7 ms·
How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
- iag 17y agoNothing but utmost respect for this guy. I hope he succeeds
- acangiano 17y agoAssuming it's effective, this guy deserves the Nobel prize.
- Novash 17y agoTrue.
- akd 17y agoThe Nobel prize is usually awarded for basic science, uncovering the mechanisms of something, rather than engineering applications based on that science.
- Mongoose 17y agoEngineers always have the option to settle for a boatload of money.
- lief79 17y agoFrom the article, it sounds like he already had this prior to working on the invention.
- noss 17y agoThat changes over time. Nobel's intention was to give it to people that gave the greatest benefit to mankind during the year. A few prices in the later years have been directed toward less base-research like inventions. Also... why do people keep refering to the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" as a nobel prize in economics? It's not one of the subjects that Nobel himself thought worthy.
- Novash 17y agoI'd like to see how they apply this 'basic science' rule for the Peace Prize.
- lutorm 17y agoIndeed, if you look at the very earliest Nobel prizes they were less focused on basic research. For example, the 1909 Physics prize to Marconi/Braun "in recognition of their contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy" or the 1912 Physics prize to Gustaf Dalen "for his invention of automatic regulators for use in conjunction with gas accumulators for illuminating lighthouses and buoys".
- catzaa 17y agoA Nobel Prize wasn't even given for the first heart transplant.
- ShabbyDoo 17y agoI presume that it works by allowing chemo doses to the tumor that would be fatal if administered globally (or whatever the word is for (in the patient's bloodstream)? I wonder if this would reduce the side effects of chemo in non-terminally ill patients.
- alex_stoddard 17y agoThe term you are looking for is "systemic". I think targeted delivery of chemo might be more effective in the non-terminally ill, and very likely would reduce side effects. Chemo is effectively poison, just somewhat more toxic to cancer cells than the rest of the body. (Often because it targets cells that are actively dividing - like in a tumor, or your hair follicles or you gut...) In terminally ill cases, where cancer has metastasized to multiple locations in the body you might well still need systemic chemo, because you don't know where all the metastatic sites are.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoOT, spelling: shouldn't it be "metastasic sites"?
- dantheman 17y agoThe video on the bottom of the page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZlOtFloDQk&eurl=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/%3Fp%3D760&feature=player_embedded#t=100 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZlOtFloDQk&eurl=http://b... Shows how it works and it seems like a great invention. It's truly an uplifting story.
- meterplech 17y agotruly amazing. seems seriously unfortunate that it takes the FDA 7 years to approve a device like this. I wonder how much testing they actually spend and how much time is wasted in bureaucratic BS. regardless, the story is amazing and the device seems incredible
- windsurfer 17y agoConsidering the worst case situation, if this is unsafe, to be death, and best case is a slightly better treatment, I think thorough testing and a long approval process is certainly in order.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoYou would be right if it were an asthma or restless leg treatment. This is a cancer treatment. The worst case scenario is a slightly earlier death.
- windsurfer 17y agoThere are other treatments for cancer.
- Novash 17y agoAnd very rarely they result in cure. Sometimes, they give you some years till recurrence kicks in. Mostly, they make your last years very miserable.
- windsurfer 17y agoAnd this one does the same, as it's just a more localized version of chemo.
- briancooley 17y agoIs that verified? It seems to me that a localized version would be lees likely to cause nausea, hair loss, and the myriad other side effects of chemotherapy.
- gojomo 17y agoImpressive, but also -- in retrospect -- kind of obvious. Why, of course you want to target destructive chemotherapy directly to tumors, via precise physical delivery. I wonder if outdated assumptions about the limits of manufacturing prevented doctors/researchers/incumbent-companies from more actively pursuing this idea. It may take an outsider on a mission to remind a field of what's possible.
- hyperbovine 17y agoEvery brilliant idea is obvious in hindsight. That is precisely what makes it brilliant. Nobody saw what was sitting in front of their noses, and then somebody did.
- xcombinator 17y agoAgree, think in the Descartes coordinates, it was Descartes looking at the corner. How many corners had people looked at before seeing before?.
- bena 17y agoThe idea of applying treatment directly to tumors is obvious, true. He didn't patent or invent that. He came up with a delivery method that is safe, reliable, and easy. That was the hard part.
- johnohara 17y agoExcellent video production. Understood it immediately. Easy to imagine the nano-machine version of this. Bravo. I also liked the 'summary version' of the conversation. Short, sweet, to-the-point. Two wins.
