Catching Cancer Cells

Could cancer be diagnosed with a simple blood test? A new chip can trap the one cancer cell in a billion normal cells.

Sunitha Nagrath and her lab developed the chip with other members of the Translational Oncology team, which seeks to produce technologies for improving cancer diagnosis and treatment that are ready for the clinic, to help real patients quickly. When the team runs a blood sample through the chip, it can catch breast, lung and pancreatic cancer cells. These cells can then be grown on the chip to learn more about the disease in a specific patient.

[riteshkumar]

Proud to see a Indian in foreign working hard

[bruno]

This is one of the most fascinating things I´ve ever seen

[Huzaifa-lb]

She is soo coll,
She knows everything

[DiddyJuicer]

This is really simple yet really smart

[reincarnation]

this so fascinating and exciting. a proper and early diagnosis is critical for any treatment. wishing you great success in your
endsavour!

[bilvadala]

Wow....! Off the shelf tech. Great job. The narrator of this video seem to be super proud and happy about this invention.

[marigeobrien]

This video seems like the most intelligent and forward thinking information related to cancer detection. It is also very interesting. So I would like to bring up a topic that is loosely, yet crucially related to it. That is: I have looked all over the internet for one, simple image: A photo of actual cancer cells. Not computer generated images but actual photos of real cancer cells. I can find none. In fact, many are just pictures of tumors. Tumors are not necessarily cancerous. I wish to know how doctors know the difference-- what they see in a biopsy and how they discern it to be cancerous.

Here's my story:

A little over 2 years ago I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I knew I had a tumor, but I asked my doctor for a photo -- presumably from the biopsy -- of that cancer. The reason I asked for this was because I had already had one tumor removed and, when they biopsied that, it was non-cancerous. And, while I realize a person can have one non-cancerous tumor but then have another that is cancerous, I still questioned it. I also questioned it because I have a pre-existing condition that effects the recovery portion of my immune system. In other words, as long as I take normal precautions, I am healthy. But when I get sick -- or, in fact, experience any type of illness, injury or physical trauma -- it takes my body 2-3 times longer to recover and often causes further complications that are far more serious. For instance, one time I had to have two teeth removed. It was a difficult extraction. Four hours after I returned home, I had a heart attack. It was a minor heart attack, but even so. And recovering from that took over 2 months. Incidentally, meantime, the dentist wanted to pull more teeth. I refused.

Obviously, this kind of condition requires special considerations as far as surgery and treatments -- even some tests -- are concerned. In fact, I did not expect to survive the first surgery but since that tumor was killing me anyway (it was cutting off my digestive tract), I felt there was no choice. It took almost two years to fully recover.

So I wanted proof. I asked my GP for photos of the cancer. He laughed at me. He is no longer my GP.

I did go to an oncologist and a surgeon specializing in breast cancer. When I explained my condition, the oncologist worked out a hormonal treatment plan to reduce the size of tumor and it has done quite well. In fact, originally, I was only supposed to be on it for 6 months, then have a mastectomy. Because of the confines of my pre-existing condition, when I met with the surgeon and explained my condition to her I also told her I would only consent to a lumpectomy. But the surgeon ignored my condition and insisted I must have a double-radical mastecomy. And since she did the biopsy, she also ignored me when I ask to see slides of the cancer, itself, or pictures from the slides.

Because of COVID, we delayed the surgery, monitored the tumor and continued the hormone therapy as it kept reducing its size. At my last appointment with the oncologist, when we saw that my tumor is only .05 mm large (down from about 55mm) I suggested that, since the hormone therapy has continued to work, why not wait until it ceases to be effective and/or eliminates the tumor entirely. She agreed. I am about to schedule the latest ultra sound (I refuse mammograms, as the radiation from them have been proven to cause tumors and, in fact, this tumor began shortly after I had my first and last mammogram) and hope they will find the last .05mm of the tumor has disappeared.

But I still want to see pictures of the cancer. At this point, of Any cancer. I find it truly amazing that there are no pictures of these readily available and, even more so, that doctors do not furnish this information to patients upon request. When a doctor claims it is cancer but cannot furnish proof, what does that say of them? Do they assume all tumors are cancerous? Do they take the approach, 'better safe than sorry?' If it weren't for the overt fear related to cancer, both by doctors and their patients, I'm sure many more would ask the same question.

[bishal__sen__gupta]

Want to participate in clinical trials my mom has brest cancer