A Robot To Destroy Breast Cancer Cells

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at the University of Maryland are developing a robot able to detect and destroy breast cancer cells in a single session. After a tumor is located on an MRI, the robot will perform a biopsy of the breast while the patient is inside the scanner. 'If the biopsy displays cancerous cells, the robot will then insert a probe into the breast until it reaches the tumor. The probe will then burn the cancer cells until they are destroyed.' This looks great, but the researchers have only built a prototype. After they refine this robot, they'll need to go through clinical trials and obtain FDA approval. So this is not a robot that will appear on the medical market before several years."

WOW! A Roland Story!

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

It had been a while. I was beginning to worry something bad had happened to him...

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

Now it appears he has heard of the lapriscope and has most likely expanded it into as unlikely a story as the earlier ones where he misunderstands an impressive, useful and pretty impressive bit of technology. I suppose patients are pretty well named if you've got to wait for the cells taken in the biopsy to grow before the operation is finished.

A tool to help a GP instead of a specialist would be fantastic, by why go furthur and pretend it has to be a robot?

Robotic system

[RDW (41497)]

There's a better description of the technology from the lab involved here:

http://rams.umd.edu/html/news.shtml#nihr01 [umd.edu]

'The goal of this project is to develop a novel teleoperated robotic system with haptic (sense of touch) feedback capability that will provide accurate feedback to the physician performing Breast biopsy (Bx) and/or Radio-frequency ablation (RFA) under continuous Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Some of the primary challenges of this project include: development of a compact robot manipulator, actuation and sensing that is MRI compatible, efficient use of MRI image sequences to guide the Bx needle and/or RFA probe accurately using adaptive control schemes that incorporate soft-tissue properties as the needle/probe traverses the tissue, and an intuitive user-interface which will provide real-time MRI images and Bx needle/RFA probe tracking with respect to the tumor (target) location.'

You don't have to wait for any cells to grow to make use of the biopsy (it can be assessed directly), but obviously a pathologist will have to examine the sample under a microscope before a treatment decision is made.

Re:

[sillybilly (668960)]

As long as there is a doctor and the patient has been informed about what's going on, and then the go ahead is given to the robot by the doctor who obtained consent, yeah. I'm very weary of any kind of automatic surgery device. What if it malfuctions? Imagine an automated lobotomy robot: come here, Mr. Patient, I have diagnosed you with a rare brain disorder!

Bender?

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

They found you a job?

Re:

[ari_j (90255)]

I was thinking Robocop.

Why?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why do all the robots get to cop a feel?

Money Shot

[snoggeramus (945056)]

I suppose the robot injection to kill the tumor/cancer will be regarded as the money shot?

I'm curious, why does it take so long?

[pembo13 (770295)]

If something is promising, can't the process be accelerated (not rushed)? Get a team together to build a better prototype, at the same time have another team build some bio models to test the tool on. That part might take three to five months. While they are doing that, a third team could start lining potentials up for clinical trial. Another eight or so months doing daily trials and refinements. Basically, my ignorance of the field doesn't allow me to understand why it takes more than a year to get something promising into practice (if it ends up actually working).

Re:

[BiggerIsBetter (682164)]

I think the trick is to do it outside the USA, where FDA need not apply. The catch then being that the money isn't there to develop it....

Guess it depends if the goal is to a) get it out there and help people, or b) get paid to R&D shit (and oogle womens breasts, in this instance).

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

You getting a little bit confused by a scam that is getting played on the mainly American medical market. As an example, when the cervical cancer vaccine was developed and fuly tested in Australia with Australian taxpayers money you still ended up with it being a lot more expensive in the USA with the usual excuse of R&D and FCC compliance costs. Guess what, US consumers pay more for it than anybody else in earth because in that case you are paying for what in that extreme case is completely mythical

Re:

[wisty (1335733)]

Also, the FDA is able to rush out treatments for "compassionate" reasons, so they can treat some patients during the testing phases. This first happened with AZT (the first HIV med). The fact is, this robot just speeds up the treatment a bit, it's not some holy grail to cure cancer. It might help in the long run, but rushing out a buggy beta just isn't worth it.

Re:

[Tubal-Cain (1289912)]

If linux on the desktop is promising, can't the process be accelerated (not rushed)?

Sure it can. But do you want to pay to make it happen?

I've seen this movie

[hyades1 (1149581)]

I guess by now a number of people would bet that the robot will soon be starring in a sci-fi/horror movie, called something like, "Breast Fest '78".

Boob jobs..

[plasmacutter (901737)]

I can't wait to see what happens when the machine finds silicone, pops it like a zit, finds a false positive (or a real positive near the implant), then sets the poor woman's chest on fire (or makes it explode)

ED-209

[jamesh (87723)]

This is probably the most tasteless thought that has ever popped into my head upon reading a slashdot article, but my first thought was an ED-209 [wikipedia.org] style robot that would go around blowing womens breasts off. Sure, it's intention would be to do biopsies and only remove cancerous cells, but it would reason that if breasts were totally destroyed then they couldn't get cancer in the first place, and ED-209 was never the smartest of robots...

Aaaaaah... robots.

[warrax_666 (144623)]

Is there anything they can't do?

Robocopafeel

[nameendingwith (1272536)]

While "roboticcopafeel" does sound like that latest toy that all parents should go out and buy for their children, I suggest "robocopafeel" would be a much better pun. In fact, aren't they making that into the next Robocop movie?

Re:Bah

[Goldberg's Pants (139800)]

Maybe, but the ladies do need Penicillin afterwards...

Re:

[MindlessAutomata (1282944)]

Don't worry you can always beat off to plastic women with fake boobs from the porn you get off bittorrent, like the rest of us slashdotters.

Re:Thank god I'm a man

[Concerned Onlooker (473481)]

Perhaps this isn't a good time to mention it, but you should know that men can get breast cancer, too. Obviously it's not as common. Male breast cancers account for 1% of all breast cancers [imaginis.com].

Re:

[interstellar_donkey (200782)]

Yeah. It's a little scary.

I for one don't want robots roaming around my wife's breasts (or mine).

Besides, if sci-fi has taught us anything, it's that that "cures for cancer" turn us into zombies.

Re:

[theshowmecanuck (703852)]

I can picture a malfunction and it blowing the tits right off someone. The ultimate horror story. Now that I think about it, I hope they get the bugs worked out before they build one for prostate cancer.

Re:

[RDW (41497)]

'If surgeons can't stick a probe into a breast cancer tumor and just burn it today then why could they in a year or two? Often times there has to be a masectomy because...well because you can't just stick a probe in and burn it or remove it any other way really. If a robot can supposedly do it, why can't aren't all surgeons using this method right now?'

Because it takes large clinical trials to establish if this method is as effective as (e.g.) excising the lump by surgery ('lumpectomy') followed by radiatio

Re:

[KGIII (973947)]

I read your post and went and tagged it "boobies" just for you.