Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday April 05 2015, @10:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the theirs-gold-in-them-thar-prostates dept.

A test that costs less than a $1 and yields results in minutes has been shown in newly published studies to be more sensitive and more exact than the current standard test for early-stage prostate cancer.

The simple test developed by University of Central Florida scientist Qun "Treen" Huo holds the promise of earlier detection of one of the deadliest cancers among men. It would also reduce the number of unnecessary and invasive biopsies stemming from the less precise PSA test that's now used.

When a cancerous tumor begins to develop, the body mobilizes to produce antibodies. Huo's test detects that immune response using gold nanoparticles about 10,000 times smaller than a freckle.

When a few drops of blood serum from a finger prick are mixed with the gold nanoparticles, certain cancer biomarkers cling to the surface of the tiny particles, increasing their size and causing them to clump together.

Among researchers, gold nanoparticles are known for their extraordinary efficiency at absorbing and scattering light. Huo and her team at UCF's NanoScience Technology Center developed a technique known as nanoparticle-enabled dynamic light scattering assay (NanoDLSay) to measure the size of the particles by analyzing the light they throw off. That size reveals whether a patient has prostate cancer and how advanced it may be.

And although it uses gold, the test is cheap. A small bottle of nanoparticles suspended in water costs about $250, and contains enough for about 2,500 tests.

http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=39654.php

[Source]: http://today.ucf.edu/cheap-prostate-cancer-test-better-than-psa/

[Abstract]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsami.5b00371

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:10AM (#166629)

    The nanoparticles may cost a buck,but how much you want to bet the medical system charges another $2499 to administer it? And probably $500 for a specialist to read it?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:56AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:56AM (#166637)

    How much you want to bet that the FDA will ban it?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:30PM (#166651)

    If NCommander wants to get a rectal biopsy (45380), the test costs about $2,000 and he has to pay about $600 of that if insured.

    Source: http://fairhealthconsumer.org/medical_cost.php [fairhealthconsumer.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:23PM (#166675)

      > test costs about $2,000 and he has to pay about $600 of that if insured

      $600, plus the premiums he already pays. And whatever is lacking after that, all the other people with his insurer get to pick up the remainder. And the medical-industrial complex still gets the whole $2000 AND get to stick something up his ass.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Dunbal on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:56PM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Sunday April 05 2015, @03:56PM (#166682)

      Screening tests != diagnostic test. Screening tests are cheap and are allowed to give false positives (which are later ruled out by diagnostic tests). They are cheap and said to be very sensitive but not specific (other things cause elevated PSA, for example, not just cancer). Diagnostic tests have ZERO chance of false positives (they are 100% specific) but tend to be expensive, so they're not used for screening at all. We don't give everyone rectal biopsies. In fact not everyone with a positive PSA score will get a rectal biopsy. A good rule in medicine is "if a test will not change your behavior regardless of its result - don't order the test". For example I would not order a rectal biopsy for an 80 year old. So he has cancer. Congrats. He is much more likely to die of anything else (stroke, pneumonia, heart attack) than cancer, whereas the test would subject him to operative risks (bleeding, infections, etc), anesthesia risk (even with mild sedation), etc. PSA, rectal tact and "well sir I think you probably have prostate cancer but don't worry too much about it it's a very slow disease...."

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:33PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 05 2015, @01:33PM (#166652) Journal

    I wonder if it could be marketed as a home test? People with reason to suspect/fear that they might develop cancer might be willing to do a home test.

    Don't laugh, people. How old is the pregnancy home test? My grandma certainly didn't have that option when she was in her child bearing years!