a thousand of all suspicious mammograms ultimately turn out to be malignent......