- marciovm123 17y agoThis article is inspiring but it fails to mention that no studies have shown that the device actually works. The FDA approval process for medical devices is very different then from pharmaceuticals; to oversimplify, efficacy does not need to be demonstrated, only safety (i.e. the device is not toxic). Thus the fact that the device is FDA approved doesn't really mean much (although it sounds great). As with renewable energy, cancer treatment draws massive attention because it is such a big problem, and potential miracle solutions constantly make headlines. However, the general audience does not have the background to place these announcements in context, and neither does the typical journalist. It is actually rather easy to come up with an entirely new approach that seems to work under certain conditions (algae make biofuels! solar panels in space! mice cancer cured!) but has no practical value. Having said that, good luck to this guy and I hope the device works well. (I work in medical devices for cancer diagnosis)
- BigZaphod 17y agoFrom the article: "I found a 1987 Italian funded set of clinical studies that showed successful treatment of tumors by the application of chemotherapy directly into the tumors." It stands to reason that if it is true that directly treating the tumors themselves is effective, then this device will be effective since all it is is a delivery mechanism for the pre-existing drugs. While I guess it's possible that somehow the design of the device itself is defective, it does seem rather unlikely that they'd have come this far without at least testing the mechanics of the process on a pig or cadaver or something.
- brfox 17y agoTumors that you can find don't kill people with cancer, its the millions of metastases all over the body (or a specific organ) which actually cause cancer to be deadly. There are a fair number of drugs which "treat tumors" (i.e. shrink tumors or stop their growth), but very few drugs actually extend the life of a cancer patient due to the metastatic issue mentioned above.
- Novash 17y agoYou sound like the doctors on the article that says that "it wouldn't work anyway". I understand that you have a far greater background than I have and I respect that, but you must keep your mind open. Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong. With all due respect, you, giving you background on the matter, can find any technical reason why it wouldn't work? Can any of your colleagues? I am not asking about a real test, just a theorical reason based on everything you know about the field.
- BigZaphod 17y ago"It’s too late for my sister. She died and suffered terribly." :(
- allenp 17y agoI agree - as much as we all want to make it big, the desperation of trying to save your loved one is heartbreaking.
- edw519 17y agoIt’s too late for my sister. But it's not too late to honor her memory. Press on.
- BigZaphod 17y agoI found this gem in the comments on that page: I appreciate the kind comments. If you or a friend / family member could benefit from the catheter, please do not hesitate to contact us on our website at www.vasculardesigns.com No one will be turned away if they can not afford the catheter. Robert Goldman
- darien 17y agoIn the article he claims that he owns the intellectual property. Does that not mean that there should be a patent availble for public study? If so what's the #?
- biohacker42 17y agoAnd it has taken the FDA seven years and two months to approve the product for sale. Even if (or especially if) the device does NOT work, the iterative cycle for any med. tech is far too long.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- viggity 17y agoThe FDA approval process is downright criminal. 7 years? wtf?
- kqr2 17y agoDoes anyone know what kind of software he actually worked on previously? It just says that he sold intellectual property to Intellectual Ventures.
- KevinMS 17y agoI have two questions, maybe somebody with expertise could answer them. 1. What is the breakthrough here? Delivery of medicine through feeder vessel? The idea of how to implement it (needle, robots, tube, etc)? Or just the actual design of the rig to do it? 2. In what situations can you target a tumor up through a blood vessel and not have the option of cutting it out? Is this a brain situation?
- Dove 17y agoSeven years. Wow. That really makes me wonder how many folks die while treatments that might save them are still working their way through the FDA. And how many treatments don't exist at all -- just think, this thing could be on the third or fourth iteration by now! I don't mind information, but that's just silly. People should be able to decide for themselves when to use experimental treatments, based on their own level of risk tolerence.
- kuronukurosu 17y agoIt looks like an interesting tool that might help against the fight against cancer. My mayor concern comes from the intrusiveness of the catheter, and towards what kind of cancer patients this instrument is oriented to? I really hope Doctors would use this new instrument in the best way possible for the patient, which in my opinion would be to to use it on only patients whose cancer is on the right place and not on patients that have undergone intensive sessions of chemotherapy.
- caa09hh 17y agoNow that is an amazing invention. The concept is so simple, but to make a catheter like that must have been such a difficult engineering job. I wonder how they get that wire all the way through blood vessels without puncturing anything. - Now that would be a good invention - a guide wire that automatically finds it way through blood vessels.