Dismiss Notice
SDN members see fewer ads and full resolution images. Join our non-profit community!

MasSpec Pen Detects Cancer with 96% accuracy

Discussion in 'Pathology' started by PrettyLadyDoc24, Apr 14, 2018.

  1. PrettyLadyDoc24

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    200
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
  2. Thread continues after this sponsor message. SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. tiredguy

    tiredguy Not a New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    48
  4. AZpath

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    47
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    96% might be excellent accuracy for an intraoperative diagnosis.
    It might even do better than us in some circumstances. The devils in the details.

    I imagine it could as a specific tool looking at margins for specific types of cancer. We will know in about 3 - 7 years if it makes FDA approval.
    I am sure someone is researching Molecular POC for margins too.

    These things could lessen our main connection with surgeons. That would be bad.
     
    dukeresident likes this.
  5. Sulfinator

    Sulfinator Pathology

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    403
    Likes Received:
    26
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Meh.


    Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
     
    AssayQueen likes this.
  6. LADoc00

    LADoc00 There is no substitute for victory.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6,222
    Likes Received:
    264
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    Theranos part deux. Tech Marketplace Disruption: Mythology and Legend.
     
    AssayQueen and Mad Jack like this.
  7. tensoranalysis

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    20
    cool ideas. here is the original paper in science translational med: Nondestructive tissue analysis for ex vivo and in vivo cancer diagnosis using a handheld mass spectrometry system

    it looks like they get the best separation between cancer / non cancer by using lipid signatures.

    They say it could rapidly distinguish cancer from normal tissue, but I'm not familiar with how quickly the sample is processed and data is acquired. Would have been nice to get that for those of us ignorant about the nitty gritty in the work-flow.

    The sensitivity wasn't excellent for breast cancer (87.5%), but sensitivity was much better for lung cancer (97.9%). There was an overall 96.4% sensitivity for all cancer types. Specificity was OK , with some cancers they tested predictions were as low as 89.7% or reaching 100% for breast, for example. Accuracy of predicting lung cancer histologic subtypes was 93.8% for squamous and 92.2% for adenocarcinoma. So looks like there is a still a role here for microscopic assessment as an adjunct.

    exciting developments!
     
    Mad Jack and dukeresident like this.
  8. coroner

    coroner Peace Sells...but who's buying?
    Physician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    196
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    You'd be surprised, there's a lot of bad pathologists out there. Besides, no matter how great anyone may be, no one is 100% right all the time, no one...
     
    Mad Jack likes this.
  9. dukeresident

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    10
    Some pathologists might think they are....
     
  10. icpshootyz

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    72
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    100%? Of course not. But I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to be wrong 4 times out of a 100. I wouldn't hire anyone that got every 25th case wrong.
     
  11. Mad Jack

    Mad Jack Critically Caring
    Gold Donor Classifieds Approved

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    33,246
    Likes Received:
    59,006
    It could reduce the number of cases that need to be sent to pathologists, since it is highly sensitive and thus only negative cases would require review. It isn't about it doing all of the work of pathologists, it is about it reducing by 96% of the cases that require manual reading.
     
    dukeresident likes this.
  12. icpshootyz

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    72
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    That would depend on the cost and time involved, and the types of error leading to that 4% rate. Is mass spec cheaper than a read by a live pathologist? How long does the pen take compared to a pathologist exam in the frozen section room? Who is paid to run the mass spec machine? What errors are occurring - only false negatives, or also false positives? If there are false positives, then far more than 4% will require pathologist read anyway.
     
    Mad Jack likes this.
  13. chooks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    67
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    As they say: Seldom wrong. NEVER mistaken :)
     
    dukeresident likes this.
  14. dukeresident

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    10

     

Share This Page