
How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device - acangiano
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=760
======
marciovm123
This 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)

~~~
by
I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing
things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial
incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people
who have got cancer. This applies right across medicine.

Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and
very little for power efficiency, which effectively achieves the same result.
Instead of spending the money on solar panels in space what about energy
efficient fridges? And no, this doesn't shrink the 'economy' it allows us to
achieve the same level of wealth with less resource consumption.

~~~
anamax
> I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing
> things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial
> incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing
> people who have got cancer.

I see lots of people spending money on things that they're told will protect
them from cancer, so there's clearly a huge financial incentive.

> Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and
> very little for power efficiency, which effectively achieves the same
> result.

Likewise.

And, I see people buying things to get them better mileage too.

In fact, it's hard to avoid seeing this stuff, at least in mainstream US.

In short, I'm pretty sure that the "there's no real financial incentive" stuff
is "why don't the proles see what's obvious to people like me". The only
question is whether it comes from cocooning or just not paying attention.

------
BigZaphod
I 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_

~~~
Novash
Unfortunately, they arrived one month too late.

~~~
mahmud
One month too late for whom? is there another product in the market, or is it
too late for your own needs?

~~~
Novash
I have a friend who died of cancer on August 10. Late to him, I meant.

------
gojomo
Impressive, 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
_Every_ 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
Agree, think in the Descartes coordinates, it was Descartes looking at the
corner. How many corners had people looked at before seeing before?.

------
johnohara
Excellent 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.

------
meterplech
truly 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
Considering 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
You 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
There are other treatments for cancer.

~~~
Novash
And 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
And this one does the same, as it's just a more localized version of chemo.

~~~
briancooley
Is 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.

------
edw519
_It’s too late for my sister._

But it's not too late to honor her memory. Press on.

------
biohacker42
_And 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.

------
KevinMS
I 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?

------
kuronukurosu
It 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.

------
Dove
Seven 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.

------
BigZaphod
"It’s too late for my sister. She died and suffered terribly."

:(

~~~
allenp
I agree - as much as we all want to make it big, the desperation of trying to
save your loved one is heartbreaking.

------
viggity
The FDA approval process is downright criminal. 7 years? wtf?

------
darien
In 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
#?

~~~
daeken
The patent number, as far as I can tell, is 20080208118.
<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0208118.html>

------
caa09hh
Now 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.

------
dantheman
The video on the bottom of the page:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZlOtFloDQk&eurl=http://b...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZlOtFloDQk&eurl=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/%3Fp%3D760&feature=player_embedded#t=100)

Shows how it works and it seems like a great invention. It's truly an
uplifting story.

------
ShabbyDoo
I 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
The 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
OT, spelling: shouldn't it be "metastasic sites"?

------
acangiano
Assuming it's effective, this guy deserves the Nobel prize.

~~~
akd
The Nobel prize is usually awarded for basic science, uncovering the
mechanisms of something, rather than engineering applications based on that
science.

~~~
noss
That 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
I'd like to see how they apply this 'basic science' rule for the Peace Prize.

~~~
akd
They don't, (nor do they for Literature, of course), and often the Peace Prize
is used as a political platform for the Nobel Committee. E.g. Al Gore.

~~~
Novash
I was joking, but thanks for asking anyway.

------
kqr2
Does anyone know what kind of software he actually worked on previously?

It just says that he sold intellectual property to Intellectual Ventures.

------
iag
Nothing but utmost respect for this guy. I hope he succeeds

